South of Woodward Avenue Project

Transcription

1 South of Woodward Avenue Project Draft Environmental Impact Report VOLUME I OF III SCH# PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF MANTECA 1501 Sports Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834

2 Draft Environmental Impact Report South of Woodward Avenue Project SCH# Lead Agency: City of Manteca 1001 West Center Street Manteca, CA Prepared By: Raney Planning and Management, Inc Sports Drive Sacramento, CA (916) Contact: Cindy Gnos, AICP Senior Vice President Rod Stinson Division Manager / Air Quality Specialist November 2014

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

4 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction Project Description Purpose of the EIR EIR Process Scope of the Draft EIR Comments Received on the NOP Organization of the Draft EIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Summary Description of the Proposed Project Environmental Impacts and Required Mitigation Alternatives to the Proposed Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction Project Location Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses Project Objectives Project Components Required Public Approvals EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS Introduction Determination of Significance Issues Addressed in this Draft EIR Section Format AESTHETICS Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures i

5 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures CULTURAL RESOURCES Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY / MINERAL RESOURCES Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures ii

6 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures NOISE Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION Introduction Existing Environmental Setting Regulatory Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures ALTERNATIVES Introduction Purpose of Alternatives Selection of Alternatives Environmentally Superior Alternative STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS Introduction Growth-Inducing Impacts Cumulative Impacts Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Significant Unavoidable Impacts REFERENCES EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED iii

7 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Notice of Preparation (NOP) NOP Comment Letters Volume II Appendices C - I Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Air Quality Modeling Output Biological Resource Analysis Cultural Resources Survey Geotechnical Feasibility Studies Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Pesticide Screening Report Environmental Noise Assessment Volume III Appendices J - K Appendix J Appendix K Water Supply Assessment Traffic Technical Calculations iv

8 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-1 Regional Location Project Location Project Site Annexation Map Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Tentative Subdivision Map Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Tentative Subdivision Map Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Utility Plan Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Utility Plan AESTHETICS Pillsbury Road looking east Pillsbury Road looking west Pillsbury Road looking southwest E. Woodward Avenue looking south E. Woodward Avenue looking south at east edge of DeJong Property E. Woodward Avenue looking north E. Woodward Avenue at Moffat Boulevard looking southwest BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Special-Status Species Occurrences within a Five-Mile Radius GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY / MINERAL RESOURCES Project Site Soils HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY City of Manteca Storm Drain Pump and Monitoring Stations City of Manteca Storm Drain Sheds Future Drainage Improvements FEMA Map for Project Vicinity LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING Manteca General Plan Land Use Diagram NOISE Noise Monitoring Locations Noise Barrier Location v

9 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Proposed South Manteca Trunk Sewer Alignment Proposed South Manteca Collection Strategy Phasing Existing Schools and Parks within Manteca TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION Study Area Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Conditions Existing Bicycle Facilities Project Access Project Trip Generation Existing Plus Project Conditions Cumulative Roadway Network Project Only Trips Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative No Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Project w/ Mitigation vi

10 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Soil Capability Classification Storie Index Rating System On-Site Soil Capability Classification and Storie Index Rating AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Ambient Air Quality Standards Summary of Criteria Pollutants Attainment Status Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for the Stockton-Hazelton Street Station Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for the Tracy Airport Station GWPs and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Select GHGs SJVAPCD Criteria Pollutant Thresholds of Significance Maximum Unmitigated Project Construction-Related Emissions Unmitigated Project Operational Emissions Project Operational Emissions With Rule 9510 Compliance Cumulatively Considerable Degradation in Intersection Operations Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Special-Status Plant Species Occurring within a Five-Mile Radius of the Project Site Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring within a Five-Mile Radius of the Project Site GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY / MINERAL RESOURCES Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensity LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING Population, Housing, and Employment Projections ( ) Discussion of Relevant Manteca 2023 General Plan Policies vii

11 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 4.10 NOISE Typical Noise Levels Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Distances to Contours Railroad Noise Measurement Results Approximate Distances to the UPRR Line Noise Contours Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Mobile Noise Sources Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources Or Projects Affected By Stationary Noise Sources Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Cumulative Plus Project Transportation Noise Levels at Proposed Residential Uses Construction Equipment Noise Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES City of Manteca Projected Water Supply City of Manteca Water Demand Projection Based on Per Capita Water Demand MFD Facilities That Would Serve the Project Site Ripon Unified School District Enrollment & Capacity by Facility Ripon Unified School District Student Generation Rates Manteca Unified School District Enrollment & Capacity by Facility Manteca Unified School District Student Generation Rates Projected Water Demand for Proposed Project City of Manteca Water Supply Versus Demand Including the Proposed Project Students Generated from Proposed Project TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION Intersection Level of Service Definitions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Existing Conditions Freeway Level of Service Definitions Peak Hour Freeway LOS Existing Conditions Inventory of At-Grade Railroad Crossings in Study Area Status of Planned Improvements in Study Area Project Trip Generation Peak Hour Intersection LOS Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Signal Warrant Evaluation Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Intersection LOS Existing Plus Pending Projects Plus Project Conditions viii

12 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS Existing Plus Pending Projects Plus Project Mitigated Conditions th Percentile Freeway Off-Ramp Vehicle Queues Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Freeway LOS Existing Plus Project Conditions th Percentile Freeway Off-Ramp Vehicle Queues Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Conditions Peak Hour Freeway LOS Cumulative Conditions ALTERNATIVES 5-1 Unmitigated Reduced Density Alternative Operational Emissions Alternative Environmental Impacts Comparison ix

13 1. INTRODUCTION

14 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The South of Woodward Avenue Project (proposed project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Pub. Res. Code , as amended (CEQA) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Cal. Code Regs. title 14, (CEQA Guidelines). The City of Manteca is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project evaluated herein and has the principal responsibility for approving the project. As required by Section of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR will (a) inform public agency decision-makers, and the public generally, of the significant environmental effects of the project, (b) identify possible ways to minimize the significant adverse environmental effects, and (c) describe reasonable and feasible project alternatives which reduce environmental effects. The public agency shall consider the information in the Draft EIR along with other information that may be presented to the agency. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location The proposed project site is located in San Joaquin County, within the City of Manteca Sphere of Influence. The City of Manteca City limits make up the project s western, northern, and eastern boundaries. The proposed project consists of six parcels (APNs , -12, -13; , -02, and -03), totaling approximately acres. The project site is bounded by E. Woodward Avenue to the north and the Hat Ranch property to the south; agricultural land to the east, and Pillsbury Road to the west. The site is located at an elevation of approximately 47 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in an area of low topographic relief. Project Components The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong property. The proposed project site for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I encompasses the southern portion of the overall project site and consists of approximately 54.2 acres of agricultural land, currently utilized for the cultivation of row crops and an almond orchard. The proposed project site for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II encompasses the northwestern portion of the overall project site and is comprised of approximately 57.3 acres of agricultural land. The proposed project site for the DeJong property consists of the remaining approximate 80.0 acres and makes up the northeastern portion of the overall site. The total single-family residential development potential for the overall project is 706 units. Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1

