CEQA F INDINGS - Manteca · impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared...

CEQA FINDINGS

CEQA Findings – Griffin Park Master Plan 1

FINDINGS FOR THE

GRIFFIN PARK MASTER PLAN PROJECT REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

(Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq)

I. INTRODUCTION

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) requires

the City of Manteca (City), as the CEQA lead agency, to: 1) make written findings when it approves

a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified, and 2) identify overriding

considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR.

This document explains the City’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant

impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the Griffin Park Master

Plan Project (Project). The statement of overriding considerations in section VII, below, identifies

economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that override any significant

environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the

Project, and mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those

impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the City’s independent

judgment.

The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to

the Draft EIR) for the Project, examined the proposed Project and several alternatives to the

Project including: (1) No Project (No Build) Alternative; (2) Increased Density Alternative; and (3)

Agriculture Protection Alternative.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the City

Council, as the City’s findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, §

15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of

this City Council regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives

to the Project, and the overriding considerations, which in this City Council’s view, justify approval

of the Project, despite its environmental effects.

II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW

Project Overview

The Project site comprises approximately 343.94 acres of land, only 333.94 of which would be

developed as part of the Project. The Project site is bounded on the north by West Atherton Drive,

on the east by Manteca Road, on the south by Sedan Avenue, and on the west by South Union

Road.

CEQA FINDINGS

2 CEQA Findings – Griffin Park Master Plan

The Conceptual Land Use Plan for the proposed Project includes designations for large lot,

standard lot, and small lot residential uses that will provide for cluster housing to large estate lots.

At full build-out, the Project site will accommodate up to 1,592 residential units and up to 65,340

square feet of neighborhood-serving commercial uses. The proposed Project includes a Central

Park, neighborhood parks, linear parks, streetscapes, gateway entries, and community walls and

fences totaling 26.46 acres. The Project also includes expansion of the existing vehicular and non-

vehicular circulation system and utility improvements. The proposed Project does not include a

detailed site plan for the Commercial Mixed Use area. The Commercial Mixed Use land would

ultimately require a design review approval by the City prior to any development on this portion of

the Project site.

The proposed Project is proposed by a private sector developer who is proposing to design and

build the subdivision. The quantifiable objectives of the proposed Project include annexation of

343.94 acres of land into the Manteca city limits, and the subsequent development of land, which

will include: Commercial Mixed-Use, Low Density Residential, and Open Space Parkland.

PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES AND PRE-ZONING

The proposed Project would require a General Plan amendment to change land uses on the Project

site. As shown in Figure 2.0-8b in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR, changes to the Land Use Element

would include changing approximately 0.28 acres of General Commercial (GC) to Low Density

Residential (LDR) uses; changing approximately 31.63 acres of Urban Reserve-Very Low Density

Residential (UR-VLDR) to LDR uses; changing approximately 5.0 acres of UR-VLDR to Commercial

Mixed Use (CMU) uses; eliminating all 15.16 acres of Park (P) uses; and maintaining the remainder

of the site as LDR.

The Project site is currently within the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County

Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will require the Project site to be pre-zoned by the

City of Manteca in conjunction with the proposed annexation.

As shown in Figure 2.0-8c in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR, the City’s pre-zoning will include the

following zoning designations: One-Family Dwelling Zoning District (R-1), and Mixed Use

Commercial Zoning District (CMU). The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the

City of Manteca.

RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS

The Griffin Park Master Plan will provide a variety of housing types and lot sizes, referred to as

residential districts, that will accommodate a range of housing objectives and buyer needs with a

goal to ensure housing for a variety of families and lifestyles. The three proposed residential

districts are designated as GP-Large Lot, GP-Standard Lot, and GP-Small Lot. The aforementioned

residential zoning districts correspond to the Manteca R-1 zoning district. The land use and

development standards for the residential districts of the Griffin Park Master Plan shall comply

with all requirements that apply to the corresponding zoning in the Manteca Municipal Code,

except as modified within the Master Plan.

CEQA FINDINGS


COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS

The proposed Griffin Park Commercial District (GP-Commercial) provides a neighborhood-oriented

commercial area that may include a mix of retail and services, and multi-family residential. The GP-

Commercial site provides an opportunity to locate retail and services scaled to serve the proposed

Project and surrounding neighborhoods to enhance the overall walkability within the Project site

and to further minimize reliance on vehicles. The Project includes a 5-acre commercial site that it is

situated in order to minimize conflicts with adjacent residential neighborhoods while also

remaining accessible by all neighborhoods within the Project site by short walk or by bicycle. At full

build-out, the 5-acre commercial site will provide an estimated 65,340 square feet of

neighborhood-serving commercial uses.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE

Approximately 26.46 acres of active and passive park and recreation facilities will be provided

within the Project site in a variety of forms, consistent with the City’s General Plan. After

dedication to the City, the parks, parkways, and recreation facilities will be under the jurisdiction

of the City, and will be operated and maintained by the City for the enjoyment of the residents of

Manteca. Maintenance will be funded through a services community facilities district. Parks may

include community or neighborhood parks with active and passive components as approved by the

City. Park acreage and facilities shall occur within the Project site in a variety of forms as

determined by the City during the mapping and improvement plan process. Parks may feature play

fields, children play areas, picnic areas, ball courts, open lawn areas, or other amenities. Park areas

will be designed in conjunction with storm water basins and interconnected by trails and bikeways.

Open space shall be integrated throughout the Project site to provide recreational opportunities,

aesthetic value, protection of non-vehicular pathways, and offer locations for non-vehicular

pathways. The open space areas will be landscaped with regionally-appropriate plantings grouped

towards similar water needs.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Notice of Preparation Public Circulation: The City of Manteca circulated a Notice of Preparation

(NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project on June 13, 2016 to State Clearinghouse, State

Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, Other Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested

Persons. A public scoping meeting was held on June 28, 2016 to present the Project description to

the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested

agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. The City

received five NOP comments from the following agencies: California Department of

Transportation, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Joaquin Council of

Governments, Inc., San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, and San Joaquin

County Public Works Department. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during

preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and comments received on the NOP by interested parties

are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS


Notice of Availability and Draft EIR: The City of Manteca published a public Notice of Availability

(NOA) for the Draft EIR on March 7, 2017, inviting comment from the general public, agencies,

organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH #

2016062029) and the County Clerk, a newspaper of regional circulation pursuant to the public

noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review and

comment on March 7, 2017. The Draft EIR was then recirculated on April 6, 2017 and the public

review period was extended for another 45 days. The Recirculated Draft EIR comment period

ended on May 20, 2017.

The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting,

identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as

well as an analysis of Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental

changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues

determined to have no impact or a less than significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of

potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were

considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

Final EIR: The City of Manteca received eight (8) comment letters on the Draft EIR during the

public review period. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to

the comments received during the public review period. This Final EIR also responds to all

comments received after the public review period had ended. The Final EIR also contains minor

edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Section 3.0, Errata. This document and the Draft EIR,

as amended herein, constitute the Final EIR.

Responses to comments do not involve any new significant impacts or “significant new

information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section

15088.5. Each response is provided in the Final EIR.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD

For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s

findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:

The NOP, comments received on the NOP, and all other public notices issued by the City in

relation to the Project (e.g., Notice of Availability).

The Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comment letters, and technical materials cited in the

documents.

All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City and

consultants in relation to the EIR.

Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project

components at public hearings held by the City.

Staff reports associated with City Council meetings on the Project.

Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6.

CEQA FINDINGS


The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that

constitute the administrative record are available for review at the City of Manteca at 1001 West

Center Street, Manteca, CA 95337.

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA

Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects

as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which

would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Further, the

procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying

both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation

measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Id.) Section 21002 also

provides that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such

project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of

one or more significant effects thereof.”

The mandate and principles established by the Legislature in Public Resources Code section 21002

are implemented, in part, through the requirement in Public Resources Code section 21081 that

agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required.

CEQA Guidelines section 15091 provides the following direction regarding findings:

(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been

certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project

unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant

effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible

findings are:

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project

which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as

identified in the final EIR.

(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of

another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have

been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other

agency.

(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,

including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make

infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final

EIR.

(See also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner

within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and

technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1)

CEQA FINDINGS


[determining the feasibility of alternatives].) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the

question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals

and objectives of a project. (See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107

Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400 [court upholds findings rejecting a “reduced herd” alternative to a

proposed dairy as infeasible because the alternative failed to meet the “fundamental objective” of

the project to produce milk]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-

1508 [agency decision-makers, in rejecting alternatives as infeasible, appropriately relied on

project objective articulated by project applicant].) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA

encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the

relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City

of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of

Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001-1002.

With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially

lessened, a public agency may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a

statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the project’s benefits

outweigh its significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §§

21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b).)

CEQA Guidelines section 15093 provides the following direction regarding a statement of

overriding considerations:

(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic,

legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide

environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks

when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,

technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental

benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,

the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”

(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of

significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially

lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based

on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding

considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

(c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be

included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of

determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings

required pursuant to Section 15091.

CEQA FINDINGS


MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Project and has been adopted

concurrently with these Findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The City will

use the Mitigation Monitoring Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

In adopting these Findings, this City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to this City

Council, the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the

information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, this City Council

ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and

conclusions of the Final EIR. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance

with CEQA. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City.

SEVERABILITY

If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a

particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining

provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall

continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT

AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

A. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.1-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS

ON SCENIC VISTAS AND RESOURCES OR SUBSTANTIAL DEGRADATION OF VISUAL CHARACTER.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in impacts to the visual

character of the region is discussed on pages 3.1-6 through 3.1-7 of the Draft EIR.

(b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified.

(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City

Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Project would result in the

conversion of the land from agricultural uses, which would contribute to changes

in the regional landscape and visual character of the area. In order to reduce visual

impacts, development within the Project site is required to be consistent with the

General Plan and the Manteca Zoning Ordnance which includes design standards

in order to ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards

include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation; exterior

lighting standards and specifications; and landscaping standards. Implementation

CEQA FINDINGS


of the design standards would ensure quality design throughout the Project site,

and result in a Project that would be internally cohesive while maintaining

aesthetics similar to surrounding uses. However, regardless of the quality of design

implemented on the Project site, Project implementation would permanently

remove the existing agricultural land on the Project site, and convert the site to

urbanized uses. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is

no additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less

than significant level.

(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits

of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project

associated with impacts to the visual character of the region, as more fully stated

in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.2: CUMULATIVE DEGRADATION OF THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE

REGION

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in impacts to the visual

character of the region is discussed on pages 4.0-5 through 4.0-6 of the Draft EIR.



Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Implementation of the proposed

Project would convert the Project site from its existing agricultural character to a

developed residential, commercial and business park with various buildings,

landscaping, parking areas, and recreational amenities. In order to reduce visual

impacts, development within the Project site is required to be consistent with the

General Plan and the Manteca Zoning Ordnance which includes design standards

in order to ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards

include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation; exterior

lighting standards and specifications; and landscaping standards. Implementation

of the design standards would ensure quality design throughout the Project site,

and result in a Project that would be internally cohesive while maintaining

aesthetics similar to surrounding uses to ensure consistent development that is in

line with the City’s vision for the community’s identity. However, Project

implementation would alter the existing visual character of the Project site.

Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the General Plan for Manteca and the

surrounding jurisdictions could result in changes to the visual character and quality

of the City of Manteca through development of undeveloped areas and/or

changes to the character of existing communities. Development of the proposed

Project, in addition to other future projects in the area, would change the existing

CEQA FINDINGS


visual and scenic qualities of the City. There are no mitigation measures that could

reduce this impact except a ceasing of all future development, which is not a

feasible option. As such, this is a cumulatively considerable contribution and a

significant and unavoidable impact.



associated with impacts to the visual character of the region, as more fully stated


B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.2-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN THE CONVERSION

OF FARMLANDS, INCLUDING PRIME FARMLAND AND FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE,

AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE FARMLAND MAPPING AND

MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL

USES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in the conversion of farmlands,

including important farmlands, to nonagricultural uses is discussed on pages 3.2-12

and 3.2-13 of the Draft EIR.

(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be

implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.2-1.


Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed

Project as a whole would result in the permanent conversion of 290.56 acres of

Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to nonagricultural use.

The loss of Important Farmland is considered a potentially significant

environmental impact.

The City‘s agricultural mitigation fee program requires that future development

pay the agricultural mitigation fee, currently $2,584.51 per acre but subject to

annual increases, to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The

City then uses these funds to purchase conservation easements or deed

restrictions on agricultural land to ensure that the land remains in agricultural use

in perpetuity. While the proposed Project will contribute fees toward the purchase

of conservation easements on agricultural lands through the City’s agricultural

mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP (as required by Mitigation Measure 3.2-1),

those fees and conservation easements would not result in the creation of new

farmland to offset the loss that would occur with Project implementation. As such,

CEQA FINDINGS


the loss of Important Farmland would be a significant and unavoidable impact

relative to this topic.



associated with impacts to farmlands, as more fully stated in the Statement of

Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.4: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on

agricultural and forest is discussed on pages 4.0-6 and 4.0-7 of the Draft EIR.



3.2-1.


Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed Project

as a whole would result in the permanent conversion of 290.56 acres of Prime

Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to nonagricultural use. The loss

of Important Farmland is considered a potentially significant environmental

impact.

The City‘s agricultural mitigation fee program requires that future development

pay the agricultural mitigation fee, currently $2,584.51 per acre but subject to

annual increases, to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The

City then uses these funds to purchase conservation easements or deed

restrictions on agricultural land to ensure that the land remains in agricultural use

in perpetuity.

While the proposed Project will contribute fees toward the purchase of

conservation easements on agricultural lands through the City’s agricultural

mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP mitigation program, as required by

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, those fees and conservation easements would not

result in the creation of new farmland to offset the loss that would occur with

Project implementation. As such, the loss of Important Farmland would be a

cumulatively considerable contribution and a significant and unavoidable impact.



associated with cumulative impacts on agricultural land and uses, as more fully

stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

CEQA FINDINGS


C. AIR QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.3-1: PROJECT OPERATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A VIOLATION OF AN AIR

QUALITY STANDARD OR CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR

QUALITY VIOLATION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cause a violation of an air

quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality

violation is discussed on pages 3.3-19 and 3.3-23 of the Draft EIR.

(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will

be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation

Measures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3.


Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The proposed Project would be a

direct and indirect source of air pollution, in that it would generate and attract

vehicle trips in the region (mobile source emissions) and it would increase area

source emissions and energy consumption. The mobile source emissions would be

entirely from vehicles, while the area source emissions would be primarily from

the use of natural gas fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer

products, and architectural coatings.

The proposed Project would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control

District (SJVAPCD) thresholds of significance for operations even with mitigation

measures. The proposed Project is subject to the SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect

Source Rule), which could result in substantial mitigation of emissions. The

reductions are accomplished by the incorporation of mitigation measures into

projects and/or by the payment of an Indirect Source Rule fee for any required

reductions that have not been accomplished through project mitigation

commitments. The current fees are $9,350 per ton of NOx, although these are

subject to adjustments by the SJVAPCD. The actual calculations will be

accomplished by the SJVAPCD and Project applicants as the Project (i.e. or portions

of the Project) are brought forward for approval under Rule 9510. However, even

with the application of the ISR and the mitigation measures described above,

emissions levels may remain above the defined thresholds of significance for the

Project as a whole. As such, operation of the proposed Project would have a

significant and unavoidable impact relative to operational air emissions.

A Mitigation Measure is included in this EIR that requires the Project proponent to

consider the potential use of a VERA as a method to achieve emissions reductions

in excess of District Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) requirements. The

mitigation measure also requires consideration of the benefits of improved air

CEQA FINDINGS


quality with the costs of implementation in the decision-making process. Because

a VERA is a voluntary contractual agreement that is negotiated, it cannot be

certain that both parties will agree to acceptable terms. The inclusion of this

mitigation does not guarantee that the impact would be reduced to a less than

significant level. As such, the impact would be significant and unavoidable impact

relative to operational air emissions.



associated with impacts to air quality, as more fully stated in the Statement of


2. IMPACT 4.5: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON THE REGION'S AIR QUALITY

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on the

region’s air quality is discussed on pages 4.0-7 and 4.0-8 of the Draft EIR.



Measures 3.3-1 through and 3.3-8.


Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Under buildout conditions in the San

Joaquin County, the SJVAB would continue to experience increases in criteria

pollutants and efforts to improve air quality throughout the basin would be

hindered. San Joaquin County has a state designation of nonattainment for Ozone,

PM10, and PM2.5 and is either unclassified or attainment for all other criteria

pollutants. The County has a national designation of nonattainment for ozone and

PM2.5.

The proposed Project would result in increased emissions primarily from vehicle

miles travelled associated with Project implementation. The SJVAPCD has

established operations related emissions thresholds of significance and it was

determined that annual emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 exceed the SJVAPCD

thresholds of significance.

The proposed Project is subject to the SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule),

which could result in substantial mitigation of NOx and associated ROG emissions.

The reductions are accomplished by the incorporation of mitigation measures into

projects and/or by the payment of an Indirect Source Rule fee for any required

reductions that have not been accomplished through Project mitigation

commitments. The current fees are $9,350 per ton of NOx. The actual calculations

will be determined and finalized by the SJVAPCD and Project applicants as

individual projects are brought forward for approval under Rule 9510.

CEQA FINDINGS


The substantial reductions in NOx (and associated ROG) and PM10 emissions

accomplished by the application of the ISR represent the best achievable

mitigation for indirect sources. However, even with the application of these

measures, emissions levels would remain above the defined thresholds of

significance. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would have a

cumulatively considerable contribution and significant and unavoidable impact

from air emissions.



associated with cumulative impacts to the region’s air quality, as more fully stated


D. GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

1. IMPACT 3.7-1: POTENTIAL TO GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR

INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT OR POTENTIAL

TO CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE

PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the

environment or potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation

adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs is discussed on pages 3.7-

18 through 3.7-25 of the Draft EIR.



3.7-1.


Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Short-term construction GHG

emissions are a one-time release of GHGs and are not expected to significantly

contribute to global climate change over the lifetime of the proposed Project. With

the implementation of mitigation measures, the overall annual GHG emissions

associated with the proposed Project would be reduced by 15.8 percent by the

year 2020. The mitigation measures include mobile source, area source, energy,

and water measures.

Additionally, the Project would be generally consistent with the goals, policies, and

measures of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities

Strategy (SCS) and the Manteca Climate Action Plan. The Project is currently

served by the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) and would incorporate

bus turnouts and transit improvements where requested by the San Joaquin RTD,

CEQA FINDINGS


continuous public sidewalks and/or multi-use trails adjacent to all proposed public

streets, and paving and striping for bike lanes/paths. The Project site is assumed

for low density residential development in Appendix M of the RTP/SCS. The Project

would also comply with Strategies ENB-1, BI-1 through BI-3, and MUD-1 of the

Climate Action Plan by complying with the CALGreen requirements and providing

transit amenities on-site.

The proposed Project demonstrates that it has included feasible Best Performance

Standards (BPS) that will collectively reduce GHG emissions by 15.8 percent.

Nevertheless, the proposed Project will result in a net increase in emissions that

will contribute to global climate change. While the 15.8 percent reduction is a

reflection of the proposed Project’s intent to comply with the SJVAPCD’s efforts to

ensure that land development projects reduce GHG compared to business-as-

usual approaches, there will be an overall net increase in GHG emissions. As such,

implementation of the proposed Project would have a cumulatively considerable

contribution and significant and unavoidable impact from GHG emissions.



associated with cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions, as more fully stated


2. IMPACT 3.7-2: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE FROM INCREASED PROJECT-

RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

(b) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on

climate change from increased Project-related greenhouse gas emissions is discussed

on pages 3.7-25 and 3.7-26 of the Draft EIR.



Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Implementation of the proposed

Project will still generate GHG emissions that wouldn’t otherwise exist without the

proposed Project. Given the length of construction activities for a Project of this

size, the maximum short-term annual construction emissions of GHG associated

with development of the Project are estimated to be 3,082.1391 metric tons of

carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) (2019) with a low of 58.4330 MTCO2e (2023)

emitted. The operational emissions would be a long-term release totaling

approximately 35,772.2514 MTCO2e.

The City of Manteca must weigh the economic and social benefits of development

against the environmental impacts associated with development. The City of

Manteca’s planning efforts included targeted growth that accommodates the

CEQA FINDINGS


economic and social needs of the community, while recognizing and seeking to

mitigate environmental impacts when growth occurs. The proposed Project has

incorporated mitigation measures that are intended to reduce emissions to the

extent feasible. The State continues to implement measures that are intended to

reduce emissions on a State-wide scale (i.e. vehicle fuel efficiency standards in

fleets, low carbon fuels, etc.) that are consistent with AB 32. These types of State-

wide measures will benefit the proposed Project (and City as a whole) in the long-

term as they come into effect; however, the City does not have the jurisdiction to

create far reaching (i.e. State-wide) measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Additionally, the proposed Project would be generally consistent with the goals

and strategies of the RTP/SCS and the Manteca Climate Action Plan. The proposed

Project would be located in an area that is currently served by the San Joaquin

RTD. The Project would incorporate bus turnouts and transit improvements where

requested by the San Joaquin RTD, continuous public sidewalks and/or multi-use

trails adjacent to all proposed public streets, and paving and striping for bike

lanes/paths. Furthermore, the Project is required to prepare and implement a

TDM plan for the non-residential portion of the Project. The TDM plan is required

to be coordinated with SCJOG’s Commute Connection Program.

On a project-by-project case, the City of Manteca evaluates a project and the

potential to impose project-specific mitigation, which has been done through this

GHG analysis. However, the Project would result in a net increase in CO2e

emissions even with mitigation measures incorporated into the Project. As such,







3. IMPACT 4.9: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE FROM INCREASED PROJECT-

RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

(b) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on climate

change from increased Project-related GHG emissions is discussed on pages 4.0-11 and

4.0-12 of the Draft EIR.



Council finds that:

(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. In August 2008, the SJVAPCD

adopted its Climate Change Action Plan. The Climate Change Action Plan directed

CEQA FINDINGS


the SJVAPCD's Air Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance to assist APCD

staff, Valley businesses, land use agencies, and other permitting agencies in

addressing GHG emissions as part of the CEQA process. Regarding CEQA guidance,

some of the goals of the Climate Change Action Plan are to assist local land use

agencies, developers, and the public by identifying and quantifying GHG emission

reduction measures for development projects and by providing tools to streamline

evaluation of Project-specific GHG effects, and to assist Valley businesses in

complying with State law related to GHG emissions. A product of this direction to

provide CEQA guidance is the Final Staff Report – Climate Change Action Plan:

Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts, presented to the APCD Board in December

2009. A central component of the Final Staff Report is the establishment of Best

Performance Standards, which are specifications or Project design elements that

identify effective, feasible GHG emission reduction measures. Emission reductions

achieved through Best Performance Standards implementation would be pre-

quantified, thus negating the need for Project-specific quantification of GHG

emissions. For projects not implementing Best Performance Standards,

demonstration of a 29% reduction in GHG emissions from business-as-usual

conditions is required to determine that a Project would have a less than

cumulatively significant impact.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, the overall annual GHG

emissions associated with the proposed Project would be reduced by

approximately 15.8 percent by the year 2020, when compared to the business as

usual scenario. This is not consistent with applicable standards and threshold of a

29 percent reduction established by the SJVAPCD. The percentage reduction is not

consistent with the GHG reduction percentage sought by the State’s Scoping Plan.

The proposed Project would not be consistent with the reduction target set in the

Climate Change Action Plan and consistent with the Scoping Plan. As such,







E. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

1. IMPACT 3.13-1: UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MAIN STREET / SR 120 EB RAMPS INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a significant impact at the Main

Street / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-22 and 3.13-23 of the

Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS




3.13-1.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection

currently operates at LOS C with 21 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 22

seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. The addition of Project generated traffic

would cause the intersection’s operations to decline to LOS F with 82 seconds of

delay in the AM peak hour and to LOS E with 62 seconds of delay in the PM peak

hour. The following improvement would improve the delay from LOS F to LOS D in

the AM peak hour and from LOS E to LOS D in the PM peak hour: Retime and

optimize the intersection.

Caltrans would be responsible for the intersection improvement; therefore, based

on the significance criteria, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable in

the short-term until the planned improvements are completed. The Project

applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee towards the intersection

improvement, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. It is noted that this

impact would be reduced to less than significant once these improvements are in

place.



associated with the Project impacts to the Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps

intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in

Section VII, below.


SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MAIN STREET / ATHERTON DRIVE INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact the Main Street / Atherton

Drive intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-23 and 3.13-24 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-2.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / Atherton Drive intersection

currently operates at LOS B with 13 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 17

seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. The addition of Project generated traffic

CEQA FINDINGS


would result in the intersection’s operations to decline to LOS E with 58 seconds of

delay in the AM peak hour and 62 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. This

study intersection is under City of Manteca jurisdiction and the following

improvements, identified in their Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP),

improve the delay from LOS E to LOS C during the AM and PM peak hours: Retime

and optimize the intersection.

The City of Manteca would be responsible for the intersection improvement;

therefore, based on the significance criteria, this impact is considered significant

and unavoidable in the short-term until the planned improvements are complete.

The Project applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee towards the

intersection improvements, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-2. It is noted

that this impact would be reduced to less than significant once these

improvements are in place.



associated with impacts to impacts to the Main Street / Atherton Drive


Section VII, below.


SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MAIN STREET / WOODWARD AVENUE INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact the Main Street / Woodward

Avenue intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-24 and 3.13-25 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-3.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / Woodward Avenue

intersection currently operates at LOS C with 22 seconds of delay during the AM

peak hour and 23 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. The addition of Project

traffic would result in the intersection’s operations to decline to LOS F with 62

seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 60 seconds of delay in the PM peak

hour.

This study intersection is under City of Manteca jurisdiction and the following

improvements, identified in their PFIP, would improve intersection operations

from LOS F to LOS D conditions in the AM peak hour and from LOS F to LOS B

conditions in the PM peak hour: Signalize intersection; and construct one

southbound thru lane.

CEQA FINDINGS


The City of Manteca would be responsible for the intersection improvement,

acquisition of right-of-way, and construction of the southbound thru lane;


and unavoidable in the short-term until the planned improvements are complete.






of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact to the Main Street

/ Woodward Avenue intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of



SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MAIN STREET / TANNEHILL DRIVE INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause impacts to the Main Street /

Tannehill Drive intersection is discussed on page 3.13-25 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-4.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / Tannehill Drive intersection

currently operates at LOS A with seven seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and

four seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. The addition of Project generated

traffic would result in the intersection’s operations to decline to LOS F with 217

seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 107 seconds of delay in the PM peak

hour. This study intersection is under City of Manteca jurisdiction and the

following improvement would improve intersection operations from LOS F to LOS

B conditions during the AM peak hour and from LOS F to LOS C during the PM peak

hour: Signalize the intersection.

The intersection of Main Street / Tannehill Drive is currently not included in the

City of Manteca’s PFIP; therefore, based on the significance criteria, this impact is

considered significant and unavoidable in the short-term until the planned

improvements are completed, and less than significant once the improvements

are in place.



CEQA FINDINGS


associated the impacts at the Main Street / Tannehill Drive intersection, as more

fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.


SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE WOODWARD AVENUE / UNION ROAD INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact the Woodward Avenue /

Union Road intersection is discussed on page 3.13-26 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-5.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Woodward Avenue / Union Road

intersection currently operates at LOS B with 12 seconds of delay in the AM peak

hour and at LOS C with 20 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. The addition of

Project generated traffic would result in the intersection’s operations to decline to

LOS E with 39 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 47 seconds of delay in the

PM peak hour. This study intersection is under City of Manteca jurisdiction and the

following improvements, identified in their PFIP, would improve intersection

operations from LOS E to LOS C conditions during both the AM peak hour and PM

peak hours: Signalize the intersection; and restripe the southbound approach to

one shared right-turn / thru lane and one left-turn lane.

The City of Manteca would be responsible for the intersection improvement;


and unavoidable in the short-term until the planned improvements are completed.







associated the impacts at the Woodward Avenue / Union Road intersection, as

more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII,

below.


SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE UNION ROAD / SR 120 EB RAMPS INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact the Union Road / SR 120 EB

Ramps intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-26 and 3.13-27 of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS




3.13-6.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Union Road / SR 120 EB Ramps

intersection currently operates at LOS B with 13 seconds of delay in the AM peak

hour and at LOS C with 20 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. The addition of

Project generated traffic would result in the intersection’s operations to decline to

LOS E with 59 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour and 65 seconds of delay in the

PM peak hour. The following mitigation measure will improve the delay from LOS

E to LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours: Retime and optimize the

intersection.

Because this terminal intersection is retimed, the Union Road / SR 120 WB Ramps

intersection will be retimed as well. Retiming and optimization of the Union Road /

SR 120 WB Ramps intersection is consistent with plans coordinated by Caltrans

and the City of Manteca.

Caltrans would be responsible for the intersection improvement; therefore, based


the short-term until the planned improvements are completed. The Project

applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee towards the intersection

improvement, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-6. It is noted that this

impact would be reduced to less than significant once these improvements are in

place.



associated with Project impacts at the Union Road / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection,

as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII,

below.


SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO FREEWAY FACILITIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project buildout to impact the freeway facilities

is discussed on pages 3.13-27 and 3.13-28 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-7.

CEQA FINDINGS



Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The addition of Project generated traffic would

result in unacceptable (i.e., LOS E) AM peak hour or PM peak hour operations on

the following freeway facilities: EB SR 120 off-ramp to Main Street (PM Peak

Hour); EB SR 120 off-ramp to SR 99 (PM Peak Hour); and WB SR 120 off-ramp to

Union Road (AM Peak Hour).

Project traffic would cause in excess of a 100 vehicle-per-day increase on the

impacted SR 120 mainline, and in excess of a 1 percent increase in off-ramp

volumes at these locations. This is a potentially significant impact. The SR 120

interchange at Union Road is undergoing redesign and reconstruction by the City

of Manteca and Caltrans District 10 (Stockton, CA). This project is included in the

list of Tier 1 (Funded) projects in the adopted 2014 – 2040 SJCOG RTP / SCS.

The Tier 1 Project list also includes widening SR 120 from four to six lanes. The

effectiveness of the planned improvements was analyzed under Existing Plus

Project conditions. With this widening, all study segments would improve from

unacceptable LOS E or F to acceptable LOS D conditions or better. Due to the

uncertainty of the construction of this improvement, this impact is considered

significant and unavoidable in the short-term until the planned improvements are

completed and less than significant once the improvements are in place.



associated with Project impacts to freeway facilities, as more fully stated in the

Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

8. IMPACT 3.13-10: UNDER CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD

EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MAIN STREET / SR 120 RAMP TERMINAL

INTERSECTIONS.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project buildout to impact the Main Street / SR

120 ramp terminal intersections is discussed on pages 3.13-37 and 3.13-38 of the Draft

EIR.



3.13-1.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps

intersection would operate at LOS F during both peak hours in the Cumulative No

CEQA FINDINGS


Project scenario, while the Main Street / SR 120 WB Ramps would operate at LOS

D or better during both AM and PM peak hours. The addition of Project traffic

would exacerbate already unacceptable operations at the EB ramp terminal, while

increasing the average control delay by more than three seconds. Project traffic

would also cause the LOS at the Main Street / SR 120 WB ramp terminal

intersection to worsen to LOS E during both peak hours. These impacts are

considered potentially significant.

The following improvements, identified in the City’s PFIP, would be necessary for

acceptable operations at the SR 120 / Main Street ramp-terminal intersections

under Cumulative Plus Project conditions:

At the Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection:

o Widen Main Street to two northbound and southbound approach

lanes. Restripe the northbound approach as one thru lane and one

shared right-turn / thru lane. Restripe the southbound approach as

two thru lanes, and one left-turn lane;

o Widen EB approach and restripe as one left-turn lane, one shared left-

turn/ thru lane, and two right-turn lanes; and

o Retime the signal and optimize splits.

At the Main Street / SR 120 WB Ramps intersection:

o Widen northbound approach and restripe as two thru lanes and one

left-turn lane;

o Widen southbound approach and restripe as one right-turn lane and

two thru lanes;

o Widen the west leg to have two receiving lanes; and

o Convert the WB right-turn to a signalized right-turn.

The improvements outlined above would reduce the proposed Project’s impact to

less than significant. The improvements are identified in the City’s PFIP with

coordination and approval from Caltrans. However, the ramp terminal

intersections at this interchange are under Caltrans jurisdiction and funding for a

future Main Street interchange Project has not been secured. If full funding is not

secured, then the intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS

under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and the Project’s contribution to this

impact would be considered significant. Nevertheless, the proposed Project would

be responsible for payment of the appropriate San Joaquin RTIF to cover their

proportionate cost of the improvements at the SR 120 / Main Street ramp-

terminal intersections.