15 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project All three sites are proposed to be annexed into the City of Manteca and Prezoned with City zoning, as required under State law. The project site is currently located within San Joaquin County and has a San Joaquin County General Plan land use designation of General Agriculture (A/G), allowing for a maximum of one residential unit per 20 acres. In addition, the Manteca General Plan designates the entire project site as Low Density Residential (LDR) allowing for 2.1 to 8.0 residential units per gross acre, which is consistent with the residential densities proposed for the overall project site. The project includes a request for annexation of the acre site to the City of Manteca, which ultimately requires San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval. In addition, in order to avoid the creation of a County island area, two parcels (APN , and -02) located immediately west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, along Pillsbury Road, have been included in the proposed annexation area. Both parcels contain one single-family residence. The proposed project requires approval of the following entitlements by the City of Manteca: Approval of an Annexation for the overall acre project site and detachment from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District; Prezone of the acre site to Single Family Residential (R-1); Approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and Approval of the applicant-requested Development Agreements for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE EIR As provided in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15021, public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. The public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social issues. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term project refers to the whole of an action that has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]). With respect to the proposed project, the City has determined that the proposed development is a project that has the potential for resulting in significant environmental effects within the definition of CEQA. The EIR is an informational document that apprises decision makers and the general public of the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. An EIR must describe a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the project and identify possible means to minimize the significant effects. The lead agency, which is the City of Manteca for this project, is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve or deny the application. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. Chapter 1 Introduction 1-2

16 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 1.4 EIR PROCESS The EIR process begins with the decision by the lead agency to prepare an EIR, either during a preliminary review of a project or at the conclusion of an Initial Study. Once the decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agency sends a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to appropriate government agencies and, when required, to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which will ensure that responsible State agencies reply within the required time. The SCH assigns an identification number to the project, which then becomes the identification number for all subsequent environmental documents on the project. Applicable agencies have 30 days to respond to the NOP, indicating, at a minimum, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures they wish to have explored in the Draft EIR and whether the agency will be a responsible agency or a trustee agency for the project. An NOP (see Appendix A) was prepared for the proposed project and was circulated from October 8, 2013 to November 6, A public scoping meeting was held on October 22, 2013 for the purpose of informing the public and receiving comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be prepared for the proposed projects. As soon as the Draft EIR is completed, a notice of completion is filed with the SCH and a public notice is published to inform interested parties that a Draft EIR is available for agency and/or public review. In addition, the notice provides information regarding the location of drafts and any public meetings or hearings that are scheduled. The Draft EIR is circulated for a period of 45 days, during which time reviewers may make comments. The lead agency must evaluate and respond to comments in writing, describing the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised and explaining in detail the reasons for not accepting any specific comments concerning major environmental issues. If comments received after public notice is given result in the addition of significant new information to an EIR, the revised EIR or affected chapters must be recirculated for an additional public review period with related comments and responses. Once the lead agency is satisfied that the EIR has adequately addressed the pertinent issues in compliance with CEQA, a Final EIR will be prepared. The Final EIR is made available for review by the public or commenting agencies. Before approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that the Final EIR has been presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, which has reviewed and considered the EIR. The lead agency shall also certify that the Final EIR reflects the lead agency s independent judgment and analysis. The findings of fact prepared by the lead agency must be based on substantial evidence in the administrative record and must include an explanation that bridges the gap between evidence in the record and the conclusions required by CEQA. Based on these findings, the lead agency may also prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Statement) as part of the project approval process. If the decision-making body elects to proceed with a project that would have unavoidable significant impacts, then a Statement explaining the decision to balance the benefits of the project against unavoidable environmental impacts must be prepared. Chapter 1 Introduction 1-3

17 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 1.5 SCOPE OF THE DRAFT EIR State CEQA Guidelines (a) states, in pertinent part: An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. Pursuant to these guidelines, the scope of this Draft EIR addresses specific issues and concerns identified as potentially significant. The City determined that, in conjunction with comments received on the NOP, the following issues will be addressed in the Draft EIR: Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality and Climate Change; Biological Resources: Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity/Mineral Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing; Noise; Public Services and Utilities/Recreation; and Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation. The evaluation of effects is presented on a resource-by-resource basis in Chapters 4.1 through 4.12 of the Draft EIR. Each technical chapter is divided into four sections: Introduction, Environmental Setting, Regulatory Context, and Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impacts that are determined to be significant in Chapter 4, and for which feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level, are identified as significant and unavoidable. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR presents a discussion and comprehensive list of all significant and unavoidable impacts identified in Chapter COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOP The City of Manteca received nine comment letters (see Appendix B) during the open comment period on the NOP for the proposed project. The letters were authored by the following representatives of State and local agencies: Boyd, Laurel San Joaquin Council of Governments; Brunn, Laura San Joaquin Council of Governments; Chiang, Ken California Public Utilities Commission; Chapter 1 Introduction 1-4

18 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Cleak, Trevor Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; Dumas, Tom California Department of Transportation; Girardi, Frank Environmental Health Department; Marjollet, Arnaud San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District; Morgan, Scott Governor s Office of Planning and Research; and Neely, Gene Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District. The following list, categorized by issue, summarizes the concerns: Air Quality and Climate Change (c.f. Chapter 4.3) Biological Resources (c.f. Chapter 4.4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (c.f. Chapter 4.7) Hydrology and Water Quality (c.f. Chapter 4.8) Public Services and Utilities (c.f. Chapter 4.11) Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation (c.f. Chapter 4.12) Concerns related to: The project s cumulative air quality impact, including greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Toxic air contaminants and potential need for a Health Risk Assessment to be prepared for the project. Concerns related to: Habitat and open space conservation under the SJMSCP. Concerns related to: Proper abandonment of existing on-site septic systems and wells. Testing for pesticides (including environmentally persistent pesticides [e.g., organic pesticides and metals]) associated with past agricultural uses on-site. Concerns related to: The quality of surface and groundwaters. Storm water discharge associated with construction activities Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits Discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands. Water quality certification Concerns related to: Impact of land annexation on the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District, Station #32. Concerns related to: Safety analysis of railroad tracks, pedestrian movements, turning movements, and sightlines. Expected impacts to the State Highway System. Consistency with RTPA requirements All of these issues are addressed in this Draft EIR, in the relevant chapters identified in the first column. Chapter 1 Introduction 1-5

19 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR The South of Woodward Avenue Draft EIR is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction Provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the Draft EIR and the review and certification process, as well as summaries of the chapters included in the Draft EIR and summaries of the issues and concerns received from the public and public agencies during the NOP review period. Chapter 2 Executive Summary Summarizes the elements of the project and the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, describes proposed mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts after mitigation. Acknowledges alternatives that would reduce or avoid significant impacts. Chapter 3 Project Description Provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the project s location, background information, major objectives, and technical characteristics. Chapter 4 Existing Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Contains a program-level and cumulative analysis of environmental issue areas associated with the proposed project. Each environmental issue chapter contains an introduction and description of the project setting, identifies impacts, and recommends appropriate mitigation measures, if needed. Chapter 5 Alternatives Describes the alternatives to the proposed project, their respective environmental effects, and a determination of the environmentally superior alternative. Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections Provides discussions required by CEQA regarding impacts that would result from the proposed project, including a summary of cumulative impacts, potential growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible changes to the environment. Chapter 7 References Provides bibliographic information for all references and resources cited. Chapter 8 EIR Authors and Persons Consulted Lists the Draft EIR and technical report authors who provided technical assistance in the preparation and review of the Draft EIR. Appendices Includes the NOP, comments received during the NOP comment period, and all technical reports prepared for the proposed project. Chapter 1 Introduction 1-6

20 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

21 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Executive Summary chapter of the Draft EIR provides an overview of the South of Woodward Avenue project (proposed project) (see Chapter 3, Project Description, for further detail) and summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis provided in Chapters 4.1 through This chapter reviews the alternatives to the proposed project that are described in Chapter 5, Alternatives, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Table 2-1, found at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, which are identified in each technical chapter of this Draft EIR. Table 2-1 contains the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, the significance of the impacts, the proposed mitigation measures for the impacts, and the significance of the impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures. 2.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as: 1.) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I; 2.) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and 3.) DeJong property (see Chapter 3, Figure 3-2, Project Location Map). The total single family residential development for the overall project would be 706 units, with 171 units proposed for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, 185 units proposed for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, and 350 units proposed for the DeJong site. Further details regarding the proposed development for each site are provided below. Each of the three distinct sites is discussed in further detail below. The overall project site is located at an elevation of 47 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and in an area of low topographic relief. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site encompasses the southern portion of the overall proposed project site and consists of approximately 54.2 acres of agricultural land, formerly utilized for the cultivation of row crops and an almond orchard. The western boundary of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site wraps around two 1.06-acre parcels (APNs and -02), which each contain an existing rural residence. It should be noted that the two parcels with existing residences are included in this project description for annexation amendment purposes only, and are not included as part of the proposed project improvements. To the west of the site, beyond South Pillsbury Road, is the Pillsbury Estates development. North of the site is the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site and the DeJong property, which are currently in agricultural use. East of the site is an approved residential development currently under agricultural use. South of the site is the proposed Hat Ranch project site. Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-1

22 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site encompasses the northwestern portion of the overall proposed project site and is comprised of approximately 57.3 acres of agricultural land. West of the site, beyond South Pillsbury Road, is a single-family residential neighborhood. South of the site is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, with agricultural and residential uses located further south. To the east of the site is the DeJong property. DeJong The DeJong property consists of approximately 80 acres and makes up the northeastern portion of the overall proposed project site. To the west of the DeJong property is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, and to the south is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site. North of the DeJong property is a residential development, and land east of the property is approved for residential development and currently used for agriculture. 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND REQUIRED MITIGATION Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Implementation of the proposed project could result in significant impacts on the resource areas listed below. The Draft EIR requires mitigation measures to be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce potential adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level. Such mitigation measures are noted in this Draft EIR and are found in the following technical chapters: Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality and Climate Change; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing; Noise; Public Services and Utilities; and Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation. If an impact is determined to be significant or potentially significant, applicable mitigation measures are identified, as appropriate. The mitigation measures are also summarized in Table 2-1 at the end of this chapter. The mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR would form the basis of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. An impact that remains significant after implementation of mitigation measures is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Aesthetics The Aesthetics chapter describes existing visual and aesthetic resources for the project area and the region, and evaluates the potential aesthetic impacts of the project. In addition, the Aesthetics chapter describes any scenic vistas, scenic resources (such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway), that exist within the project area, as well as light and glare impacts. Impact analysis is based on information drawn from the Manteca General Plan and the Manteca General Plan EIR. In addition, portions of the impact analysis are based on a site visit that was conducted within the proposed project area by Raney Planning & Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-2

23 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Management, Inc. on October 10, The Aesthetics chapter evaluates if the proposed project would create new sources of light and glare, and the visual impacts upon the surrounding vicinity. Because the project site is not located within the vicinity of a State scenic highway, and rock outcroppings or historic buildings are not located on the site, impacts related to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway were determined to be less than significant. Development on the project site would contribute to a change in the visual character of the area; however, because existing residential development is located to the north and west of the project site and residential developments are proposed and planned to the south and east, development on the project site would be consistent with what is anticipated for the site and surrounding area. Thus, impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the site and surroundings would be less than significant. Because development of the project site would be contiguous and consistent with surrounding residential lighting, and necessary design features to minimize the effects of light and glare would be required, the proposed project s impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts related to long-term impacts to the visual character of the region from the proposed project in combination with existing and future developments in the area were determined to be less than significant. Although the project would include the creation of openspace in the form of parks and greenbelts, development would still alter current vistas of agricultural fields and orchards in the area; therefore, impacts related to scenic vistas were determined to be significant and unavoidable, as feasible mitigation does not exist to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Agricultural Resources The Agricultural Resources chapter describes the existing land use setting of the proposed project and the adjacent area, including the identification of existing land uses and current General Plan policies and zoning designations. The proposed project is analyzed for consistency with existing City of Manteca policies and compatibility with surrounding land uses. In addition, the chapter includes an agricultural resources analysis that describes the soils of the project site and whether or not the site is identified as Prime Farmland. Impacts related to zoning and changes to the existing environment were found to be less than significant in the Agricultural Resources chapter. The chapter concluded that impacts from the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural were found to be potentially significant. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR the impact would be reduced to less than significant. The proposed project and cumulative development in the Manteca General Plan was anticipated however, the project s incremental contribution towards the significant impact of important farmland conversion would be considered cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with similar impacts from other development in the region. As a result, the proposed project s incremental contribution to the environmental effect of the buildout of the Manteca General Plan on agricultural resources is thereby determined to be significant. Implementation of mitigation measure 4.2-1, would help reduce the project s incremental contribution towards the cumulative impact related to conversion of important farmland. Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-3

24 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to the permanent loss of agricultural land attributable to the project. Air Quality and Climate Change The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter of the Draft EIR describes the effects of the proposed project on local and regional air quality. The chapter discusses existing air quality, construction-related impacts, direct and indirect emissions associated with the project (including greenhouse gases [GHGs]), the impacts of these emissions on both the local and regional scale, and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate any identified significant impacts. The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter utilized information obtained from the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version (see Appendix C), and is primarily based on information, guidance, and analysis protocol provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the City of Manteca Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter concluded that the impacts related to construction emissions, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant. The following impacts were identified as potentially significant but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR: impacts related to a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation during operations, and, thus, a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan; and cumulative impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions and/or a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Cumulative impacts related to a considerable net increase of any pollutant from the proposed project in combination with existing and future developments in the area were determined to be less than significant. Biological Resources The Biological Resources chapter evaluates the biological resources known to occur or potentially occur within the proposed project site. The Biological Resources chapter describes potential impacts to those resources, and identifies measures to eliminate or substantially reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Information presented in this chapter is primarily drawn from Biological Resource Analysis prepared specifically for the proposed project by Monk & Associates, Inc. (see Appendix D), as well as the Manteca General Plan and the Manteca General Plan EIR. Existing plant communities, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and potential for special-status species and communities are discussed for the project area. The Biological Resources chapter concluded that impacts related to special-status plant species, jurisdictional water of the United States and waters of the State, and movement of native wildlife species, from project development would be less than significant. The following impacts were identified as potentially significant: impacts to Swainson s hawk, nesting birds, and an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (the SJMSCP). However, implementation of mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR, as well as compliance with applicable goals and policies in the Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-4