Because implementation of these measures is beyond the control of the City of

Manteca and the Project applicant, and full improvement funding has not been

secured, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

CEQA FINDINGS




associated with Project impacts to the Main Street / SR 120 ramp terminal

intersections, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in

Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MAIN STREET / WOODWARD AVENUE

INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project buildout to impact the Main Street /

Woodward Avenue intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-39 and 3.13-40 of the Draft

EIR.



3.13-10.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / Woodward Avenue

intersection would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours under

Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate

unacceptable operations and would increase average control delay at the

intersection by more than three seconds.

In order to achieve acceptable operations under Cumulative Plus Project

conditions, the following mitigation measures would be required:

Widen the northbound approach and restripe as one left-turn lane, one thru

lane, and one shared right-turn / thru lane;

Widen the southbound approach and restripe as two left-turn lanes, two left

lanes, and one left-turn lane;

Widen the south leg to have two receiving lanes;

Widen and restripe the EB approach as two left-turn lanes, one thru lane, and

one left-turn lane; and

Signalize intersection.

Implementation of the improvements outlined above would reduce the impact to

a less than significant level. The Woodward Avenue / Main Street intersection

would operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. However, the City of

Manteca would be responsible for the intersection improvements; therefore,

based on the significance criteria, this impact is considered significant and

CEQA FINDINGS


unavoidable in the short-term until the planned improvements are completed, and

less than significant once the improvements are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Main Street / Woodward Avenue


Section VII, below.


RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MAIN STREET / TANNEHILL DRIVE / PROJECT

DRIVEWAY 3 INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to impact the Main Street / Tannehill

Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-40 through 3.13-42

of the Draft EIR.



3.13-11.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Project would impact the Main Street /

Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection, which is currently a side-street

stop controlled intersection under City of Manteca jurisdiction. The Main Street /

Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection is projected to operate at LOS A

during both the AM and PM peak hours with 7 seconds and 3 seconds of average

delay, respectively, for the Cumulative No Project scenario. Under Cumulative Plus

Project conditions, the Project would add a west leg that serves as Project

Driveway 3. The addition of Project traffic to this intersection would worsen its

operations to LOS F with >120 seconds of delay during both the AM and PM peak

hours. The worst movement during both peak hours would experience vastly

greater delay.

The following improvements would be necessary to provide acceptable operations


Widen the southbound approach and restripe as one left-turn lane, one thru


Widen the northbound approach and restripe as one left-turn lane and one

shared right-turn / thru lane; and

Signalize intersection. The EB and WB left-turn movements should be

permitted, while the northbound and southbound left-turn movements should

be protected.

CEQA FINDINGS



a less than significant level. The Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3

intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during

the PM peak hour.

It should be noted that the intersection of Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project

Driveway 3 is currently not included in the City of Manteca’s PFIP; therefore, based


the short-term until the planned improvements are completed, and less than

significant once the improvements are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project

Driveway 3 intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding

Considerations in Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE WOODWARD AVENUE / UNION ROAD

INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a significant impact at the

Woodward Avenue / Union Road intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-42 and 3.13-

43 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-5.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The all-way stop controlled Woodward Avenue

/ Union Road intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and

LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The

addition of Project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable operations and would

meet the peak hour signal warrant during both peak hours.

The following improvements would be necessary to provide acceptable operations



lane, and one right-turn lane;

Restripe the WB approach as one left-turn lane and one shared left-turn / thru

lane;

CEQA FINDINGS


Widen the northbound approach and restripe as a one left-turn lane and one

shared right-turn / thru lane;

Widen the east leg to have two receiving lanes;

Restripe the EB approach as one shared left-turn / thru lane and one shared

right-turn / thru lane; and

Signalize the intersection. Use all-way split phasing and make the WB right-

turn movement a permitted-plus-overlap movement.

Although the PFIP calls for a roundabout, implementation of the roundabout, as

designed in the PFIP, would not lower LOS to acceptable levels. Additionally, the

Cumulative Plus Project volumes would meet a signal warrant. Implementation of

the improvements outlined above would reduce the impact to a less than

significant level. The Project applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee

towards the intersection improvements, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-

5.

The Woodward Avenue / Union Road intersection would operate at LOS C during

the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The City of Manteca would

be responsible for the intersection improvement, acquisition of right-of-way, and

construction; therefore, based on the significance criteria, this impact is



are in place.



associated with Project impacts at the Woodward Avenue / Union Road


Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE UNION ROAD / ATHERTON DRIVE INTERSECTION.


Union Road / Atherton Drive intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-43 and 3.13-44 of

the Draft EIR.



3.13-12.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Union Road / Atherton Drive intersection

would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No

CEQA FINDINGS


Project conditions. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable

operations and would increase average control delay for intersection by more than

three seconds.

A detailed study and design of the Union Road / SR 120 interchange is currently

underway by the City of Manteca in coordination with Caltrans. Union Road /

Atherton Drive is a part of this study. The required interchange design to serve

projected Design Year AM and PM peak hour volumes is currently being

determined. With a projected construction year of 2020, Caltrans required a 20

years of acceptable level of service D conditions or better for design Year 2040 AM

and PM peak hour conditions. The current adopted improvement at the SR 120 /

Union Road interchange is a partial cloverleaf interchange. A new option being

studied is a Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI).

With implementation of the interchange project’s partial cloverleaf alternative and

changing the signal timing to actuated-uncoordinated, the Union Road / Atherton

Road intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C

during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The Project

applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee towards the improvement,

as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-12. However, the City of Manteca would

be responsible for the intersection improvement; therefore, based on the

significance criteria, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable in the

short-term until the planned improvements are completed, and less than




associated with Project impacts at the Union Road / Atherton Drive intersection,


below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE UNION ROAD / SR 120 RAMP TERMINAL

INTERSECTIONS.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in significant impacts to the SR

120 / Union Road ramp-terminal intersections is discussed on page 3.13-44 of the

Draft EIR.



3.13-12.


Council finds that:

CEQA FINDINGS


(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The signalized SR 120 / Union Road ramp-

terminal intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable LOS F conditions

during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The Union Road

/ SR 120 EB ramps intersection would also operate at unacceptable LOS F during

the AM peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate both terminal

intersections of the Union Road / SR 120 interchange to LOS F during both AM and

PM peak hours, and would increase the average control delay of this signalized

intersection by more than three seconds.


underway. With implementation of the interchange project’s partial cloverleaf

alternative, the Union Road ramp terminal intersections would operate at LOS B or

better under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The Project applicant would be

required to pay their fair share fee towards the improvement, as required by

Mitigation Measure 3.13-12. The Union Road ramp terminal intersections would

also operate at LOS B or better under Cumulative Plus Project conditions with the

construction of a DDI. However, Caltrans would be responsible for the intersection

improvement; therefore, based on the significance criteria, this impact is



are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the SR 120 / Union Road ramp-terminal

intersections, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in

Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MAIN STREET / MISSION RIDGE DRIVE /

INDUSTRIAL PARK DRIVE INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in significant impacts to the

Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park Drive signalized intersections is

discussed on pages 3.13-44 3.13-45 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-13.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive /

Industrial Park Drive signalized intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E

CEQA FINDINGS


during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of

Project traffic would further exacerbate operations under the Cumulative Plus

Project scenario and would increase the average control delay at the intersection

by more than three seconds.

The following improvements would be necessary to mitigate the Project’s impact

at this intersection: Add a WB left-turn lane; and optimize splits.


a less than significant level. The Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park

Drive intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D

during the PM peak hour. The City of Manteca would be responsible for the

intersection improvement and construction.

It should be noted that the improvements to the intersection of Main Street /

Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park Drive is currently not included in the City of

Manteca’s PFIP; therefore, based on the significance criteria, this impact is



are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive /

Industrial Park Drive signalized intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement

of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MANTECA ROAD / RAYMUS EXPRESSWAY

INTERSECTION.


Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway side-street stop intersection is discussed on

pages 3.13-46 and 3.13-47 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-14.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway side-

street stop intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative No

Project conditions. The addition of Project traffic would cause the critical

movement to worsen to LOS F for the Cumulative Plus Project scenario.

CEQA FINDINGS


The following improvement would make the impact less than significant under

Cumulative Plus Project conditions: Construct a roundabout at Manteca Road /

Raymus Expressway.

The Project proposes to build two southbound lanes on Main Street between

Tannehill Drive and Sedan Avenue. With these improvements in place, the Project

applicant would only have to pay toward the fair share cost of building a

roundabout. With the above improvement implemented, the Manteca Road /

Raymus Expressway intersection would operate at LOS A during the AM peak hour

and LOS B during the PM peak hour.

It should be noted that the intersection of Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway is

currently not included in the City of Manteca’s PFIP; therefore, based on the

significance criteria, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable in the

short-term until the planned improvements are completed, and less than




associated with Project impacts to the Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway side-

street stop intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding



RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MANTECA ROAD / PROJECT DRIVEWAY 4

INTERSECTION.


Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4 intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-47 and




3.13-15.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Project would impact the Manteca Road /

Project Driveway 4 intersection, which is currently controlled by a side-street stop

and is under City of Manteca jurisdiction. The Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4

intersection would not exist under Cumulative No Project conditions. Under

Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the Project would add a west leg that serves as

Project Driveway 4. The critical movement at this intersection would operate at

LOS F with 91 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour. The following

CEQA FINDINGS


improvements would be necessary to provide acceptable operations under

Cumulative Plus Project conditions:



Widen the northbound approach and restripe as one left-turn lane, one thru

lane, and one shared right-turn / thru lane; and

Signalize intersection. The EB and WB left-turn movements should be

permitted, while the northbound and southbound left-turn movements should

be protected.

Implementation of these improvements would reduce the impact to a less than

significant level. The Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4 intersection would

operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that the intersection

of Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4 is currently not included in the City of

Manteca’s PFIP; therefore, based on the significance criteria this impact is



are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4


Section VII, below.


RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MANTECA ROAD / PROJECT DRIVEWAY 5

INTERSECTION.


Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 intersection is discussed on pages 3.13-48 and




3.13-16.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Project would cause significant impacts to

the Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 intersection, which is currently controlled

by a side-street stop and is under City of Manteca jurisdiction. The Manteca Road /

Project Driveway 5 intersection would not exist under Cumulative No Project

CEQA FINDINGS


conditions. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the Project would add a

west leg that serves as Project Driveway 5. The critical movement at this

intersection would operate at LOS F with 54 seconds of delay during the PM peak

hour. The following improvement would be necessary to provide acceptable

operations under Cumulative Plus Project conditions:

Widen the northbound approach and restripe as one left-turn lane and one

thru lane; and

Construct a two-way left-turn lane on the north and south legs so that EB left-

turn vehicles exiting the Project site can turn into the center two-way left-turn

lane.

Implementation of these improvements would reduce the impact to a less than

significant level. The Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 intersection would

operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour. It should be noted that the intersection

of Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 is currently not included in the City of




are in place.





Section VII, below.


RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO FREEWAY FACILITIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in significant impacts to

freeway facilities is discussed on pages 3.13-49 and 3.13-50 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-7.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The addition of Project-generated traffic would

exacerbate unacceptable (i.e. LOS E or LOS F) peak hour operations at the

following study freeway facilities and peak hours by adding 100 vehicles per day or

more:

CEQA FINDINGS


WB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during both the AM and PM peak hours;

and

WB SR 120 on-ramp at SR 99 during both the AM and PM peak hours.

In addition, Project traffic would cause in excess of a 1 percent increase in ramp

volumes at these locations, which already operate unacceptably under Cumulative

No Project conditions. Lastly, off-ramp queueing would affect freeway operations

at the following segments:

EB SR 120 off-ramp at Union Road during the PM peak hour;

EB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during the PM peak hour; and

WB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during the PM peak hour.

The SR 120 interchange at Union Road is undergoing redesign and reconstruction

by the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10 (Stockton, CA). This project is

included in the list of Tier 1 (Funded) projects in the adopted 2014 – 2040 SJCOG

RTP / SCS. The SR 120 interchange at Main Street has not yet secured funding,

although it is identified in the PFIP as an interchange that should receive future

improvements.

Through implementation of the SR 120 / Union Road interchange project’s partial

cloverleaf design, the EB SR 120 off-ramp queuing at Union Road would be

reduced and this impact would become less-than-significant, provided the

following: The off-ramp turn pockets have 845 feet of storage length.

Similarly, through mitigation measures involving the EB off-ramp that are

identified in Impact 3.13-10, the impact at the EB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street

would be less than significant, provided the following:

The off-ramp turn pockets have approximately 900 feet of storage length. A

more precise estimate would be developed when the Main Street interchange

improvements and design study is undertaken.

Furthermore, mitigation measures identified in Impact 3.13-10 would not be

sufficient to prevent off-ramp queuing at the WB SR 120 off-ramps at Main Street.

The following improvement would be required to mitigate off-ramp queuing at

this intersection:

Add a left-turn pocket and restripe as one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn /

thru lane, and one right-turn lane.

In addition to this improvement, other mitigations would need to be implemented

in order to reduce the impact at the WB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during

both the AM and PM peak hours and at the WB SR 120 on-ramp at SR 99 during

both the AM and PM peak hours. Because freeway facilities are under Caltrans

jurisdiction, the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.

CEQA FINDINGS






19. IMPACT 4.19: UNDER CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD

EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MAIN STREET / SR 120 RAMP TERMINAL

INTERSECTIONS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to exacerbate Levels of Service at the SR

Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection is discussed on pages 4.0-19 and 4.0-20 of

the Draft EIR.



Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps

intersection would operate at LOS F during both peak hours in the Cumulative No

Project scenario, while the Main Street / SR 120 WB Ramps would operate at LOS

D or better during both AM and PM peak hours. The addition of Project traffic

would exacerbate already unacceptable operations at the EB ramp terminal, while

increasing the average control delay by more than three seconds. Project traffic

would also cause the LOS at the Main Street / SR 120 WB ramp terminal

intersection to worsen to LOS E during both peak hours. These impacts are

considered potentially significant.

The improvements outlined in Section 3.13 would reduce the proposed Project’s

impact to less than significant. The improvements are identified in the City’s PFIP

with coordination and approval from Caltrans. However, the ramp terminal

intersections at this interchange are under Caltrans jurisdiction and funding for a

future Main Street interchange Project has not been secured. If full funding is not

secured, then the intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS

under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and the Project’s contribution to this

impact would be considered significant. Nevertheless, the proposed Project would

be responsible for payment of the appropriate San Joaquin RTIF to cover their

proportionate cost of the improvements at the SR 120 / Main Street ramp-

terminal intersections.

Because implementation of these measures is beyond the control of the City of

Manteca and the Project applicant, and full improvement funding has not been

secured, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively

considerable.

CEQA FINDINGS




associated with Project impacts at the Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection,


below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MAIN STREET / WOODWARD AVENUE

INTERSECTION


Woodward Avenue intersection is discussed on page 4.0-20 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-10.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. PM peak hours under Cumulative No Project

conditions. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable

operations and would increase average control delay at the intersection by more

than three seconds.

Implementation of the improvements outlined in Section 3.13 would reduce the

impact to a less than significant level. The Woodward Avenue / Main Street

intersection would operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. However,

the City of Manteca would be responsible for the intersection improvements;

therefore, based on the significance criteria this impact is considered significant

and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable in the short-term until the

planned improvements are completed, and less than significant and less than

cumulatively considerable once the improvements are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Main Street / Woodward Avenue


Section VII, below.

CEQA FINDINGS


21. IMPACT 4.22: UNDER CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN

A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MAIN STREET / TANNEHILL DRIVE / PROJECT DRIVEWAY 3

INTERSECTION


Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection is discussed on page 4.0-21 of the

Draft EIR.


implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Implementation of

Mitigation Measure 3.13-11.


Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Project would impact the Main Street /

Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection, which is currently a side-street

stop controlled intersection under City of Manteca jurisdiction. The Main Street /

Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection is projected to operate at LOS A

during both the AM and PM peak hours with 7 seconds and 3 seconds of average

delay, respectively, for the Cumulative No Project scenario. Under Cumulative Plus

Project conditions, the Project would add a west leg that serves as Project

Driveway 3. The addition of Project traffic to this intersection would worsen its

operations to LOS F with >120 seconds of delay during both the AM and PM peak

hours. The worst movement during both peak hours would experience vastly

greater delay.


impact to a less than significant level. The Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project

Driveway 3 intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS

C during the PM peak hour.