25 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Manteca General Plan, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative loss of biological resources and the effects of ongoing urbanization in the region were found to be less than significant. Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources chapter of the Draft EIR describes cultural resources known to be located within the proposed project area. Prehistoric resources are those sites and artifacts associated with indigenous, non-euroamerican populations, generally prior to contact with people of European descent. Historical resources include structures, features, artifacts, and sites that date from Euroamerican settlement of the region. The extent to which development of the proposed project could remove, damage, or destroy existing cultural resources is evaluated. Information used in the Cultural Resources chapter is taken from the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, and a Cultural Resources Survey for the South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) North Project, Manteca, San Joaquin County, California (Cultural Resources Survey) (see Appendix E) prepared by Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. The Cultural Resources chapter concluded that the following impact was identified as potentially significant but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR: damage or destruction of previously unknown prehistoric cultural resources or human remains on the project site. Cumulative development in the City of Manteca, in conjunction with the development of the proposed project, could contribute incrementally to the regional loss of cultural resources in San Joaquin County. Therefore, the Cultural Resources chapter concludes that cumulative impacts would be potentially significant; however, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources The Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources chapter of the Draft EIR describes the geologic and soil characteristics of the project site and evaluates the extent to which implementation of the proposed project could be affected by seismic hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, and expansive soil characteristics. The analysis also addresses potential effects of the proposed project related to erosion. Information presented in this chapter is primarily drawn from Geotechnical Feasibility Study prepared specifically for the proposed project by Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (see Appendix F). Informational sources for this evaluation include the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for San Joaquin County (Soil Survey). The Soils, Geology, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources chapter concluded that impacts related to risks to people and structures associate with earthquakes, including seismic activity, liquefaction, fault rupture, and landslides would be less than significant. In addition, impacts regarding soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks and impacts related to mineral resources were also found to be less than significant. Impacts related to risks associated with structural damage from unstable or expansive soils were identified as potentially significant; however, implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR would reduce the Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-5

26 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project impact to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative geologic and seismic impacts and hazards associated with the proposed project, in combination with existing and future developments, would be less than significant. Hazardous Materials and Hazards The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter of the Draft EIR describes existing and potentially occurring hazards and hazardous materials within the proposed project area. The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter discusses potential impacts posed by these hazards to the environment, as well as to workers, visitors, and residents within and adjacent to the project area. The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter is primarily based on information drawn from the following sources: the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by Advanced GeoEnvironmental (see Appendix G) and pesticide screening conducted by Condor Earth Technologies, Inc. (see Appendix H). The Hazardous Materials and Hazards chapter concluded that impacts related the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and the existing on-site structures and potential exposure to asbestos and lead-based paint, the presence of septic systems would be less than significant. The following impacts were identified as potentially significant but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR: impacts related to storage tanks and other substance containers on-site, on-site water supply wells, the presence of pesticide and/or herbicide residues in on-site soils, and on-site soil staining from diesel fuel and farm equipment storage. Cumulative impacts related to the increase in number of people who could be exposed to potential hazards associated with potentially contaminated soil and groundwater and an increase in the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials from the development of the proposed project in combination with future buildout in the City of Manteca were determined to be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of the Draft EIR describes existing drainage and water resources for the project site, and evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to flooding, surface water resources, and groundwater resources. Information for this chapter was primarily drawn from the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, and the Manteca Municipal Services Review. The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter concluded that impacts related to groundwater recharge and flooding of project structures and residents would be less than significant. The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter identified the following impacts as potentially significant: project impacts to the existing drainage pattern and surface runoff, construction-related impacts to surface water quality, and operational water quality degradation associated with urban runoff from the project site. However, implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Incremental contribution from the project to cumulative hydrology (drainage and flooding) and water quality impacts were determined to be less than significant. Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-6

27 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing The Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing chapter of the Draft EIR is intended to provide the reader with information regarding current General Plan land use designations and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding areas, as well as information in regard to the effect of the project on the City s population and available housing. Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states [ ] the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. The proposed project is analyzed in the chapter for compatibility with the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, the City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance, the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Change of Organization Policies and Procedures, and the City of Manteca Housing Element. The Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing chapter concluded that impacts regarding compliance with the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca Zoning Ordinance, and San Joaquin County LAFCO goals and policies related to annexation were found to be less than significant. In addition, impacts regarding to the inducement of substantial population growth and the City of Manteca s jobs-to-housing ratio, were also found to be less than significant. Development of the project would occur adjacent to existing agricultural use and the impacts would be considered potentially significant; however, implementation of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative impacts associated with land use, planning, population, and housing were determined to be less than significant. Noise The Noise chapter of the Draft EIR discusses the existing noise environment in the immediate project vicinity and identifies potential noise-related impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Specifically, this chapter analyzes potential noise impacts due to and upon development within the project site relative to applicable noise criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. Information presented in this chapter is primarily drawn from the Environmental Noise Analysis prepared specifically for the South of Woodward Avenue Project by j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. (see Appendix I), as well as the Manteca General Plan and the Manteca General Plan EIR. The Noise chapter concluded that impacts to existing receptors or sensitive structures in the project vicinity from traffic-related noise as well as from construction vibration as a result of project implementation would be less than significant. The Noise chapter concluded that the impacts from exposure to proposed receptors to traffic-related noise levels that exceed the City of Manteca exterior and interior noise level standards as well as from construction noise would be potentially significant. However, with implementation of mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative impacts associated with an increase in noise levels in the project vicinity were determined to be less than significant. Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-7

28 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Public Services and Utilities The Public Services and Utilities chapter of the Draft EIR describes the public service systems and facilities within the project area and the associated potential impacts resulting from the proposed project. Public services and utilities addressed in the chapter include the water system (see Appendix J for project specific Water Supply Assessment), wastewater conveyance and treatment, solid waste, fire protection facilities, law enforcement services, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and gas and electricity/telephone/cable. The Public Services and Utilities chapter concluded that the following impacts would be less than significant: impacts related to adequate water supply and delivery, increased demand for wastewater disposal, increased demand for solid waste disposal, the provision of adequate fire protection and emergency medical services, the provision of law enforcement services, inadequate capacity at schools in the project area, and the provision of adequate gas and electricity, cable, and telephone services for the proposed project. The Public Services and Utilities chapter identified the impact to the provision of adequate park and recreation facilities as potentially significant. However, implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative impacts associated with an increase in demand for additional public services and utilities within the City of Manteca as a result of the proposed project were determined to be less than significant. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation The Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR discusses the existing and near-term transportation and circulation conditions associated with the proposed project. The information contained within this chapter is primarily based on the evaluation and technical calculations conducted for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants (see Appendix K). The evaluation includes consideration of automobile traffic impacts on roadway capacity, transit impacts, bicycle impacts, and pedestrian impacts. The Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation chapter concluded that impacts related to freeway facilities, the transit system, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, at-grade railroad crossings, and segments of roadway under Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) by San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) would be less than significant. Impacts related to study intersections and traffic during construction were identified as potentially significant but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. Cumulative impacts related to the transit system, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, at-grade railroad crossings, and segments of roadway under the RCMP by SJCOG were identified as less than significant. Cumulative impacts to study intersections and freeway facilities were identified as significant and would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-8

29 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The alternatives to the proposed project section presents a summary of the evaluation and alternatives considered for the proposed project, which include the following: No Project Alternative; Reduced Density Alternative; and Reduced Footprint Alternative. The following summary provides brief descriptions of the three alternatives that are evaluated in this Draft EIR. For a more thorough discussion of project alternatives, please refer to Chapter 5, Alternatives. No Project Alternative CEQA requires the evaluation of the comparative impacts of the No Project alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section [e]). Analysis of the No Project Alternative [ ] shall discuss [ ] existing conditions [ ] as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. (Id., subd. [e][2]) If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in the property s existing state versus environmental effects that would occur if the project were approved. (Id., subd. [e][3][b]) The No Project Alternative is defined in this chapter as the continuation of the existing condition of the project site, which is currently vacant. The No Project Alternative would allow the project site to continue in the site s existing state, which is vacant, and currently being utilized for agricultural land. It should be noted that the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the proposed project objectives. Reduced Density Alternative The Reduced Density Alternative includes the development of the proposed project at the lowest General Plan density allowable for the proposed land uses. The proposed project includes the development of 706 single-family units, as compared to the Reduced Density Alternative, which would develop 402 single-family units ( acres x 2.1 du/ac = 402 du). Although the Reduced Density Alternative would consist of fewer units, the same site disturbance would occur. The Reduced Density Alternative would achieve the majority of the proposed project s objectives. Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-9