It should be noted that the intersection of Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project

Driveway 3 is currently not included in the City of Manteca’s PFIP; therefore, based

on the significance criteria this impact is considered significant and unavoidable

and cumulatively considerable in the short-term until the planned improvements

are completed, and less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable

once the improvements are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project

Driveway 3 intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding


CEQA FINDINGS



EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE WOODWARD AVENUE / UNION ROAD INTERSECTION

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project buildout to impact the Woodward

Avenue / Union Road intersection is discussed on pages 4.0-21 and 4.0-22 of the Draft

EIR.



Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The all-way stop controlled Woodward Avenue

/ Union Road intersection would operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and

LOS F during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The

addition of Project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable operations and would

meet the peak hour signal warrant during both peak hours.

Although the PFIP calls for a roundabout, implementation of the roundabout, as

designed in the PFIP, would not lower LOS to acceptable levels. Additionally, the

Cumulative Plus Project volumes would meet a signal warrant. Implementation of

the improvements outlined in Section 3.13 would reduce the impact to a less than

significant level. The Project applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee

towards the intersection improvements, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-

5.

The Woodward Avenue / Union Road intersection would operate at LOS C during

the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The City of Manteca would

be responsible for the intersection improvement, acquisition of right-of-way, and

construction; therefore, based on the significance criteria this impact is considered

significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable in the short-term until

the planned improvements are completed, and less than significant and less than

cumulatively considerable once the improvements are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Woodward Avenue / Union Road


Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE UNION ROAD / ATHERTON DRIVE INTERSECTION

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to exacerbate cumulatively

unacceptable levels of service at the Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed

CEQA FINDINGS


Project would exacerbate levels of service at the Union Road / Atherton Drive

intersection is discussed on page 4.0-22 of the Draft EIR.





Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Union Road / Atherton Drive intersection

would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under Cumulative No

Project conditions. The addition of Project traffic would exacerbate unacceptable

operations and would increase average control delay for intersection by more than

three seconds.


underway. Union Road / Atherton Drive is a part of this study. With

implementation of the interchange project’s partial cloverleaf alternative and

changing the signal timing to actuated-uncoordinated, the Union Road / Atherton

Road intersection would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C

during the PM peak hour under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The Project

applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee towards the improvement,

as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-8. However, the City of Manteca would be

responsible for the intersection improvement; therefore, based on the significance

criteria this impact is considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively

considerable in the short-term until the planned improvements are completed,

and less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable once the




associated with Project impacts to the Union Road / Atherton Drive intersection,


below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE UNION ROAD / SR 120 RAMP TERMINAL

INTERSECTIONS

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a significant impact at the SR

120 / Union Road ramp-terminal intersections is discussed on pages 4.0-22 and 4.0-23

of the Draft EIR.


CEQA FINDINGS



Council finds that: The signalized SR 120 / Union Road ramp-terminal intersections are

projected to operate at unacceptable LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour under

Cumulative No Project conditions. The Union Road / SR 120 EB ramps intersection

would also operate at unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour. The addition of

Project traffic would exacerbate both terminal intersections of the Union Road / SR

120 interchange to LOS F during both AM and PM peak hours, and would increase the

average control delay of this signalized intersection by more than three seconds.


underway. With implementation of the interchange project’s partial cloverleaf

alternative, the Union Road ramp terminal intersections would operate at LOS B or

better under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. It should be noted that the Union

Road / SR 120 interchange may be constructed as a DDI. The Union Road ramp

terminal intersections would also operate at LOS B or better under Cumulative Plus

Project conditions with the construction of a DDI. However, Caltrans would be

responsible for the intersection improvement; therefore, based on the significance

criteria this impact is considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively

considerable in the short-term until the planned improvements are completed, and

less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable once the improvements

are in place.

(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of

the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated

with Project impacts at the SR 120 / Union Road ramp-terminal intersections, as more

fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MAIN STREET / MISSION RIDGE DRIVE /

INDUSTRIAL PARK DRIVE


Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park Drive signalized intersection is

discussed on page 4.0-23 of the Draft EIR.





Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive /

Industrial Park Drive signalized intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS E

during the PM peak hour under Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of

CEQA FINDINGS


Project traffic would further exacerbate operations under the Cumulative Plus

Project scenario and would increase the average control delay at the intersection

by more than three seconds.


impact to a less than significant level. The Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive /

Industrial Park Drive intersection would operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour

and LOS D during the PM peak hour. The City of Manteca would be responsible for

the intersection improvement and construction.

It should be noted that the improvements to the intersection of Main Street /

Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park Drive is currently not included in the City of


considered significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable in the short-

term until the planned improvements are completed, and less than significant and

less than cumulatively considerable once the improvements are in place



associated with Project impacts at the Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive /

Industrial Park Drive signalized intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement

of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MANTECA ROAD / RAYMUS EXPRESSWAY

INTERSECTION


Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway side-street stop intersection is discussed on page






Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway side-

street stop intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS under Cumulative No

Project conditions. The addition of Project traffic would cause the critical

movement to worsen to LOS F for the Cumulative Plus Project scenario.

The Project proposes to build two southbound lanes on Main Street between

Tannehill Drive and Sedan Avenue. With these improvements in place, the Project

applicant would only have to pay toward the fair share cost of building a

CEQA FINDINGS


roundabout. With implementation of the improvement outlined in Section 3.13,

the Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway intersection would operate at LOS A

during the AM peak hour and LOS B during the PM peak hour.

It should be noted that the intersection of Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway is


significance criteria this impact is considered significant and unavoidable and

cumulatively considerable in the short-term until the planned improvements are

completed, and less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable once

the improvements are in place.



associated with Project impacts to the Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway side-

street stop intersection, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding



A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MANTECA ROAD / PROJECT DRIVEWAY 4 INTERSECTION


Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4 intersection is discussed on page 4.0-24 of the

Draft EIR.





Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Project would impact the Manteca Road /

Project Driveway 4 intersection, which is currently controlled by a side-street stop

and is under City of Manteca jurisdiction. The Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4

intersection would not exist under Cumulative No Project conditions. Under

Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the Project would add a west leg that serves as

Project Driveway 4. The critical movement at this intersection would operate at

LOS F with 91 seconds of delay during the PM peak hour.


impact to a less than significant level. The Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4

intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour.

It should be noted that the intersection of Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4 is



CEQA FINDINGS









Section VII, below.


A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AT THE MANTECA ROAD / PROJECT DRIVEWAY 5 INTERSECTION


Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 intersection is discussed on page 4.0-25 of the

Draft EIR.





Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Project would cause significant impacts to

the Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 intersection, which is currently controlled

by a side-street stop and is under City of Manteca jurisdiction. The Manteca Road /

Project Driveway 5 intersection would not exist under Cumulative No Project

conditions. Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, the Project would add a

west leg that serves as Project Driveway 5. The critical movement at this

intersection would operate at LOS F with 54 seconds of delay during the PM peak

hour.


impact to a less than significant level. The Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5

intersection would operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour.

It should be noted that the intersection of Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 is








CEQA FINDINGS




Section VII, below.


A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO FREEWAY FACILITIES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in significant impacts to

freeway facilities is discussed on pages 4.0-25 and 4.0-26 of the Draft EIR.



Council finds that:

(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Implementation of the proposed Project would

result in adverse impacts to freeway operations. The significance criteria specify

four instances in which the proposed Project would create significant impacts. This

section describes the impacts caused by the Project to the freeway based on the

significance criteria they satisfy.

Table 3.13-15 in Section 3.13 shows that the addition of Project traffic would not

worsen operations from LOS D or better to LOS E or F at any study segment. The

addition of Project-generated traffic would exacerbate unacceptable (i.e. LOS E or

LOS F) peak hour operations at the following study freeway facilities and peak

hours by adding 100 vehicles per day or more:

WB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during both the AM and PM peak hours;

and

WB SR 120 on-ramp at SR 99 during both the AM and PM peak hours.

In addition, Project traffic would cause in excess of a 1 percent increase in ramp

volumes at these locations, which already operate unacceptably under Cumulative

No Project conditions. Lastly, off-ramp queueing would affect freeway operations

at the following segments:

EB SR 120 off-ramp at Union Road during the PM peak hour;

EB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during the PM peak hour; and

WB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during the PM peak hour.

As seen in Table 3.13-15, several other freeway segments are forecast to operate

at unacceptable LOS. However, the Project will not add traffic to these sections

and would, therefore, not cause a significant impact on those sections.

As noted previously, the SR 120 interchange at Union Road is undergoing redesign

and reconstruction by the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10 (Stockton, CA).

CEQA FINDINGS


This project is included in the list of Tier 1 (Funded) projects in the adopted 2014 –

2040 SJCOG RTP / SCS. The SR 120 interchange at Main Street has not yet secured

funding, although it is identified in the PFIP as an interchange that should receive

future improvements.

Through implementation of the SR 120 / Union Road interchange project’s partial

cloverleaf design, the EB SR 120 off-ramp queuing at Union Road would be

reduced and this impact would become less-than-significant, provided the

following:

The off-ramp turn pockets have 845 feet of storage length.

Similarly, through mitigation measures involving the EB off-ramp that are

identified in Impact 3.13-10, the impact at the EB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street

would be less than significant, provided the following:

The off-ramp turn pockets have approximately 900 feet of storage length. A

more precise estimate would be developed when the Main Street interchange

improvements and design study is undertaken.

Furthermore, mitigation measures identified in Impact 3.13-10 would not be

sufficient to prevent off-ramp queuing at the WB SR 120 off-ramps at Main Street.

The following improvement would be required to mitigate off-ramp queuing at

this intersection:

Add a left-turn pocket and restripe as one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn /

thru lane, and one right-turn lane.

In addition to this improvement, other mitigations would need to be implemented

in order to reduce the impact at the WB SR 120 off-ramp at Main Street during

both the AM and PM peak hours and at the WB SR 120 on-ramp at SR 99 during

both the AM and PM peak hours. Because freeway facilities are under Caltrans

jurisdiction, the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable and

cumulatively considerable.





CEQA FINDINGS


IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT

IMPACTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

LEVEL

A. AESTHETICS

1. IMPACT 3.1-3: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in light and glare impacts is

discussed on pages 3.1-8 through 3.1-9 of the Draft EIR.



3.1-1.

(c) Findings. Implementation of the proposed Project would introduce new sources of

light and glare into the Project site. New sources of glare would occur primarily from

the windshields of vehicles travelling to and from the Project site and from vehicles

parked at the site. There is also the potential for reflective building materials and

windows to result in increases in daytime glare.

A detailed lighting plan has not been prepared for the proposed Project, but for the

purposes of this analysis, it has been conservatively assumed that nighttime street

lighting, outdoor recreational, and safety lighting will be installed throughout areas of

the Project site. It is assumed that security lighting will be installed within the various

parking areas throughout the commercial areas.

The Manteca Municipal Code Chapter 17 (Zoning Code) states that direct glare shall

not be permitted, and provides standards for nuisance prevention and shielding

requirements. Chapter 17.48 of the Manteca Zoning Ordinance also includes

requirements for the installation of parking lot landscaping which further limit glare

impacts.

Chapter 17.50, Lighting, of the City Zoning Ordinance contains standards and

provisions related to exterior lighting. The primary purpose of this chapter is to

regulate lighting to balance the safety and security needs for lighting with the City’s

desire to preserve dark skies and to ensure that light trespass and glare have negligible

impacts on surrounding property (especially residential) and roadways. Section

17.50.070 requires the preparation of an outdoor lighting plan as part of each Site Plan

and Design Review application for commercial and industrial properties. At a

minimum, the outdoor lighting plan shall include the following:

1. Manufacturer specifications sheets, cut sheets, and other manufacturer-provided

information for all proposed outdoor light fixtures to show fixture diagrams and

outdoor light output levels.

CEQA FINDINGS


2. The proposed location, mounting height, and aiming point of all outdoor lighting

fixtures.

3. If building elevations are proposed for illumination, drawings of all relevant

building elevations showing the fixtures, the portions of the elevations to be

illuminated, the illumination level of the elevations, and the aiming point for any

remote light fixture.

4. Photometric data including a computer-generated photometric grid showing foot-

candle readings every 10 feet within the property or site and 10 feet beyond the

property lines.

The Manteca General Plan EIR determined the impact of new sources of light and glare

can be minimized by incorporating design features and operating requirements into

new developments that limit light and glare. Policy CD-P-44 requires the use of

minimal street lighting to meet safety standards and provide direction. Policy CD-P-45

requires the use of directionally shielded lighting for all exterior lighting. Policy CD-P-

46 requires automatic shut-off or motion sensors for lighting features in newly

developed areas. The City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance has requirements for lighting

and glare to reduce the impacts of glare and light trespass.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 is an

appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the

Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as

identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council,

this City Council finds that the potential for adverse effects from light or glare will be

mitigated to a less than significant level.

B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.2-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN CONFLICTS WITH

ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR INDIRECTLY CAUSE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL

LANDS.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in conflicts with adjacent

agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands is discussed on

pages 3.2-13 through 3.2-15 of the Draft EIR.



3.2-2.

(c) Findings. Neighboring agricultural land, including Prime Farmland and Farmland of

Statewide Importance, are located to the east, south, and west of the Project site. A

variety of residential and commercial uses would be developed on the Project site with

implementation of the proposed Project.

CEQA FINDINGS


The City’s General Plan anticipates that agricultural lands to the east, south, and west

of the Project site would develop with urban uses. Existing agricultural lands that are

located adjacent the Project site south of Sedan Avenue and to the west of the site

may be impacted by the increased human presence on the Project site. The City’s

Right-to-Farm Ordinance reduces the potential for conflict between existing

agricultural lands and adjacent uses. The notification procedures in the ordinance

serves to inform landowners and developers of non-agricultural uses of what the

expectations are in the area with regard to agricultural activities and to reduce

complaints.

The General Plan 2023 EIR identifies that the location or nature of the General Plan

could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and identified

Mitigation Measure AG-3.1, which included General Plan Policies RC-P-20, RC-P-23, RC-

P-24, RC-P-25, and RC-P-27 and Implementation Measure RC-I-30. It is noted that

some of these policies are re-numbered in the General Plan as adopted. The General

Plan 2023 EIR determined that the impact would be less than significant if the

mitigation was implemented to maintain agricultural use adjacent to non-agricultural

uses (General Plan 2023 Draft EIR, pp. 4-18 and 4-19).

General Plan Policy RC-P-24 requires buffers at the interface of urban development

and farmland in order to minimize conflicts between the uses. Policy RC-P-25 requires

that the City, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, ensures

that such development will not constrain nearby agricultural practices.

Implementation measure RC-I-30 requires urban development next to farmland to

provide notifications in keeping with the Right-to-Farm Ordinance and include

adequate and secure fencing at the interface of urban and agricultural uses.

Most of the proposed development would be buffered from existing agricultural

operations by existing roadways including, Manteca Road on the eastern side of the

Project site and by Sedan Avenue on the southern side of the Project site. Additionally,

land opposite Manteca Road to the east of the Project site has been approved for a

residential subdivision. Further, S. Tinnin Road would provide a buffer from existing

agricultural operations west of the Project site. However, the portion of the Project

located west of S. Tinnin Road would not be buffered from nearby agricultural

operations. Similarly, the portion of the Project site located north of E. Woodward

Avenue is not currently buffered from the agricultural operations to the north of the

Project site. As discussed previously, the City’s Right to Farm Ordinance is intended to

reduce the occurrence of such conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land

uses within the City through requiring the transferor of any property in the City to

provide a disclosure statement describing that the City permits agricultural operations,

including those that utilize chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Compliance with the

City’s Right to Farm Ordinance would be ensured through Mitigation Measures 3.2-2.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would ensure that the Project includes

adequate measures to buffer Project uses from adjacent agricultural uses and would

CEQA FINDINGS


reduce adverse effects on neighboring agricultural uses. Consistent with the General

Plan 2023 EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would reduce potential

impacts to less than significant.





this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to result in conflicts with

adjacent agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands will be


C. AIR QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.3-2: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A VIOLATION OF AN

AIR QUALITY STANDARD OR CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO AN EXISTING OR PROJECTED AIR

QUALITY VIOLATION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a violation of an air quality

standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation is

discussed on pages 3.3-23 through 3.3-27 of the Draft EIR.



Measures 3.3-4 through 3.3-8.