30 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Reduced Footprint Alternative Under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites would be built out in accordance with the sites existing Manteca General Plan land use designation of LDR, while the DeJong property would remain under existing conditions. Development of the proposed 706 single-family dwelling units on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites only would result in the disturbance of 80 fewer acres of land with an overall density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre, which would be within the allowable density range for LDR land uses of 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would achieve the majority of the proposed project s objectives. Environmentally Superior Alternative The Reduced Footprint Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would reduce potentially significant impacts identified for the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials to lessthan-significant levels; thus, mitigation for such impacts would not be required. Therefore, because potentially significant impacts identified for the proposed project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the impacts related to agricultural resources would be fewer under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative 2.5 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 2-1 summarizes the impacts identified in the technical chapters of this Draft EIR. In Table 2-1, the proposed project s impacts are identified for each technical chapter (Chapters 4.1 through 4.12) in the Draft EIR. In addition, Table 2-1 includes the level of significance of each impact, any mitigation measures required for each impact and the resulting level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures for each impact. Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-10

31 Impact Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, or have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site and the site s surroundings Impacts associated with new sources of light and glare Cumulative aesthetic impacts associated with development of the project Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland to non-agricultural use. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation 4.1 Aesthetics Mitigation Measures Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation S None feasible. SU LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A 4.2 Agricultural Resources PS Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any approved tentative map, the applicant shall pay the City s Agricultural Mitigation Fee in effect on the date the tentative map application is deemed complete, or the date a permit is issued, as determined by the Community Development Director. Or LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-11

32 Impact Impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts Impacts related to compliance with the policies of San Joaquin County LAFCO pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land Impacts related to cumulative loss of agricultural land Impacts related to a violation of any air quality standard or TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures If permissible under the Agricultural Mitigation Fee Ordinance at the time of building permit issuance, the project applicant(s) may purchase and provide off-site agricultural lands to the City by fee title or agricultural conservation easement. The off-site lands shall be similar to the agricultural lands on the SOWA site with respect to Storie Index rating and Soil Capability Classification. The agricultural mitigation lands shall be equal in acreage to the amount of agricultural lands converted by the project; and the final location of said mitigation lands shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to purchase by the applicant. LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A S Implement Mitigation Measure SU 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change LS None required. N/A NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-12

33 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction Impacts related to a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation during operations, and, thus, a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures PS 4.3-2(a) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on the DeJong property, the applicant shall submit for review an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the SJVAPCD, showing compliance with Rule 9510 through a reduction of NO X and PM 10 emissions by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively, or payment of applicable off-site mitigation fees, if necessary, to mitigate the difference between the required emission reductions and the mitigations achieved on-site. Proof of compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 shall be provided to the City Planning Division. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 4.3-2(b) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for development on all three properties, the project applicant(s) shall pay their fair share of the additional off-site mitigation fee (calculated using the SJVAPCD s fee per ton current at the time) sufficient to mitigate the operational emissions of ROG and NO X to the 10 tons per year CEQA threshold of significance. Proof of payment to the SJVAPCD shall be provided to the City Planning Division. LS None required. N/A NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-13

34 Impact concentrations Impacts related to the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant Impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions and/or a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A PS 4.3-6(a) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any development on the DeJong property, the project applicant shall prepare a GHG mitigation plan for review and approval by the City Planning Division. The GHG mitigation plan shall show that the proposed project design would include compliance with the City s CAP, specifically through implementation of the following requirements: LS Project design shall comply with the applicable land use, sustainable development, and resource conservation policies of the Manteca General Plan; Project transportation infrastructure shall be constructed to support walking, bicycling, and transit use; Buildings shall be designed and constructed to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-14

35 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Or, Mitigation Measures least 10 percent; Building designs shall include water conservation measures sufficient to meet or exceed the CALGreen standard of a 20 percent reduction requirement; Landscaping shall be included sufficient to meet or exceed the water conservation standards of the City s adopted landscaping ordinance of a 20 percent reduction requirement; and A recycling or diversion program sufficient to exceed the State recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent shall be implemented. If compliance with the specific measures of the City s CAP listed above is proven to be infeasible for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide a detailed GHG emissions assessment for the entire project, including modeling that shows compliance with the CAP s GHG reduction target of 21.7 percent from BAU levels (i.e., baseline condition based on buildout of the proposed project without implementation of any required or voluntary GHG reduction measures) by The GHG emissions assessment shall be provided to the City Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. Level of Significance After Mitigation NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-15

36 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 4.3-6(b) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any development on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I or II properties, the project applicant shall prepare a GHG mitigation plan for review and approval by the City Planning Division. The GHG mitigation plan shall show that the proposed project design would include compliance with the City s CAP, specifically through implementation of the following requirements: Buildings shall be designed and constructed to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent; Building designs shall include water conservation measures sufficient to meet or exceed the CALGreen standard of a 20 percent reduction requirement; Landscaping shall be included sufficient to meet or exceed the water conservation standards of the City s adopted landscaping ordinance of a 20 percent reduction requirement; and A recycling or diversion program sufficient to exceed the State recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent shall be implemented. Or, NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-16

37 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures If compliance with the specific measures of the City s CAP listed above is proven to be infeasible for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide a detailed GHG emissions assessment for the entire project, including modeling that shows compliance with the CAP s GHG reduction target of 21.7 percent from BAU levels (i.e., baseline condition based on buildout of the proposed project without implementation of any required or voluntary GHG reduction measures) by The GHG emissions assessment shall be provided to the City Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. 4.4 Biological Resources Impacts to Swainson s hawk. PS Under the SJMSCP, each acre of Swainson s hawk habitat (i.e., Agricultural Habitat Lands) converted to non-open space uses would need to be mitigated by the establishment of one acre of Row and Field Crop/Riparian Preserve (a 1:1 mitigation ratio). Because the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property was recently incorporated into the SJMSCP, the property has not been assigned a Category/Pay Zone. This mitigation measure assumes that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property will be part of the Category B/Pay Zone A, given that the adjacent properties fall into this category. However, the appropriate Category/Pay Zone for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property Level of Significance After Mitigation LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-17

38 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures shall be determined by SJCOG prior to the applicant s payment of mitigation fees. Pursuant to the SJMSCP, in order to mitigate impacts to Swainson s hawk foraging habitat, prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall pay habitat impact fees (on a per acre basis, one-to-one mitigation ratio) for the 54 acres of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property to the SJCOG, as determined by said agency. This payment shall not be additive to the applicant s payment to the SJCOG for purposes of mitigating the loss of open space (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-3). Or Subject to the authorization of the SJCOG, in lieu of mitigating for the loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat through payment of fees (on a per acre basis) to the SJCOG, the applicant shall purchase and provide offsite lands to the SJCOG by fee title or conservation easement on a per acre basis (one-to one mitigation ratio), including an endowment for easement monitoring. Interests in mitigation lands shall be held in trust by an entity acceptable to the SJCOG in perpetuity. The off-site land(s) shall be equal in acreage (54 acres) and habitat value as the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property. The location of the off-site mitigation lands shall be approved by SJCOG; and the lands shall be Level of Significance After Mitigation NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-18

39 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact Impacts to nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property. This mitigation for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property shall not be additive to the mitigation required in Mitigation Measure for mitigating the loss of open space. PS Prior to issuance of a grading permit for development on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and DeJong properties, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted on, and within a zone of influence of, the project site. The zone of influence shall include those areas off of the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations, noise, or tree and/or building removal. Accordingly, the nesting survey(s) must cover the project sites and an area around the sites boundaries. If disturbance associated with the project would commence between March 1 st and September 1 st ( the nesting season ), the nesting surveys shall be completed 15 days prior to commencing with the work (note: If disturbance associated with the project would occur outside of the nesting season, no surveys shall be required). If common (non special-status) birds are identified as nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75-feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer shall be demarcated with painted orange lath or via the installation of orange construction fencing. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-19

40 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Disturbance within the buffer shall be postponed until a qualified ornithologist has determined that the young have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area or that the nesting cycle has otherwise completed. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts to the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (the SJMSCP). In addition under the SJMSCP, a setback of 100-feet shall be established from yellow warbler (not expected on the project site), sharp-shinned hawk (not expected to nest on the project site), and/or loggerhead shrike nesting areas. The setback buffer shall be maintained during the nesting season for the period encompassing nest building and continuing until fledglings leave nests, as determined by a qualified biologist. This setback applies whenever construction or other ground-disturbing activities would begin during the nesting season in the presence of nests that are known to be occupied. PS Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall pay a fee to the SJCOG to mitigate the loss of approximately 191 acres of open space associated with project implementation. The fees will be used by the SJCOG to otherwise preserve similar open space lands in perpetuity. Pursuant to the SJMSCP, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and DeJong Property fall into the Category B/Pay Zone A. Because the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property was recently incorporated into the SJMSCP, the property has not been assigned a Category/Pay Zone. This mitigation measure assumes LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-20

41 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property will also be part of the Category B/Pay Zone A, given that the adjacent properties fall into this category. However, the appropriate Category/Pay Zone for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property shall be determined by SJCOG prior to the applicant s payment of mitigation fees. This mitigation shall not be additive to the mitigation required for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property in Mitigation Measure for loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat. Or Subject to the authorization of the SJCOG, in lieu of mitigating for the loss of Multi-Purpose Open Space Lands through payment of fees (on a per acre basis) to the SJCOG, the applicant shall purchase and provide offsite lands to the SJCOG by fee title or conservation easement on a per acre basis (one-to one mitigation ratio), including an endowment for easement monitoring. Interests in mitigation lands shall be held in trust by an entity acceptable to the SJCOG in perpetuity. The off-site land(s) shall be equal in acreage and habitat value as the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II properties, as well as the DeJong property. The location of the offsite mitigation lands shall be approved by SJCOG; and the lands shall be purchased by the applicant prior to Level of Significance After Mitigation NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-21

42 Impact Impacts related to the movement of native wildlife species Cumulative loss of biological resources and the effects of ongoing urbanization in the region The proposed project could damage or destroy prehistoric cultural resources or human remains. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures issuance of any grading permits. With respect to the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property, this mitigation shall not be additive to the mitigation for said property required in Mitigation Measure regarding the loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat. LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A 4.5 Cultural Resources PS 4.5-1(a) If buried archeological resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during grounddisturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City and other appropriate agencies. LS 4.5-1(b) If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, it is necessary to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-22

43 Impact Cumulative development in the City of Manteca, in conjunction with the development of the proposed project, could contribute incrementally to the regional loss of cultural resources in San Joaquin County. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, which, according to the California Health and Safety Code (Section 8100), consist of six or more human burials at one location, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the County Coroner contacted. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity, which shall be carried out by the project contractor under supervision of a qualified archaeologist, hired at the applicant s expense. PS Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) and 4.5-1(b). LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-23

44 Impact Risks to people and structures associated with earthquakes, including seismic activity, liquefaction, fault rupture, and landslides Risks associated with structural damage from unstable or expansive soils. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation LS None required. N/A PS 4.6-2(a) Prior to any final map approval, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division, for review and approval, a design-level geotechnical engineering report produced by a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall address and make recommendations on the following: LS 4.6-2(b) Road, pavement, and parking area design; Structural foundations, including retaining wall design (if applicable); Grading practices; Erosion/winterization; Special problems discovered on-site, (i.e., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils, etc.); and Slope stability (if applicable to any required trenching activities). All grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and the Building Safety Division, respectively, prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-24

45 Impact Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater Impacts related to mineral resources In combination with existing and future developments, increased potential impacts related to geological impacts and hazards In combination with existing and future developments, increased potential impacts related to mineral resources Impacts related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures specified in the geotechnical report(s) are properly incorporated and utilized in the design. NI None required. N/A NI None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials LS None required. N/A NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-25

46 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact Impacts related to on-site storage tanks and other substance containers. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures PS 4.7-2(a) In conjunction with the submittal of a tentative map application and prior to the issuance of any building permits for development on the DeJong property, a Phase I ESA shall be prepared and submitted to the City Planning Division for review and approval. The Phase I ESA shall identify on-site hazards, such as soil contamination, potential hazards related to nearby properties, and the location of wells, aboveground storage tanks, stored items, and debris. The Phase I ESA shall identify and include mitigation measures necessary to reduce significant hazardous and hazardous materials impacts. All recommendations and mitigation measures included in the Phase I ESA shall be implemented by the project applicant, subject to review and approval by the City Planning Division. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS 4.7-2(b) If the Phase I ESA prepared for the DeJong property pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(a) does not identify any on-site aboveground or underground storage tank(s), further mitigation is not required. However, if the Phase I ESA does identify any on-site aboveground or underground storage tank(s), prior to issuance of any grading permits for development on the DeJong property, the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Phase I ESA. Recommendations of the Phase I ESA would likely include, but would not be limited to, the following: NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-26

47 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Removal and proper abandonment of the storage tank(s) pursuant to review and approval by the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department; and Evaluation of the area surrounding the storage tank(s) for unusual odors, visible discoloration, or other indications of soil contamination. If soils suspected of being contaminated are encountered, they shall be stockpiled on plastic sheeting. Stockpiled soils shall be sampled in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines, and the findings forwarded to the RWQCB for review. Further remediation, if necessary, and disposal of the soils shall be conducted in accordance with State and federal guidelines Impacts related to on-site wells. PS 4.7-3(a) Prior to any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site well, pursuant to review and approval by the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. LS 4.7-3(b) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(a). If the Phase I NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-27

48 Impact Impacts related to existing onsite structures, including exposure to asbestos and leadbased paint and presence of septic systems Impacts related to on-site soil contamination. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures ESA prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(a) does not identify any on-site well(s), further mitigation is not required. If the Phase I ESA does identify on-site well(s), the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Phase I ESA, which would likely include, but would not be limited to, obtaining a well abandonment permit from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department and properly abandoning the on-site well(s), pursuant to review and approval by the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. LS None required. N/A PS In conjunction with the submittal of a tentative map application and prior to the issuance of any building permits for development on the DeJong property, a soil assessment shall be prepared and submitted to the City Planning Division for review and approval. The soil assessment shall include surficial soil samples to determine the presence of pesticides. If pesticide concentrations higher than the allowable threshold are detected, the assessment shall include the appropriate mitigation including, but not limited to, soil remediation to an acceptable total threshold limit concentration LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-28