(c) Findings. The SJVAPCD has established construction related emissions thresholds of

significance as follows: 10 tons per year of ROG, 10 tons per year of NOx, or 15 tons

per year of PM10 or P2.5. If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s

threshold of significance for construction-generated emissions, the proposed Project

will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to

be implemented to reduce emissions. Annual emissions of ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 will

not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance in any given year. However, annual

emissions of NOx will exceed the thresholds of significance in three of the seven

construction years. Nevertheless, regardless of emission quantities, the SJVAPCD

requires construction related mitigation in accordance with their rules and regulations.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-4 through 3.3-8 of the Draft EIR will

ensure that the proposed Project would reduce construction related emissions to the

extent possible. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 requires preparation and submittal of a Dust

Control Plan, Mitigation Measure 3.3-5 requires implementation of dust control

measures, Mitigation Measure 3.3-6 requires implementation of dust control practices

(per SJVAPCD’s Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI),

Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 requires the use of low volatile organic compound (VOC)

architectural coatings, and Mitigation Measure 3.3-8 requires compliance with

SJVAPCD Rule 4641.

CEQA FINDINGS


In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.3-4

through 3.3-8 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or

incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant

environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record

before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to

cause a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or

projected air quality violation will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.4-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A DIRECT OR INDIRECT

EFFECT ON SPECIAL-STATUS INVERTEBRATE SPECIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect effect on

special-status invertebrate species is discussed on pages 3.4-18 through 3.4-19 of the

Draft EIR.



3.4-1.

(c) Findings. There are three special-status invertebrates that are documented within a

10-mile radius of the Project site, including: Molestan blister beetle (Lytta molesta),

Sacramento anthicid beetle (Anthicus sacramento), and valley elderberry longhorn

beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). The valley elderberry longhorn beetle,

vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp are covered species under the

SJMCP. Field surveys and habitat evaluations for the entire Project site were

performed on March 4, May 10, and June 28, 2016.

Essential habitat for Molestan blister beetle and Sacramento anthicid beetle is not

present on the Project site.

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is a federal threatened insect, proposed for

delisting. Elderberry (Sambucus sp.), which is a primary host species for valley

elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), is not present within the Project site. VELB is not

anticipated to be directly affected by any individual phase or component of the

proposed Project because there are no blue elderberry shrubs in the Project site.

Nevertheless, VELB is a covered species under the SJMSCP.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) is a federal threatened invertebrate found in the

Central Valley, central and south Coast Ranges from Tehama County to Santa Barbara

County. They are commonly found in vernal pools and in sandstone rock outcrop

pools. VPFS is not anticipated to be directly affected by any individual phase or

component of the proposed Project because there in not appropriate vernal pool

habitat on the Project site.

CEQA FINDINGS


Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (VPTS) is a federal endangered invertebrate found in

vernal pools and stock ponds from Shasta county south to Merced county. VPTS is not

anticipated to be directly affected by any individual phase or component of the

proposed Project because there in not appropriate vernal pool habitat on the Project

site.

No special-status invertebrates were observed within the Project site or offsite

improvement corridors during field surveys and none are expected to be affected by

the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than

significant impact on special-status invertebrate species. While there are no special

status invertebrate species that are anticipated to be affected by the proposed

Project, participation in the SJMSCP will provide the coverage for the incidental take of

a species if it were to occur. Mitigation measure 3.4-1 will ensure coverage under the

SJMSCP.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 is an




this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect

effect on special-status invertebrate species will be mitigated to a less than significant

level.

2. IMPACT 3.4-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A DIRECT OR INDIRECT

EFFECT ON SPECIAL-STATUS BIRD SPECIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect effect on

special-status bird species is discussed on pages 3.4-20 through 3.4-21 of the Draft EIR.



3.4-1.

(c) Findings. Special-status birds that are documented in the CNDDB within a ten-mile

radius of the Project site include: Aleutian goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia),

Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo

swainsoni), song sparrow (Modesto population) (Melospiza melodia), Merlin (Falco

columbarius), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis),

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In

addition, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis),

fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa

flavipes), Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius

ludovicianus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), marbeled godwit (Limosa

fedoa), mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), Nuttalls woodpecker (Picoides

nuttallii), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus),

CEQA FINDINGS


short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis),

Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus), and yellow-billed magpie (Pica

nuttalli) are documented in the USFWS IPAC database as potentially occurring within

the region. The Project site may provide suitable foraging habitat for a variety of

potentially occurring special-status birds, including those listed above. Potential

nesting habitat is present in a variety of trees located within the Project site and in the

vicinity. There is also the potential for other special-status birds that do not nest in this

region and represent migrants or winter visitants to forage on the Project site.

Year-round birds: Special-status birds that can be present in the region throughout the

year include: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis),

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Nuttalls

woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), song sparrow

(Modesto population) (Melospiza melodia), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor),

Williamson’s sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus), yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli),

among others. Some of these species are migratory, but also reside year-round in

California.

Summering Birds: Special-status birds that are only present in the region in the spring

and summer months include: Aleutian goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia), least

bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), western yellow-billed

cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), and yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli).

Overwintering Birds: Special-status birds that are only present in the region in the fall

and winter months include: fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa

flavipes), Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), long-billed curlew (Numenius

americanus), marbeled godwit (Limosa fedoa), merlin (Falco columbarius), mountain

plover (Charadrius montanus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), short-eared owl

(Asio flammeus), and western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis).

Nesting Raptors (Birds of Prey): All raptors (owls, hawks, eagles, falcons), including

species and their nests, are protected from take pursuant to the Fish and Game Code

of California Section 3503.5, and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, among other

federal and State regulations. Special-status raptors that are known to occur in the

region include: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), burrowing owl (Athene

cunicularia), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), ferruginous hawk (Buteo rega), golden

eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), prairie falcon (Falco

mexicanus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus),

Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), among

others.

Analysis: Powerlines and trees located in the region represent potentially suitable

nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the agricultural land

represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for the ground-nesting birds. In general,

most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late July and early

CEQA FINDINGS


August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB currently

contains nesting records for Swainson's hawk and burrowing owl in the vicinity of the

Project site. In addition to the species described above, common raptors such as

among others, may nest in or adjacent to the Project site.

New sources of noise and light during the construction and operational phases of the

Project could adversely affect nesters if they located adjacent to the Project site in any

given year. Additionally, the proposed Project would eliminate the agricultural areas

on the Project site, which serve as potential foraging habitat for birds throughout the

year. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires participation in the SJMSCP. As part of the

SJMSCP, SJCOG requires preconstruction surveys for projects that occur during the

avian breeding season (March 1 – August 31). When active nests are identified, the

biologists develop buffer zones around the active nests as deemed appropriate until

the young have fledged. SJCOG also uses the fees to purchase habitat as compensation

for the loss of foraging habitat. Implementation of the proposed Project, with

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, would ensure that potential impacts to special status birds

are reduced to a less than significant level.





this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have a direct or indirect

effect on special-status bird species will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.4-10: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH LOCAL

POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS A TREE

PRESERVATION POLICY OR ORDINANCE.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with any local policies or

ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or

ordinance is discussed on pages 3.4-24 through 3.4-26 of the Draft EIR.



3.4-2.

(c) Findings. The Resource Conservation Element of the General Plan establishes

numerous policies and implementation measures related to biological resources as

listed below:

Conservation Element Policies

RC-P-31. Minimize impact of new development on native vegetation and wildlife.

CEQA FINDINGS


Consistent: This EIR includes an in depth analysis of impacts for sensitive plants and

wildlife, as well as habitat. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measures are

presented to minimize, avoid, or compensate to the extent practicable.

RC-P-33. Discourage the premature removal of orchard trees in advance of

development, and discourage the removal of other existing healthy mature trees, both

native and introduced.

Consistent: The proposed Project will require the removal of orchard trees in order to

develop the Project site. Neither the City, nor the applicants have any intention on

removing these orchard trees in advance of development. Additionally, the Project site

contains numerous ornamental landscaping and shade trees in association with the

existing residences, farm structures, and roadways. The proposed Project is a Master

Plan and detailed tentative maps and site plans are not yet available. It may be

possible for specific trees to be incorporated into the final design of the development

once the more detailed engineering effort begins. Neither the City, nor the applicants

have any intention on removing these trees in advance of development. Nevertheless,

the City would review Project improvement plans, grading plans, and building plans

and apply the Manteca Municipal Code (17.19.060) as applicable once these Project

details are known.

RC-P-34. Protect special status species and other species that are sensitive to human

activities.

Consistent: This EIR includes an in depth analysis of impacts for sensitive plants

and wildlife, as well as habitat. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measures

are presented to minimize, avoid, or compensate to the extent practicable.

RC-P-35. Allow contiguous habitat areas.

Consistent: Habitat areas in the vicinity of the Project site include largely

agricultural plant communities which provide habitat for a variety of biological

resources in the region. Agricultural areas occur throughout the region and are

generally flat and well drained, and as a result are well suited for many crops.

Alfalfa fields, hay, row crops, orchards, dominate the agricultural areas in the

vicinity. The proposed Project does not require contiguous habitat areas to change

or convert to another use.

RC-P-36. Consider the development of new drainage channels planted with native

vegetation, which would provide habitat as well as drainage.

Consistent: The Project does not include new drainage channels.

CEQA FINDINGS


Municipal Code

The Manteca Municipal Code calls for the avoidance of heritage trees as defined under

section 17.61.030. Heritage trees are any natural woody plant rooted in the ground

and having a diameter of 30 inches or more when measured two feet above the

ground. There are no heritage trees on the Project site.

Section 17.19.060 calls for the protection of all existing trees having a diameter of six

inches or more when measured 4½ feet above the ground. The City planning

department must be notified of planned construction or grade changes within the

proximity of existing mature trees. Existing trees must be protected from construction

equipment, machinery, grade changes, and excavation for utilities, paving, and

footers. Replacement of existing trees is subject to approval from the planning director

and must be with a minimum 24-inch box tree of compatible species for the

development site and be consistent with Section 17.19.030.

Section 12.08.070 of the municipal code prohibits cutting, pruning, removing, injuring,

or interference with any tree, shrub, or plant upon or in any street tree area or other

public place in the City without prior approval from the superintendent. The City is

authorized to grant such permission at their discretion and where necessary. Except

for utility companies, as provided in Section 12.08.080, no such permission shall be

valid for a longer period than 30 days after its issuance.

The Project site contains numerous ornamental landscaping and shade trees in

association with the existing residences, farm structures, and roadways. The proposed

Project is a Master Plan and detailed tentative maps and site plans are not yet

available. It may be possible for specific trees to be incorporated into the final design

of the development once the more detailed engineering effort begins. Nevertheless,

any trees that cannot remain in the final design must be replaced in accordance with

the Manteca Municipal Code (17.19.060) if deemed applicable at the time of removal.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 would require compliance with the Manteca Municipal Code

for removal and replacement of trees. With the implementation of this mitigation

measure, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to

this topic.


appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into,

the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as


this City Council finds that the potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance will be


CEQA FINDINGS


E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.5-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL

ADVERSE CHANGE TO A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN CEQA

GUIDELINES §15064.5, OR A SIGNIFICANT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21074.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on significant

historical resources or significant tribal cultural resources is discussed on pages 3.5-9

and 3.5-10 of the Draft EIR.



3.5-1.

(c) Findings. The Project site is located in an area known to have historical resources. The

field surveys revealed three building complexes that are more than 50 years in age.

These were recorded, but were not deemed to be significant. However, as with most

projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential

for discovery of a previously unknown historical resource or tribal cultural resource.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 requires specific standards in the event of the discovery of a

previously unknown resource and would ensure that this potential impact is less than

significant.





this City Council finds that the potential to cause an adverse impact on historical

resources or tribal cultural resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.5-2: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL

ADVERSE CHANGE TO A SIGNIFICANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN CEQA

GUIDELINES §15064.5


archaeological resources is discussed on page 3.5-10 of the Draft EIR.



3.5-1.

(c) Findings. The Project site is located in an area known to have cultural resources.

Although three building complexes are more than 50 years in age have been recorded

along S. Main Street / Manteca Road, the field surveys did not reveal a significant

archeological resource or site on the Project site. However, as with most projects in

CEQA FINDINGS


the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery

of a previously unknown cultural resource or human remains. Implementation of the

previously described Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 requires specific standards in the event

of the discovery of a previously unknown resource and would ensure that this

potential impact is less than significant.





this City Council finds that the potential to cause an adverse impact on archaeological

resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.5-3: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY

DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE.


paleontological resources is discussed on page 3.5-9 of the Draft EIR.


implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation measure

3.5-2.

(c) Findings. The field surveys by did not reveal any surface evidence of paleontological

resources on the Project site. The Project site is not expected to contain subsurface

paleontological resources, although it is possible.

Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a

potentially significant impact under local, state, or federal criteria. Implementation of

the Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to

paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction.

This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.





this City Council finds that the potential to cause an adverse impact on paleontological

resources will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

4. IMPACT 3.5-4: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB HUMAN

REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have an impact on human remains is

discussed on page 3.5-11 of the Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS




3.5-3.

(c) Findings. Indications are that humans have occupied San Joaquin County for over

10,000 years and it is not always possible to predict where human remains may occur

outside of formal burials. Therefore, excavation and construction activities, regardless

of depth, may yield human remains that may not be interred in marked, formal

burials.

Under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological

materials as being “any evidence of human activity.” Additionally, Public Resources

Code Section 5097 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow in the

event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during Project

implementation.

While no human remains were found during field surveys, implementation of the

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 would ensure that all construction activities that

inadvertently discover human remains implement state required consultation

methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered

human remains. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than

significant level.





this City Council finds that the potential to cause an adverse impact on human remains

will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. IMPACT 3.6-2: IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY

RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or

the loss of topsoil is discussed on pages 3.6-13 through 3.4-15 of the Draft EIR.



3.6-1.

(c) Findings. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, polluted

stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of

surveyed U.S. water bodies which do not meet water quality standards. Over land or

via storm sewer systems, polluted runoff is discharged, often untreated, directly into

CEQA FINDINGS


local water bodies. Soil erosion and the loss of topsoil is one of the most common

sources of polluted stormwater runoff during construction activities. When left

uncontrolled, storm water runoff can erode soil and cause sedimentation in

waterways, which collectively result in the destruction of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life

habitats; a loss in aesthetic value; and threats to public health due to contaminated

food, drinking water supplies, and recreational waterways.

Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Stormwater Program is

a comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural

sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's

waters. The program uses the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to

prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater

runoff into local water bodies. The construction activities for the proposed Project

would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-

DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), which states:

“…Particular attention must be paid to large, mass graded sites where the

potential for soil exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great and

where there is potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface

waters. Until permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost-

effective and expeditious method to protect soil particles from detachment and

transport by rainfall. Temporary soil stabilization can be the single most important

factor in reducing erosion at construction sites. The discharger is required to

consider measures such as: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary

seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and

permanent seeding. These erosion control measures are only examples of what

should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches

currently available or being developed. Erosion control BMPs should be the primary

means of preventing storm water contamination, and sediment control techniques

should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded…”

General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ)

further states that:

“Sediment control BMPs should be the secondary means of preventing storm water

contamination. When erosion control techniques are ineffective, sediment control

techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded. The discharger

is required to consider perimeter control measures such as: installing silt fences or

placing straw wattles below slopes. These sediment control measures are only

examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative

approaches currently available or being developed…Inappropriate management of

run-on and runoff can result in excessive physical impacts to receiving waters from

sediment and increased flows. The discharger is required to manage all run-on and

runoff from a project site. Examples include: installing berms and other temporary

CEQA FINDINGS


run-on and runoff diversions…All measures must be periodically inspected,

maintained and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected.

Frequent inspections coupled with thorough documentation and timely repair is

necessary to ensure that all measures are functioning as intended…”

To ensure that construction activities are covered under General Permit 2009-0009-

DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), projects in California must

prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality

standards. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt

fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams,

geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The

BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board as

part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and

implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request

to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency.

The Custom Soils Report identified the erosion potential for the soils in the Project

site. This report summarizes those soil attributes used by the Revised Universal Soil

Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE2) for the map units in the selected area. Soil property

data for each map unit component includes the hydrologic soil group, erosion factors

Kf for the surface horizon, erosion factor T, and the representative percentage of sand,

silt, and clay in the surface horizon.

Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water.

Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value,

the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Within the Project

site, the erosion factor Kf varies from 0.02 to 0.28, which is considered a low to

moderate potential for erosion. Furthermore, because the Project site is essentially

flat, the erosion potential is considered slight. Regardless of the potential for erosion,

there is always the potential for human caused erosion associated with construction

activities or through the operational phase of a project. Grading, excavation, removal

of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities

temporarily expose soils and increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation

during rail events. Construction activities can also result in soil compaction and wind

erosion effects that can adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at

construction sites and staging areas.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1

requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the

extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling

erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated

that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered

and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being

CEQA FINDINGS


developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB

and are existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of the proposed Project

would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.





this City Council finds that the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss

of topsoil will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.6-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE LOCATED ON A GEOLOGIC

UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE, OR THAT WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE AS A RESULT OF

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING,

SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION OR COLLAPSE.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,

or that would become unstable as a result of Project implementation, and potentially

result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is discussed

on pages 3.6-15 through 3.6-17 of the Draft EIR.



3.6-2.

(c) Findings. Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as

imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose,

saturated, and uniformly graded, fine-grained sands. Soil data from the NRCS Web Soil

Survey (NRCS 2015) suggests that the potential for liquefaction is moderate given that

the soils are high in sand and the water table is moderately high.

The City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR has indicated that “Given that there is a

relatively high water table, liquefaction could be a significant impact within the Study

Area.” The General Plan Draft EIR indicates that with the implementation of goals,

policies, and implementation measures from the 2023 General Plan Safety Element

the potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Lateral Spreading

Lateral spreading typically results when ground shaking moves soil toward an area

where the soil integrity is weak or unsupported, and it typically occurs on the surface

of a slope, although it does not occur strictly on steep slopes. Oftentimes, lateral

spreading is also directly associated with areas of liquefaction. Since the potential for

liquefaction is moderate to high, the potential for lateral spreading is present. The

General Plan Draft EIR indicates that with the implementation of goals, policies, and

CEQA FINDINGS


implementation measures from the 2023 General Plan Safety Element the potentially

significant impact would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Landslides

Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such

as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others directly affect the

potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction

activity that is associated with road building (i.e. cut and fill). The Project site is

essentially flat; therefore, the potential for a landslide in the Project site is non-

existent.

Collapsible Soils

Collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of cementation,

resulting in substantial and rapid settlement under relatively low loads. Collapsible

soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges, where Holocene-age

alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run-off events.

Differential settlement of structures typically occurs when heavily irrigated landscape

areas are near a building foundation. Examples of common problems associated with

collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or separation in structures, sagging

floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Collapsible soils have not been

identified in the Manteca General Plan as an issue in the Manteca area. However, in

areas subject to potential liquefaction, the potential for liquefaction induced

settlement is present. The General Plan Draft EIR indicates that with the

implementation of goals, policies, and implementation measures from the 2023

General Plan Safety Element the potentially significant impacts relating to liquefaction

would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Subsidence

Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal

motion due to changes taking place underground. It is a natural process, although it

can also occur (and is greatly accelerated) as a result of human activities. Common

causes of land subsidence from human activity include: pumping water, oil, and gas

from underground reservoirs; dissolution of limestone aquifers (sinkholes); collapse of

underground mines; drainage of organic soils; and initial wetting of dry soils.

Subsidence has not been identified in the Manteca General Plan.

Conclusion

The Project site does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result

landslide, subsidence, or soil collapse. There is a potential for liquefaction, liquefaction

induced settlement, and lateral spreading. However, through the implementation of

Mitigation Measure 3.6-2, which requires a final geotechnical evaluation of the soils,

the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

CEQA FINDINGS






this City Council finds that the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is

unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Project implementation, and

potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse

will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.6-4: POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS TO CREATE SUBSTANTIAL RISKS TO LIFE OR

PROPERTY.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for expansive soils to create substantial risks to life or

property is discussed on pages 3.6-17 and 3.6-18 of the Draft EIR.


implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: implementation of


(c) Findings. Expansive soils are those that undergo volume changes as moisture content

fluctuates; swelling substantially when wet or shrinking when dry. Soil expansion can

damage structures by cracking foundations, causing settlement and distorting

structural elements. Expansion is a typical characteristic of certain varieties of clay-

type soils. Expansive soils shrink and swell in volume during changes in moisture

content, such as a result of seasonal rain events, and can cause damage to

foundations, concrete slabs, roadway improvements, and pavement sections.

According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils in the Project site have a low shrink-

swell potential. The NRCS Web Soil Survey indicated that near surface soils within the

Project site have low plasticity, and the expansion potential of the soils would respond

to fluctuations in moisture content. Figure 3.6-2 provides a map of the shrink-swell

potential of the soils at the Project site and in the vicinity.

The California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 requires

specific geotechnical evaluation when a preliminary geotechnical evaluation

determines that expansive or other special soil conditions are present, which, if not

corrected, would lead to structural defects. The City of Manteca also requires a final

geotechnical evaluation to be performed at a design-level to ensure that the

foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can

accommodate the specific soils, including expansive soils, at those locations.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-2, presented above, provides the requirement for a final

geotechnical evaluation in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined

in the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter

18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation

standards. The final geotechnical evaluation would include design recommendations

CEQA FINDINGS


to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people

or structures. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage

outfall and building plans, are required to be designed in accordance with the

recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation. With the

implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 (requiring a final Geotechnical

Evaluation, and site recommendations) the proposed Project would have a less than

significant impact relative to this topic.





this City Council finds that the potential to result in impacts from expansive soils will

be mitigated to a less than significant level.

G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. IMPACT 3.8-1: POTENTIAL TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD THROUGH THE ROUTINE

TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR THROUGH THE REASONABLY

FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to create a significant hazard through

the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the

reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of

hazardous materials into the environment is discussed on pages 3.8-12 through 3.7-14

of the Draft EIR.


implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures

3.8-1, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, and 3.8-4.

(c) Findings. Construction activities would occur in phases through the development of

the proposed Project. Construction equipment and materials would likely require the

use of petroleum based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of chemicals

including paints, cleaners, and solvents. The use of these materials at a construction

site will pose a reasonable risk of release into the environment if not properly handled,

stored, and transported. A release into the environment could pose significant impacts

to the health and welfare of people and/or wildlife, and could result in contamination

of water (groundwater or surface water), habitat, and countless important resources.

Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural

practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and

herbicides as a standard practice. Although no contaminated soils have been identified

on the Project site or the vicinity above applicable levels, residual concentrations of

CEQA FINDINGS


pesticides may be present in soil as a result of historic agricultural application and

storage. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a

residual buildup of pesticides, in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to

agrichemicals are chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and

organochlorine pesticides, such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane,

dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene

(DDE). There are no records of soil contamination on the Project site. Mitigation

Measure 3.8-1 require a Soils Management Plan (SMP) to be submitted and approved

by the San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health prior to the issuance

of a grading permit. The SMP will establish management practices for handling

hazardous materials, including fuels, paints, cleaners, solvents, etc., during

construction. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will ensure that

these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

There are 18 single-family residences with associated sheds and garage structures, as

well as areas that are used for farm equipment storage. As noted previously, the farm

equipment storage area in the southeastern portion of the Project site currently

contains inoperable automobiles, tractors and other farm machinery, as well as above

ground storage tanks. The homes and adjoining structures, as well as the farm

equipment storage areas, will require removal prior to any construction. If the homes

and structures are demolished, they will require evaluation for asbestos and lead

containing materials. If such materials are present in the demolition of the structures,

special demolition and disposal practices are required in accordance with state

regulations to ensure their safe handling. Additionally, existing areas containing above

ground storage tanks and storage of farm equipment would require soil sampling to

assess the soils in these areas. Further, groundwater wells may be located within the

vicinity of the on-site residences. Should groundwater wells be present on-site, the

proper well abandonment permit would be obtained. Mitigation Measure 3.8-2

requires additional testing in areas that have been deemed to have potential

hazardous conditions present. Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 requires a well abandonment

permit from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Division prior to any

ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of a well.

Operational Phase Impacts

The operational phase of the Project will occur after construction is completed and

business operators/employees, and residents move in to occupy the structures and

facilities on a day-to-day basis.

The proposed Project includes commercial mixed use facilities and residential

structures. Each of these uses will likely use a variety of hazardous materials

commonly found in urban areas including: paints, cleaners, and cleaning solvents. If

handled appropriately, these materials do not pose a significant risk. These facilities

will store and use these materials. There will be a risk of release of these materials into

the environment if they are not stored and handled in accordance with best

CEQA FINDINGS


management practices approved by San Joaquin County Environmental Health Division

and the Manteca Fire Department. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.8-3

requires the applicant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to San

Joaquin County Environmental Health Division (CUPA) for review and approval, which

will ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative

to this issue.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.8-1, 3.8-2,

3.8-3, and 3.8-4 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or



before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to create a significant

hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or

through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the

release of hazardous materials into the environment will be mitigated to a less than

significant level.

H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.9-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to violate water quality standards or

waste discharge requirements during construction is discussed on pages 3.9-18

through 3.9-20 of the Draft EIR.




(c) Findings. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, polluted

stormwater runoff is a leading cause of impairment to the nearly 40 percent of

surveyed U.S. water bodies which do not meet water quality standards. Over land or

via storm sewer systems, polluted runoff is discharged, often untreated, directly into

local water bodies. Soil erosion is one of the most common sources of polluted

stormwater runoff during construction activities. When left uncontrolled, storm water

runoff can erode soil and cause sedimentation in waterways, which collectively result

in the destruction of fish, wildlife, and aquatic life habitats; a loss in aesthetic value;

and threats to public health due to contaminated food, drinking water supplies, and

recreational waterways.

Mandated by Congress under the Clean Water Act, the NPDES Stormwater Program is

a comprehensive two-phased national program for addressing the non-agricultural

sources of stormwater discharges which adversely affect the quality of our nation's

waters. The program uses the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

CEQA FINDINGS


(NPDES) permitting mechanism to require the implementation of controls designed to

prevent harmful pollutants, including soil erosion, from being washed by stormwater

runoff into local water bodies. The construction activities for the proposed project

would be governed by the General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-

DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ), which states:

“…Particular attention must be paid to large, mass graded sites where the

potential for soil exposure to the erosive effects of rainfall and wind is great and

where there is potential for significant sediment discharge from the site to surface

waters. Until permanent vegetation is established, soil cover is the most cost-

effective and expeditious method to protect soil particles from detachment and

transport by rainfall. Temporary soil stabilization can be the single most important

factor in reducing erosion at construction sites. The discharger is required to

consider measures such as: covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary

seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and

permanent seeding. These erosion control measures are only examples of what

should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches

currently available or being developed. Erosion control BMPs should be the primary

means of preventing storm water contamination, and sediment control techniques

should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded…”

General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ)

further states that:

“Sediment control BMPs should be the secondary means of preventing storm water

contamination. When erosion control techniques are ineffective, sediment control

techniques should be used to capture any soil that becomes eroded. The discharger

is required to consider perimeter control measures such as: installing silt fences or

placing straw wattles below slopes. These sediment control measures are only

examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative

approaches currently available or being developed…Inappropriate management of

run-on and runoff can result in excessive physical impacts to receiving waters from

sediment and increased flows. The discharger is required to manage all run-on and

runoff from a project site. Examples include: installing berms and other temporary

run-on and runoff diversions…All measures must be periodically inspected,

maintained and repaired to ensure that receiving water quality is protected.

Frequent inspections coupled with thorough documentation and timely repair is

necessary to ensure that all measures are functioning as intended…”

Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated

with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and

sedimentation. Construction activities also could result in soil compaction and wind

erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential

at construction sites and staging areas. To ensure that construction activities are

covered under General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ &

CEQA FINDINGS


2012-0006-DWQ), projects in California must prepare a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce

erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include:

temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles,

silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary

revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the

Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP,

once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and

must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the

lead agency.


contained in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, ensures compliance with existing

regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss

of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective

in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The

RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what

should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently

available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and

approval by the RWQCB and are an existing regulatory requirement. Implementation

of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.





this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to violate water quality

standards or waste discharge requirements during construction will be mitigated to a

less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.9-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS DURING OPERATION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to violate water quality standards or

waste discharge requirements during operation is discussed on pages 3.9-20 through




Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2.

(c) Findings. The long-term operations of the proposed Project (all phases) could result in

long-term impacts to surface water quality from urban stormwater runoff. The

proposed Project would result in new impervious areas associated with roadways,

driveways, parking lots, buildings, and landscape areas. Normal activities in these

CEQA FINDINGS


developed areas include the use of various automotive petroleum products (i.e. oil,

grease, and fuel), common household hazardous materials, heavy metals, pesticides,

herbicides, fertilizers, and sediment. Within urban areas, these pollutants are generally

called nonpoint source pollutants. The pollutants pollutant levels vary based on factors

such as time between storm events, volume of storm event, type of uses, and density

of people.

The drainage collection system within the City of Manteca consists of gravity pipes,

retention/detention/surge basins, pump station, force mains, outfalls, and irrigation

canals/ditches. The collection system for the proposed Project will be designed to

contain the 10-year storm event within the pipe system and basins while maintaining

one foot of freeboard. The streets will be designed in combination with the pipe

system to convey the 100-year storm event to the basins and pump station in

accordance with City standards. Early phases of development may to rely on

temporary basins in order to delay the construction of the overall storm drainage

system. The final design of all onsite and offsite storm drain infrastructure

improvements is subject to the review and approval of the City of Manteca.

The ongoing operational phase of the proposed Project requires the final discharge of

stormwater into the on-site detention basins. The discharge of stormwater must be

treated through BMPs prior to its discharge. The City of Manteca implements best

management practices to the extent they are technologically achievable to prevent

and reduce pollutants. Under the City’s standard practices, the owner or operator of a

commercial establishment shall provide reasonable protection from accidental

discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal storm drain

system or watercourses. Facilities to prevent accidental discharge of prohibited

materials or other wastes shall be provided and maintained at the owner or operator’s

expense.

Additionally, there are various non-structural and structural stormwater BMPs that can

be implemented to reduce water pollution. Non-structural BMPs are typically aimed at

prevention of pollution through public education and outreach. Non-structural BMPs

include: school educational programs, newsletters, website information, commercial,

billboards/advertisements, river cleanups, and storm drain stenciling. Structural BMPS

are aimed at the physical collection, filtering, and detaining of stormwater. Structural

BMPs include items such as drop inlet filters, vault filters, hydrodynamic separators,

surface detention basins, and underground detention facilities.

Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 would ensure that BMPs are implemented to

reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project site into

the Delta during the operational phase of the Project. The management of water

quality through obtaining a General Industrial Stormwater Permit and implementing

BMPs is intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would

violate water quality standards. These are existing regulatory requirements.

CEQA FINDINGS


In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and

3.9-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or




violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation will

be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.9.5 THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY

DEGRADE WATER QUALITY.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to otherwise substantially degrade

water quality is discussed on pages 3.9-26 and 3.9-27 of the Draft EIR.



Measure 3.6-1, 3.9-1, 3.9-2.

(c) Findings. Water Quality Impacts from Discharges to 303(d) Listed Water Bodies:

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to identify waters

that do not meet water quality standards or objectives and thus, are considered

"impaired." Once listed, Section 303(d) mandates prioritization and development of a

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The TMDL is a tool that establishes the allowable

loadings or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody and thereby the basis for

the States to establish water quality-based controls. The purpose of TMDLs is to

ensure that beneficial uses are restored and that water quality objectives are

achieved.

According to the California Water Quality Control Monitoring Council, which is part of

California Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources, there are many areas

within the San Joaquin County which are considered Section 303(d) impaired

waterbodies. Those areas in the regional vicinity of the Project site that are impaired

are referred as Delta Waterways (Southern Portion) by the Water Quality Control

Monitoring Council. This includes 3,125 acres listed as early as 1996 for Chlorpyrifos

(Agriculture, Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers), DDT (Agriculture), Diazinon (Agriculture,

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers), Electrical Conductivity (Agriculture), Group A Pesticides

(Agriculture), Invasive Species (Source Unknown), Mercury (Resource Extraction), and

Unknown Toxicity (Source Unknown).

The San Joaquin River is specifically listed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality

Control Board (CVRWQCB) as an impaired water body due to mercury under the Clean

Water Act. Mercury is a sediment-based pollutant that can be released into the water

column during various in-water construction activities (e.g., construction of the storm

drain outfall) that may disturb the sediment and cause turbidity. As a result, such

CEQA FINDINGS


activities may increase the likelihood of mercury exposure to the public and wildlife

that utilize the San Joaquin River.


contained in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, requires an approved SWPPP designed to

control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the

RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during

construction activities. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures

such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check

dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover.

The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board

as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and

implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request

to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency. The RWQCB has stated that

these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and

should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being

developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the

RWQCB.