49 Impact Development of the proposed project, in combination with future buildout in the City of Manteca, would increase the number of people who could be exposed to potential hazards associated with potentially contaminated soil and groundwater and an increase in the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials Impacts related to the drainage pattern of the site and surface runoff. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures (TTLC) level per applicable State and federal regulations. All recommended mitigation measures shall be implemented by the project applicant, subject to review and approval by the City Planning Division. LS None required. N/A 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality PS Prior to the recording of any Final Map, the applicant shall submit a master drainage plan, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. This plan shall address the following requirements: Calculations of pre-development runoff conditions and post-development runoff scenarios, using appropriate engineering methods, to evaluate potential changes to runoff through specific design criteria and account for LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-29

50 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures increased surface runoff; Assessment of existing drainage facilities within the project area and an inventory of necessary upgrades, replacements, redesigns, and rehabilitation; A proposed maintenance program for the on-site drainage system; Phasing standards for drainage systems to be installed on a project- /parcel-specific basis; and Improvement of Lateral X to a dual-use lateral consistent with the City s Storm Drain Master Plan. Drainage systems, including any detention basin(s), shall be designed to be implemented from the master drainage plan shall provide for no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions, ensure that 100- year flooding and its potential impacts are maintained at or below current levels, and ensure that people and structures are not exposed to additional flood risk. Prior to issuing a grading permit, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate that the portion of the project subject to the grading permit is consistent with the recommendations and conclusions of the master drainage plan and shall implement the measures identified in the plan. If the plan does not adequately Level of Significance After Mitigation NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-30

51 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact Short-term construction-related impacts related to water quality. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures address the drainage impacts of the specific development, the City shall require the applicant to prepare additional analysis and incorporate measures consistent with the scope and performance standards associated with the plan to ensure that drainage and flooding impacts are avoided. PS To reduce or eliminate construction-related turbidity or sediment water quality effects, the City shall require the project contractors to comply with the requirements of the City s SWMP. In addition, the City shall require the project contractors to obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit before the onset of any construction activities, where the disturbed area is one acre or greater in size. A SWPPP shall be developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the CVRWQCB requirements for NPDES compliance and implemented prior to the issuance of any grading permit before construction. The SWPPP shall be kept on-site during construction activity and shall be made available upon request to representatives of the CVRWQCB. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS Compliance and coverage with the SWMP and General Construction Permit shall require controls of pollutant discharges that use BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater and other non-point- NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-31

52 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures source runoff. Measures range from source control, such as reduced surface disturbance, to the treatment of polluted runoff, such as detention basins. BMPs to be implemented as part of the SWMP and General Construction Permit (and SWPPP) may include the following practices, or other BMPs identified in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Construction BMP Handbook. Level of Significance After Mitigation 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) will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas. Use a dry detention basin (which is typically dry except after a major rainstorm, when it will temporarily fill with stormwater), designed to decrease runoff during storm events, prevent flooding, and allow for off-peak discharge. Basin features will include maintenance schedules for the periodic removal of sediments, excessive vegetation, and debris that may clog basin inlets and outlets. Cover, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to, inactive construction areas (previously graded NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-32

53 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures areas inactive for 10 days or more) that could contribute sediment to waterways. Enclose and cover exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular construction materials that could contribute sediment to waterways. Ensure that no earth or organic material will be deposited or placed where it may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water. Prohibit the following types of materials from being rinsed or washed into the streets, shoulder areas, or gutters: concrete, solvents and adhesives, thinners, paints, fuels, sawdust, dirt, gasoline, asphalt and concrete saw slurry, and heavily chlorinated water. Ensure that grass or other vegetative cover will be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance. The City, its contractors, or the project applicant shall select a combination of BMPs that is expected to minimize runoff flows and remove contaminants from stormwater discharges. The final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by the CVRWQCB. The City shall verify that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB and that a SWPPP has been developed before allowing construction to begin. The City shall perform inspections Level of Significance After Mitigation NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-33

54 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact Long-term operational impacts related to water quality. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures of the construction area, to verify that the BMPs specified in the SWPPP are properly implemented and maintained. The City shall notify contractors immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and shall require compliance. If necessary, the City shall require that additional BMPs be designed and implemented if those originally constructed do not achieve the identified performance standard. PS Prior to approval of any improvement plans, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Quality Plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Plan shall identify multiple BMPs to reduce or eliminate water quality effects from polluted runoff from the project in areas with a potential to drain into storm drainage systems or surface waters. The BMPs may include a combination of source control, structural elements, and treatment systems toinclude, but would not be necessarily limited to, the practices below. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS Grass buffer strips, high infiltration substrates, and grassy swales will be used where feasible throughout the project site to reduce runoff, serve as biofilters, and provide initial stormwater treatment. This type of treatment will apply particularly to parking lots. Physical devices will be placed at outlets of pipes and channels to reduce the velocity or the energy of exiting water. Outlet protection helps to NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-34

55 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures prevent scour and minimize the potential for downstream erosion by reducing the velocity or energy of concentrated stormwater flows. Dry detention basins which are typically dry except after a major rainstorm, when they temporarily fill with stormwater will be created and designed to decrease runoff during storm events, prevent flooding, and allow for off-peak discharge. Basin features will include maintenance schedules for the periodic removal of sedimentation, excessive vegetation, and debris that may clog basin inlets and outlets. The City, contractors, or the project applicant shall select a combination of BMPs that is expected to remove contaminants from stormwater discharges. The final selection and design of BMPs shall provide maximum contaminant removal, represent the best available technology that is economically achievable, and explicitly identify the expected level of effectiveness at contaminant removal. The City shall conduct inspections following the construction to ensure that all identified BMPs have been properly installed. The project shall adopt a regular maintenance and monitoring schedule to ensure that these BMPs function properly during project operations. Level of Significance After Mitigation NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-35

56 TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact Mitigation Measures If necessary, the City shall require that additional BMPs be designed and implemented if those originally constructed do not achieve the identified performance standard Impacts related to groundwater LS None required. N/A recharge Impacts related to flooding. LS None required. N/A Cumulative impacts to LS None required. N/A hydrology and water quality within the City of Manteca Compatibility with the Manteca General Plan Compliance with the City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance Compatibility with existing adjacent land uses. 4.9 Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A PS The applicant/developer shall inform and provide recorded notice to prospective buyers within 1,000 feet of agricultural land in writing and prior to purchase, as prescribed by the City s Right-to-Farm Ordinance, about existing and ongoing agricultural activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement. The notifications shall disclose that Manteca and San Joaquin County are agricultural areas and residents of the property may be subject to inconvenience or discomfort arising from the use of agricultural chemicals, and from pursuit of agricultural operations, including, but not LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-36

57 Impact Impacts related to the direct or indirect inducement of substantial population growth Impacts related to the City of Manteca s jobs-to-housing ratio Compatibility with San Joaquin County LAFCO goals and policies as related to annexation Cumulative land use and planning impacts Cumulative population and housing impacts Transportation noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measures limited to cultivation, irrigation, plowing, spraying, aerial application, pruning, harvesting, crop protection, and agricultural burning which occasionally generate dust, smoke, noise, and odor. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner. LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A 4.10 Noise LS None required. N/A NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-37