The ongoing operational phase of the proposed Project (all phases) requires discharge

of stormwater into the on-site detention basins, which would ultimately flow into

SSJID system and exit into the Delta. The discharge of stormwater must be treated

through BMPs prior to its discharge. Mitigation Measures contained in Section 3.4

Biological Resources would ensure that BMPs are implemented to reduce the amount

of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project site into the on-site detention

basins, which would ultimately flow into the Delta during the operational phase of the

Project. There are various non-structural and structural stormwater BMPs that can be

implemented to reduce water pollution. Non-structural BMPs are typically aimed at

prevention of pollution through public education and outreach. Non-structural BMPs

include: school educational programs, newsletters, website information, commercial,

billboards/advertisements, river cleanups, and storm drain stenciling. Structural BMPS

are aimed at the physical collection, filtering, and detaining of stormwater. Structural

BMPs include items such as drop inlet filters, vault filters, hydrodynamic separators,

surface detention basins, and underground detention facilities. The management of

water quality through obtaining a General Industrial Stormwater Permit and

implementing BMPs is intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to

levels that would violate water quality standards.

The use of BMPs are intended to treat runoff close to the source during the

construction and long term operational phase of the Project (all phases) to reduce

stormwater quality impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.6-1, 3.9-1, and 3.9-2 listed are

existing regulatory requirements that through implementation the proposed Project

would have a less-than-significant impact relative to this topic.

CEQA FINDINGS


In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.6-1, 3.9-1,

and 3.9-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or




otherwise substantially degrade water quality will be mitigated to a less than

significant level.

I. NOISE

1. IMPACT 3.11-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE NOISE LEVELS

ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to increase noise levels associated with

construction activities is discussed on pages 3.11-14 and 3.12-15 of the Draft EIR.



Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2.

(c) Findings. During the construction of the Project including roads, water, and sewer lines

and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise

environment in the Project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate

maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction

activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal

daytime working hours.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic

on area roadways. A significant Project-generated noise source would be truck traffic

associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction

sites. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would likely occur primarily

during daytime hours.

Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are exempt from noise

regulation during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. as outlined in the City’s Municipal

Code:

17.58.050 D Exempt Activities

8. Construction activities when conducted as part of an approved Building

Permit, except as prohibited in Subsection 17.58.050(E)(1) (Prohibited

Activities) below.

17.58.050 E. Prohibited Activities

1. Construction Noise. Operating or causing the operation of tools or

equipment on private property used in alteration, construction,

CEQA FINDINGS


demolition, drilling, or repair work daily between the hours of 7:00 p.m.

and 7:00 a.m., so that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a

residential property line, except for emergency work of public service

utilities.

Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 requires Project construction activities to

adhere to the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code with respect to

hours of operation. And requires all equipment to be fitted with factory equipped

mufflers, and in good working order. Which reduces impacts related to construction

noise to a less than significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and

3.11-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that has been required in, or




increase noise levels associated with construction activities will be mitigated to a less


2. IMPACT 3.11-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EXPOSE NEW SENSITIVE

RECEPTORS TO EXCESSIVE TRANSPORTATION NOISE.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose people to expose new

sensitive receptors to excessive transportation noise is discussed on pages 3.11-16

through 3.11-18 of the Draft EIR.



Measures 3.11-3, 3.11-4, and 3.11-5.

(c) Findings. The FHWA traffic noise prediction model was used to predict Cumulative +

Project traffic noise levels at the proposed residential land uses associated with the

Project. Table 3.11-10 of the Draft EIR shows the predicted traffic noise levels at the

proposed residential uses adjacent to the major Project-area arterial roadways. Table

3.11-10 also indicates the property line noise barrier heights required to achieve

compliance with an exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn.

Appendix C of the Noise Study provides the complete inputs and results to the FHWA

traffic noise prediction model and barrier calculations. The modeled noise barriers

assume flat site conditions where roadway elevations, base of wall elevations, and

building pad elevations are approximately equivalent.

To describe future noise levels due to traffic, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction

Model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used. Direct inputs to the model included traffic

volumes provided by Fehr & Peers. The FHWA model is based upon the Calveno

reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with

CEQA FINDINGS


consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the

receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA model was

developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict

Ldn/CNEL values, it is necessary to determine the day/night distribution of traffic and

adjust the traffic volume input data to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume.

Table 3.11-10 of the Draft EIR indicate that noise barriers 6- to 8-feet in height would

be sufficient to achieve compliance with the City of Manteca 60 dB Ldn exterior noise

level standard for the proposed residential uses. This conclusion assumes the setback

distances shown in Table 3.11-10.

Interior Noise Impacts

Modern construction typically provides a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level

reduction with windows closed. Therefore, sensitive receptors exposed to exterior

noise of 70 dB Ldn, or less, will typically comply with the City of Manteca 45 dB Ldn

interior noise level standard. Additional noise reduction measures, such as

acoustically-rated windows, are generally required for exterior noise levels exceeding

70 dB Ldn.

It should be noted that exterior noise levels are typically 2 to 3 dB higher at second

floor locations. Additionally, noise barriers do not reduce exterior noise levels at

second floor locations. The proposed residential uses are predicted to be exposed to

unmitigated first floor exterior transportation noise levels ranging between 59 to 69

dB Ldn. Therefore, second floor facades are predicted to be exposed to exterior noise

levels of up to 62 to 72 dB Ldn.

Based upon a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction, interior noise levels are

predicted to range between 34 to 47 dB Ldn. Predicted interior noise levels would

exceed the City’s 45 dB Ldn interior noise level standard at the first row of residential

uses located along Main Street / Manteca Road. Therefore, additional interior noise

control measures would be required for these residential uses. In order to reduce

interior noise levels to 45 dB Ldn, or less, second floor facades shall include windows

having a Sound Transmission Class (STC) 32, or higher, rating. This would specifically

apply to the first row of homes adjacent to Main Street / Manteca Road and does not

apply to facades facing away from the roadway.

With implementation of the interior and exterior measures contained in Mitigation

Measures 3.11-3, 3.11-4, and 3.11-5, the proposed Project would have a less than

significant impact relative to this environmental topic

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.11-3, 3.11-

4, and 3.11-5 are appropriate changes or alterations that has been required in, or



CEQA FINDINGS



expose new sensitive receptors to excessive transportation noise will be mitigated to a


J. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

1. IMPACT 3.13-8: UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY ADVERSELY

AFFECT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for proposed Project to adversely affect pedestrian and

bicycle facilities is discussed on pages 3.13-28 and 3.13-29 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-8.

(c) Findings. Figure ES-1, Existing and Proposed Bicycle Route System, of the City of

Manteca Bicycle Master Plan (2003) indicates that future Class II bike lanes are

proposed along Main Street north of Tannehill Drive and along the proposed Project’s

Driveway 3 from Manteca Road to Tinnin Road.

One of the proposed Project’s objectives is to “tie into and expand the City’s bikeway

and pedestrian paths to offer additional bicycling and walking facilities for all of

Manteca’s residents.” In order to serve all travel modes, the Project proposes to

construct a multi-use Class II bike / pedestrian path on one side of Anton Raymus

Expressway and a standard pedestrian sidewalk on the other. Additionally, the Project

includes a north / south multi-use Class II bike / pedestrian path along with the

construction of the southbound lane on Main Street and Manteca Road, as well as

sidewalks along Tinnin Road and other residential collectors.

Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan by

providing the following:

A multi-use Class II bike / pedestrian path is to be constructed along the Project

frontage (west side of Main Street from Woodward Avenue to Tannehill Road);

and

An 8-foot Class II bike lane is to be constructed at Project Driveway 3 / Tannehill

Drive, east of Main Street.

However, the proposed Project is not consistent with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan by

not providing the following:

An 8-foot Class II bike lane is to be constructed on both sides of the street from

Project Driveway 3 / Tannehill Drive / Main Street to the western boundary of the

Project site (and eventually connecting to Tinnin Road).

CEQA FINDINGS


Although the proposed bike lanes will add continuity to the proposed bicycle network

in the City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan, the proposed Project is not consistent with

the bike facilities in the City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan. Mitigation Measure 3.13-

8 requires the Project applicant to provide bike and pedestrian paths consistent with

the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Consequently, this impact would be reduced to a less






this City Council finds that the potential for proposed Project to adversely affect

pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.13-9: UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY ADVERSELY

AFFECT TRANSIT SERVICES OR FACILITIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the proposed Project to adversely affect transit

services or facilities is discussed on pages 3.13-29 and 3.13-30 of the Draft EIR.



3.13-9.

(c) Findings. The Project includes up to 1,592 residential dwelling units, 5.0 acres of

commercial mixed-use area, and 26.46 acres of parks and open space. The Project is

located near Manteca Transit Routes 2 and 3, both of which have a stop on Atherton

Drive approximately 0.5 miles away from the northwest corner of the Project site. The

Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing or planned public transit services

or facilities. However, if the Project creates an inconsistency with policies concerning

transit systems set forth in a General Plan or another adopted policy document, a

potentially significant impact would result. The Manteca Transit Short Range Transit

Plan (2014) does not contain policies concerning transit systems; however, the Plan

contains proposed system routing changes for Routes 2 and 3, which both currently

serve the Project site. The proposed changes would not disrupt service to the Project.

Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-9 would ensure that the

Project applicant(s) work with Manteca Transit to ensure that future service to the

Project is available.

The SJCOG RTP/SCS contains policies and supportive strategies related to transit

services or facilities. Specifically, Strategy #6 aims to “facilitate transit-oriented

development to maximize existing transit investments.” While the proposed Project is

not a transit-oriented development, the proposed Project includes a mixture of uses

located near SR 120 in the City’s southern future growth area. Mitigation Measure

3.13-9 requires the Project applicant to work with Manteca Transit in order to provide

CEQA FINDINGS


service to the Project and ensure that existing and future transit investments in the

southern portion of the City are consistent with future growth in the area. Therefore,

this impact is considered less than significant.





this City Council finds that the potential for the proposed Project to adversely affect

transit services or facilities will be mitigated to a less than significant level.


EXACERBATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE MAIN STREET / ATHERTON DRIVE INTERSECTION.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for proposed Project to exacerbate levels of service at

the Main Street / Atherton Drive intersection under cumulative conditions is discussed

on pages 3.13-38 and 3.13-39 of the Draft EIR.




(c) Findings. The Main Street / Atherton Drive intersection would operate at LOS F during

both peak hours under Cumulative No Project conditions. The addition of Project

traffic would exacerbate unacceptable operations at this City of Manteca intersection

and would increase average control delay at this intersection by more than three

seconds.

This study intersection is under City of Manteca jurisdiction and the following

improvements, identified in their PFIP, would mitigate the impact to less than

significant under Cumulative Plus Project conditions:

Restripe the southbound approach as one left-turn, one thru lane, and one shared

right-turn / thru lane;

Widen the northbound approach and restripe as one left-turn, one thru lane, and

one shared right-turn / thru lane;

Widen the south leg to have two receiving lanes; and

Retime signal and optimize splits.

Through these improvements, the Atherton Drive / Main Street intersection would

operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour.

Calculations for this analysis are in Appendix E.8. The City of Manteca would be

responsible for the aforementioned intersection improvements, which are included in

the PFIP. The Project applicant would be required to pay their fair share fee towards

the intersection improvements, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.

CEQA FINDINGS






this City Council finds that the potential for proposed Project under cumulative

conditions to exacerbate levels of service at the Main Street / Atherton Drive

intersection will be mitigated to a less than significant level.


ADVERSELY AFFECT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES.

(d) Potential Impact. The potential for proposed Project to adversely affect pedestrian and

bicycle facilities under cumulative conditions is discussed on pages 3.13-50 and 3.13-

51 of the Draft EIR.

(e) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be



(f) Findings. The proposed Project includes construction of a multi-use Class II bicycle /

pedestrian path on one side of Anton Raymus Expressway and a standard pedestrian

sidewalk on the other. Additionally, the Project includes construction of a north /

south multi-use Class II bicycle / pedestrian path along with the construction of the

southbound lane on Main Street and Manteca Road, as well as sidewalks along Tinnin

Road and other residential collectors.

The City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan (2003) indicates that future Class II bike lanes

are proposed along Main Street north of Tannehill Drive and along the proposed

Project’s Driveway 3. The Project indicates that 8-foot bike lanes are to be constructed

at entry streets off Main Street. Consequently, this impact would be reduced to a less






this City Council finds that the potential for proposed Project under cumulative

conditions to adversely affect pedestrian and bicycle facilities will be mitigated to a


5. IMPACT 3.13-23: UNDER CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT

ADVERSELY AFFECT TRANSIT SERVICES OR FACILITIES.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the proposed Project to adversely affect transit

services or facilities under cumulative conditions is discussed on page 33.13-51 of the

Draft EIR.

CEQA FINDINGS





(c) Findings. The Project includes up to 1,592 residential dwelling units, 5.0 acres of

commercial mixed-use area, and 26.46 acres of parks and open space. As noted

previously, the Project is located near Manteca Transit Routes 2 and 3, both of which

have a stop on Atherton Drive approximately 0.5 miles away from the northwest

corner of the Project site.

The Project would not disrupt or interfere with existing or planned public transit

services or facilities. However, if the Project creates an inconsistency with policies

concerning transit systems set forth in a General Plan or another adopted policy

document, a potentially significant impact would result. Mitigation Measure 3.13-9

requires the Project applicant to work with Manteca Transit in order to provide service

to the Project. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.





this City Council finds that the potential for the proposed Project under cumulative

conditions to adversely affect transit services or facilities will be mitigated to a less


K. UTILITIES

1. IMPACT 3.14-6: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STORM WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING

FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require or result in the construction

of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities is discussed on

pages 3.14-51 through 3.14-53 of the Draft EIR.



3.14-1.

(a) Findings. Flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human

and animal life, exposure of waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure. In

addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure

and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater. The RD-17 levee system is

designed to a 100-year protection standard. The Project site is currently located in

CEQA FINDINGS


Zone X, protected by levee, which by definition indicates an area protected by levees

from the 1% annual chance flood. The Project site is not located within the 200-year

floodplain as delineated on the most recent 200-year flood plain maps for Manteca.

Onsite storm drainage would be installed to serve the proposed Project. As shown in

Figure 2.0-15, development of the proposed Project would include construction of a

new storm drainage system, including a drainage collection system, and detention

basins. All on-site storm drainage runoff will be collected through drain inlets in the

landscaped areas and catch basins along the streets and within properties, and

conveyed via surface swales and underground trunk lines to four detention and water

quality basins. The storm water drainage detention basins will be constructed to meet

the City of Manteca Standards. Discharge from the basins will be conveyed through

controlled flow pumping facilities to existing City of Manteca and SSJID dual use main

storm drain laterals.

The proposed public storm drainage and water quality system is planned to function

independently from surrounding developments. An internal layout of stormwater

collection pipes with various sizes, as necessary, will be installed within the Project

site. A system of drainage swales may be included to treat and convey collected

stormwater. Four on-site drainage sheds are included within the Project site. All on-

site storm drainage runoff will be collected through drain inlets in the landscaped

areas and catch basins along the streets and within properties, and conveyed via

surface swales and underground trunk lines to four detention and water quality

basins. The conveyance systems and detention basins may include facilities designed

to address water quality standards and requirements. Discharge from the basins will

be conveyed through controlled flow pumping facilities to existing City of Manteca and

SSJID dual use main storm drain laterals. The duration of the discharge will comply

with City of Manteca standards. The water quality detention basins will be designed to

comply with SWRCB and City of Manteca specifications and standards.

Because the Project site could increase runoff significantly, and create downstream

drainage problems; Project impacts to stormwater are considered potentially

significant. Mitigation Measure 3.14-1 requires the Project applicant to install a

drainage system that meets this performance standard and, prior to issuance of

grading permits, provide a drainage plan and report to the City of Manteca for review

and approval. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.14-1, drainage

impacts would be reduced to less than significant.





this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to require or result in the

construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,

CEQA FINDINGS


the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects will be


2. IMPACT 3.14-7: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL

WITH SUFFICIENT PERMITTED CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT’S SOLID WASTE

DISPOSAL NEEDS AND COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND

REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE.

(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be served by a landfill with sufficient

permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and

comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste is

discussed on pages 3.14-57 and 3.15-58 of the Draft EIR.



3.14-2.

(c) Findings. Permitted maximum disposal at the Forward Landfill is 8,668 tons per day.

The total permitted capacity of the landfill is 51.04 million cubic yards, which is

expected to accommodate an operational life until January 1, 2020. The remaining

capacity is 23,700,000 cubic yards. Solid waste generated by the proposed Project was

estimated based on CalRecycle generation rate estimates by use (discussed below).

The Commercial Mixed Use area is estimated to generate roughly five pounds per day

per 1,000 square feet. It is estimated that the 65,340 square feet of commercial space

would generate 327 pounds per day of solid waste. Note, this estimate of the square

footage for the commercial space is considered a worst-case scenario and may very

well prove to be an overestimate.

The Residential portion of the Project site is estimated to generate roughly 10 pounds

per day per household. It is estimated that the proposed 1,592 residential units would

generate 15,920 pounds per day of solid waste.

The total solid waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 8.12 tons

per day. As previously described, solid waste generated in the City is disposed at the

Forward Landfill. This landfill is projected to close in the year 2020. At that time the

City can utilize the Foothill Landfill as a location for solid waste disposal. The City’s

solid waste per capita generation has decreased since 2007 due to the waste diversion

efforts of the City. The permitted maximum disposal at the Forward Landfill is 8,668

tons per day. Currently, the average daily disposal is 620 tons per day. The total

permitted capacity of the landfill is 51.04 million cubic yards. The addition of solid

waste associated with the proposed Project, approximately 8.12 tons per day at total

buildout, to the Forward Landfill would not exceed the landfill’s remaining capacity.

The City will need to secure a new location of disposal of all solid waste generated in

the City when the Forward landfill is ultimately closed. There are several options that

CEQA FINDINGS


the City will have to consider for solid waste disposal at that time which is estimated

to be 2020. Because the Project would increase the local waste stream, and require

the city to invest in additional resources for the collection and disposal of solid waste;

local impacts to solid waste are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure

3.14-2 requires the payment of a solid waste connection fee prior to issuance of

grading permits. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 314-2, solid waste

impacts would be reduced to less than significant.





this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to result in impacts to solid

waste including, solid waste disposal needs and compliance with federal, State, and

local statutes and regulations related to solid waste will be mitigated to a less than

significant level.

V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS

WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN

CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE

Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less

than significant as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1-2.

Agricultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant:

3.2-2.

Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.3-3,

3.3-4, and 3.3-5

Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:

3.4-2, 3.4-4, 3.4-5, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, and 3.4-9.

Geology and Soils: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.6-

1.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: The following specific impact was found to be

less than significant: 3.7-3.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less

than significant: 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5, 3.8-6, and 3.8-7.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

significant: 3.9-3, 3.9-4, 3.9-5, 3.9-6, and 3.9-7.

CEQA FINDINGS


Land Use and Population: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

significant: 3.10-1, 3.10-2, 3.10-3, 3.10-4, and 3.10-5.

Noise: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.11-1 and

3.11-3.

Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

significant: 3.12-1, 3.12-2, 3.12-3, 3.12-4, 3.12-5, and 3.12-6.

Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.14-1, 3.14-

2, 3.14-3, 3.14-4, and 3.14-5.

The Project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific

impacts within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the

Draft EIR.

Aesthetics: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively

considerable: Impact 4.1 and 4.3

Biological Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively

considerable: 4.6.

Cultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively

considerable: 4.7.

Geology and Soils: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively

considerable: 4.8.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impact was found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: 4.10.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impact was found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14.

Land Use and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: 4.15 and 4.16.

Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.17.

Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impact was found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: 4.18.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than

cumulatively considerable: 4.20, 4.31, and 4.32.

Utilities: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively

considerable: 4.33, 4.34, 4.35, and 4.36.

CEQA FINDINGS


The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the

following reasons:

The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project.

The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable

contribution to the cumulative impact.

The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.

VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

A. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES

An EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of

potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the

basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant

effects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account

when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of

infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional

boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and

whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the

alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines Section

15126.6(f)(1).)

The quantifiable objectives of the proposed Project include annexation of 333.94 acres of land into

the Manteca city limits (with 10 acres of the Project site remaining undeveloped in the

unincorporated County), and the subsequent development of land, which will include: Commercial

Mixed-Use, Low Density Residential, and Open Space Parkland.

The Griffin Park Master Plan Project identifies the following objectives:

Complete neighborhoods, rather than monolithic subdivisions. Neighborhood designs

should foster a mixture of compatibly scaled housing types on urban lots.

Provision for public transit and other alternatives to the private automobile (i.e. bicycling

and walking) will be encouraged to create an active, thriving lifestyle.

Street patterns will be carefully configured to allow for multiple outlets from

neighborhoods, and to provide for connections between neighborhoods, without

encouraging through traffic to create convenience and access without a private

automobile.

A network of planned walkways, bikeways and greenways will be implemented as an

integral part of development. This will make getting outside convenient, easy and

enjoyable.

Provide for street, driveway and sidewalk design to minimize impervious improvements.

Regularly spaced street trees selected and planted in accordance with the City of Manteca

street tree master plan.

CEQA FINDINGS


Each neighborhood will have adequate open space areas designed into the development,

if possible. These spaces will serve as meeting spaces and may have fitness equipment or

recreational activities.

Residential architecture will respect the value of the street upon which it faces, and

contribute to the sense of community featuring human scaled architecture with its

associated details. This generally means houses pulled up to the street, porches in front, a

front walk connecting to the sidewalk, and garages to the rear or at least set back from the

front face of the home. Front porches inviting neighborly visits will be encouraged.

To employ additional conservation measures through thoughtful consideration of street

and driveway design; the siting of buildings; and the availability of solar.

Durable construction materials and designs suited to local conditions to contribute to the

ongoing costs of the housing will be encouraged.

Provide a range of housing opportunities to support a diverse population, lifestyles, and

family groups.

Establish a planning/zoning concept that is responsive to the market.

Implement the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.

Implement City’s Infrastructure Master Plans.

B. ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

1. ALTERNATIVE LOCATION CONSIDERED:

An Alternative Location is discussed on pages 5.0-2 and 5.0-3 of the Draft EIR.

Findings: The City of Manteca considered alternative locations early in the public scoping process.

The City’s key considerations in identifying an alternative location were as follows:

Is there an alternative location where significant effects of the project would be avoided or

substantially lessened?

Is there a site available within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and

characteristics such that it would meet the basic project objectives?

The City’s consideration of alternative locations for the Project included a review of previous land

use planning and environmental documents in Manteca including the General Plan. The search

included a review of lands in the south part of Manteca that is located within the Sphere of

Influence and is otherwise suitable for development. It was found that there are numerous

approved projects and proposed projects that are currently under review in South Manteca. These

approved and proposed projects are not available for acquisition by the Project applicant, and are

not considered a feasible alternative for the Project applicant. Additionally, much of the

undeveloped land located to the west of the Project site is located within a 200-year flood plain.

These areas within the 200-year flood plain are severely constrained and are not developable until

the City of Manteca is able to design, fund, and construct a solution to protect this area from the

200-year flood plain. The City has found that there are no feasible alternative locations that exist

within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet

CEQA FINDINGS


the basic Project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a significant effect. The City has

determined that alternative locations outside the Sphere of Influence would not be feasible

because an expansion of the Sphere of Influence would induce unplanned growth and cause

impacts greater than development on the Project site. For these reasons, the City of Manteca

determined that there are no feasible alternative locations.

In addition, as discussed in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553

(Goleta II), where a project is consistent with an approved general plan, no off-site alternative

need be analyzed in the EIR. The EIR “is not ordinarily an occasion for the reconsideration or

overhaul of fundamental land-use policy.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 573.) In approving a

general plan, the local agency has already identified and analyzed suitable alternative sites for

particular types of development and has selected a feasible land use plan. “Informed and

enlightened regional planning does not demand a project EIR dedicated to defining alternative

sites without regard to feasibility. Such ad hoc reconsideration of basic planning policy is not only

unnecessary, but would be in contravention of the legislative goal of long-term, comprehensive

planning.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 572-573.) Here, the proposed Project is generally

consistent with the types of uses considered in the Manteca General Plan and associated EIR, and

thus, in addition to the reasons discussed above, an off-site alternative need not be further

discussed in the Draft EIR.

2. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:

A Notice of Preparation was circulated to the public to solicit recommendations for a reasonable

range of alternatives to the proposed Project. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held

during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives

to the proposed Project. No specific alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or

the general public during the NOP public review process.

The Draft EIR was also circulated for public review and comment. No specific alternatives were

recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the Draft EIR public review

process that were not previously considered by the City.

C. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN EIR

1. NO PROJECT (NO BUILD) ALTERNATIVE:

The No Build Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3, and 2.5-4 through 5.0-9 of the Draft EIR. This

alternative assumes development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would

remain in its current condition.

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the

reduction of impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, air

quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases

and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,

land use, population, and housing, noise, transportation and circulation, and utilities.

CEQA FINDINGS


While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the No Build Alternative, this

alternative would not achieve all of the Project objectives, and would not provide new

residential and commercial opportunities, local jobs, or tax revenue generation for the

City of Manteca. For these reasons, this alternative is rejected.

2. INCREASED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:

The Increased Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3, 5.0-4, and 5.0-9 through 5.0-15 of

the Draft EIR. Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same

components as described in the Project Description, but density of the residential uses would be

increased. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the same number of residential units as the

proposed Project (1,592 units) would be constructed. The residential areas would be clustered

throughout the Project site at increased densities to allow for an increase in park/open space

areas. Additionally, all of the residences would have equal lot sizes. The residential density under

the Increased Density Alternative would fall within the allowed density for the City’s Low Density

Residential land use designation (2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]). The 26.46-acres of

park/open space uses would be increased to 40.0 acres. Additionally, the 5-acre Commercial

Mixed Use area would provide an estimated 65,340 square feet of neighborhood-serving

commercial uses, identical to the proposed Project.


reduction of impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, biological resources, hydrology

and water quality, and public services and recreation.

While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of this alternative, this

alternative would not fully achieve all of the Project objectives, and would decrease

Project impacts in only four resources areas. For these reasons, this alternative is

rejected.

3. AGRICULTURE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE:

The Agricultural Protection Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-4, and 5.0-15 through 5.0-22 of

the Draft EIR. The reasoning behind this alternative is to present an alternative to protect some of

the farmland on the Project site. Development of the proposed Project would result in the

permanent conversion of roughly 290.56 acres of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide

Importance. Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same

components as described in the Project Description, but the size of the buildings and residential

areas would be reduced resulting in an increase of undeveloped land beyond the Increased

Density Alternative. The 5.0-acre Commercial Mixed Use area would be reduced from 65,340

square feet to 32,670 square feet. Residential units would be reduced from 1,592 to 796. The total

acreage dedicated to proposed Project would be reduced by approximately 1/2. The total acreage

developed would be 166.98 acres, with 166.96 acres remaining in its current state. The 166.96

acres that would remain undeveloped would include the agricultural land only.

CEQA FINDINGS



reduction of impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, air

quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases

and climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality,

land use, population, and housing, noise, transportation and circulation, and utilities.

While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of this alternative, this

alternative would not fully achieve all of the Project objectives, and would not provide

the number of new residential and commercial opportunities, local jobs, or tax

revenue generation for the City of Manteca (reduced by one-half). For these reasons,

this alternative is rejected.

4. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE:

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives

that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior

alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other

alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is

that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed

Project.

As discussed in Section 5.0, and shown on Table 5.0-1 of the Draft EIR (page 5.0-23) a comparison

of alternatives is presented. The No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

However, as required by CEQA, when the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior

alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified.

Therefore, the Increased Density and Agricultural Protection Alternatives both rank higher than

the proposed Project. Comparatively, the Agricultural Protection Alternative would result in less

impact then the Increased Density Alternative because it provides the greatest reduction of

potential impacts in comparison to the proposed Project. However, neither the Agricultural

Protection Alternative nor the Increased Density Alternative fully meet all of the Project objectives.

While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the Increased Density and Agricultural

Protection Alternatives, these alternatives would not provide as many opportunities for new local

job generating uses, or the amount of residential uses and park-space that is identified in the

Project objectives under full buildout of the Project site. Thus, does not achieve all of the Project

objectives.

The Increased Density Alternative does not meet, or only partially meets, the Project objectives.

This alternative would not provide a range of housing opportunities to support a diverse

population, lifestyles, and family groups. All of the residences would have equal lot sizes.

Additionally, this alternative would decrease Project impacts in only four resources areas. For the

reasons provided above, this alternative is rejected.

This Agricultural Protection Alternative does not meet, or only partially meets, the Project

objectives. This alternative would reduce the number of new jobs generated, additional park-

CEQA FINDINGS


space, and residential opportunities within the City of Manteca by approximately one-half when

compared to the full Project buildout. For the reasons provided above, this alternative is rejected.

VII. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE

MANTECA GRIFFIN PARK MASTER PLAN FINDINGS As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable

impacts could occur with implementation of the Project:

vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character

Impact 3.2-1: The proposed Project has the potential to result in the conversion of

Farmlands, including Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on

the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the

California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses

Impact 3.3-1: Project operation has the potential to cause a violation of an air quality

standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Impact 3.7-1: Potential to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,

that may have a significant impact on the environment or potential to conflict with an

applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of

greenhouse gases.

Impact 3.7-2: Cumulative impact on climate change from increased Project-related

greenhouse gas emissions.

Impact 3.13-1: Under Existing conditions, the proposed Project would result in a significant

impact at the Main Street / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection.


impact at the Main Street / Atherton Drive intersection.


impact at the Main Street / Woodward Avenue intersection.


impact at the Main Street / Tannehill Drive intersection.


impact at the Woodward Avenue / Union Road intersection.


impact at the Union Road / SR 120 EB Ramps intersection.


impact to freeway facilities.

Impact 3.13-10: Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed Project would exacerbate

levels of service at the Main Street / SR 120 ramp terminal intersections.


levels of service at the Main Street / Woodward Avenue intersection.

Impact 3.13-13: Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed Project would result in a

significant impact at the Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection.

CEQA FINDINGS



levels of service at the Woodward Avenue / Union Road intersection.


levels of service at the Union Road / Atherton Drive intersection.


levels of service at the Union Road / SR 120 ramp terminal intersections.


levels of service at the Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park Drive.


levels of service at the Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway intersection.


significant impact at the Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4 intersection.


significant impact at the Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 intersection.


significant impact to freeway facilities.

Impact 4.2: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region

Impact 4.4: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Resources

Impact 4.5: Cumulative Impact on the Region's Air Quality

Impact 4.9: Cumulative Impact on Climate Change from Increased Project-Related

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact 4.19: Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed Project would exacerbate levels

of service at the Main Street / SR 120 ramp terminal intersections


of service at the Main Street / Woodward Avenue intersection

Impact 4.22: Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed Project would result in a

significant impact at the Main Street / Tannehill Drive / Project Driveway 3 intersection


of service at the Woodward Avenue / Union Road intersection


of service at the Union Road / Atherton Drive intersection


of service at the Union Road / SR 120 ramp terminal intersections


of service at the Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park Drive


of service at the Manteca Road / Raymus Expressway intersection


significant impact at the Manteca Road / Project Driveway 4 intersection


significant impact at the Manteca Road / Project Driveway 5 intersection

CEQA FINDINGS



significant impact to freeway facilities

The adverse effects listed above, and described in detail in Section III, are substantive issues of

concern to the City. However, the City of Manteca has a General Plan that provides for an array of

land uses throughout the City that are intended to accommodate the City’s needs for growth over

the foreseeable future. The proposed Project has been designated with land uses that are

intended to generate jobs and tax revenue for the City, while providing recreational and housing

opportunities. The proposed Project would provide an increase in local jobs that could be served

by the citizens of Manteca, reducing the number of citizens commuting, while providing nearby

housing opportunities for current and future residents. The actual number of jobs would vary by

the exact business that locates within the Plan Area. Additionally, the proposed Project would

generate tax revenue that the City would not otherwise benefit from if the Project was not

developed. The job creating uses, additional housing opportunities, and tax benefits discussed

above would ultimately improve the overall quality of life in the City of Manteca.

Based on the entire record and the EIR, the economic and social benefits of the Project in Manteca

outweigh and override any significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from

future Project implementation as more fully described in Section III Findings and

Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The City Council has determined

that any environmental detriment caused by the proposed Project has been minimized to the extent

feasible through the mitigation measures identified herein, and, where mitigation is not feasible, has

been outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant social, environmental, and land use benefits

to be generated to the region.

CEQA FINDINGS


This page left intentionally blank.

Date post:	17-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

CEQA F INDINGS - Manteca · impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared...

Documents