58 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact Transportation noise impacts to new sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation PS Mitigation Measures (a) In conjunction with submittal of Improvement Plans, the applicant shall show on the Improvement Plans that minimum 6-foot-tall sound walls and/or landscaped berms shall be constructed along Woodward Avenue, adjacent to proposed residential uses. Noise barrier walls shall be decorative concrete masonry units (CMU) block walls, landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The Improvement Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS (b) In conjunction with submittal of Improvement Plans, the applicant shall show on the Improvement Plans that minimum 7-foot-tall sound walls and/or landscaped berms shall be constructed along Atherton Drive, adjacent to proposed residential uses. Noise barrier walls shall be decorative concrete masonry units (CMU) block walls, landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The Improvement Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer (c) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall show on the plans that mechanical ventilation shall be installed in all residential uses to allow residents to keep NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-38

59 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact Construction noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures doors and windows closed, as desired for acoustical isolation. The plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building Official. PS (a) Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site associated with the proposed project in any way shall adhere to the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code with respect to hours of operations (i.e., be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM), subject to review and approval by the City Building Official. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS Construction vibration impacts to existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity (b) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project contractor shall ensure that all equipment to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers and in good working order, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. LS None required. N/A Cumulative noise impacts. LS None required. N/A Impacts related to adequate water supply and delivery for the proposed project Public Services and Utilities LS None required. N/A NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-39

60 Impact Impacts related to increased demand for wastewater disposal Impacts related to increased demand for solid waste disposal Impacts related to the provision of adequate fire protection and emergency medical services for the proposed project Impacts related to the provision of adequate law enforcement services for the proposed project Impacts related to inadequate service ratios at schools in the project area Impacts related to the provision of adequate park and recreation facilities for the proposed project. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A PS At the time of tentative map submittal for the DeJong property, the tentative map shall include the development of adequate parkland to achieve the City s requirement of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for community and neighborhood parks, or pay in-lieu park fees prior to recording of the final map. Final calculations shall be made at the time of submittal of tentative map application for the DeJong property, for review and approval by the Manteca Community Development Department. LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-40

61 Impact Impacts related to the provision of adequate gas and electricity, cable, and telephone services for the proposed project Impacts related to the cumulative increase in demand for public services and utilities within the City of Manteca The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to study intersections The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to freeway facilities The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to the transit system The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to at-grade railroad crossings. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation PS Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project applicant shall pay the applicable PFIP fee. LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A LS NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-41

62 Impact The proposed project could cause potentially significant traffic impacts during construction The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to Regional CMP roadways/intersections or inconsistencies in applicable Regional CMP transportation policies The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to study intersections. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures PS Prior to the beginning of construction, the applicant shall prepare a construction traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The plan shall ensure that acceptable operating conditions are maintained on local roadways during peak travel hours. Level of Significance After Mitigation LS LS None required. N/A S (a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay the appropriate fee into the Manteca- Ripon Sub-Regional Fee Program, which would help fund the SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway Interchange (including approach/departure roadways). In the event the fee program has not been adopted, the project applicant shall instead pay a fair share toward the planned SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway interchange to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (b) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay a fair share toward the upgrade of the SR 120/Main Street interchange to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. SU NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-42

63 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures (c) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay a fair share toward the following surface street improvements (unless otherwise noted below) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: Main Street / Industrial Park Drive Restripe the westbound approach to provide a left-turn lane, shared left/through lane, and right-turn lane. Operate the eastbound and westbound approaches with split phasing. Extend the northbound left-turn lanes from 150 to 300 feet. Moffat Boulevard / Industrial Park Drive Reoptimize signal timing. Provide coordinated signal operations at the SR 120/Main Street interchange and Main Street / Atherton Drive intersection. Widen Main Street to six lanes from south of SR 120 to Woodward Avenue (remaining four lanes south of Woodward Avenue). Main Street / Atherton Drive Extend the northbound left-turn lane to 300 feet and provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. Widen Woodward Avenue to consist of two lanes in each direction approaching and departing Main Street. Woodward Avenue/Buena Vista Drive - Install Level of Significance After Mitigation NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-43

64 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Impact TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Traffic Signal. Woodward Avenue/Van Ryn Avenue - Install Traffic Signal. Woodward Avenue/Pillsbury Road - Install Traffic Signal. Woodward Avenue/Atherton Drive - Install Traffic Signal. Moffat Boulevard/Austin Road - Provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to study freeway facilities. All impacts are the result of projected unacceptable operations being degraded to a significant degree The proposed project could cause potentially significant cumulative impacts to the transit system The proposed project could cause potentially significant cumulative impacts to bicycle (d) Implement Mitigation Measure (a): The applicant shall pay the required PFIP fee. S Implement Mitigation Measure (a) (Pay appropriate fee into the Manteca-Ripon Sub-Regional Fee Program). LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A SU NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-44

65 Impact and pedestrian facilities The proposed project could cause potentially significant cumulative impacts to at-grade railroad crossings The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to Regional Congestion Management Program roadways/intersections or inconsistencies in applicable Regional CMP transportation policies. TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Level of Significance After Mitigation LS None required. N/A LS None required. N/A NI = No Impact; N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Chapter 2 Executive Summary 2-45

66 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

67 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Introduction Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to include a comprehensive project description including project objectives, location, characteristics, concept, proposed buildings and facilities, construction activities, supporting public services, and required approvals. According to Section of CEQA Guidelines, the project description is not required to supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impacts. Section of CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, from a local and regional perspective. Knowledge of the existing environmental setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Per Section of CEQA Guidelines, the description of the environmental setting shall not be longer than necessary to understand the potential significant effects of the project. The Project Description chapter of the Draft EIR provides a comprehensive description of the South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) project (proposed project) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. Please note that this chapter provides an overall general description of the existing environmental conditions; however, detailed discussions of the existing setting in compliance with Section of CEQA Guidelines, as it relates to each given potential impact area, is included in each technical chapter of this Draft EIR. 3.2 Project Location The proposed project site is located in San Joaquin County, within the City of Manteca Sphere of Influence (see Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map). The City of Manteca City limits make up the project s western, northern, and eastern boundaries. The project site is bounded by East Woodward Avenue to the north; agricultural land to the south, which is the site of the proposed Hat Ranch age-restricted project; agricultural land, approved residential development, and the future Atherton Drive extension to the east; and the future Pillsbury Estates and Pillsbury Road to the west. The proposed project consists of six parcels totaling approximately acres, with San Joaquin County Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) , -12, -13; , -02, and -03). 3.3 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as: 1.) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I; 2.) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and 3.) DeJong property (see Figure 3-2, Project Location Map). Each of the three distinct sites is discussed in further detail Chapter 3 Project Description 3-1

68 Figure 3-1 Regional Location N Project Site CHAPTER 3 Project Description 3-2

69 Figure 3-2 Project Location N Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II DeJong Project Site Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I CHAPTER 3 Project Description 3-3

70 below. The overall project site is located at an elevation of 47 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and in an area of low topographic relief. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site encompasses the southern portion of the overall proposed project site and consists of approximately 54.2 acres of agricultural land, formerly utilized for the cultivation of row crops and an almond orchard. The western boundary of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site wraps around two 1.06-acre parcels (APNs and -02), which each contain an existing rural residence. It should be noted that the two parcels with existing residences are included in this project description for annexation purposes only, and are not included as part of the proposed project improvements. To the west of the site, beyond South Pillsbury Road, is the Pillsbury Estates development, which is currently under construction. North of the site is the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site and the DeJong property, which are currently in agricultural use. East of the site is an approved residential development currently under agricultural use. South of the site is the proposed Hat Ranch project site. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site encompasses the northwestern portion of the overall proposed project site and is comprised of approximately 57.3 acres of agricultural land. West of the site, beyond South Pillsbury Road, is a single-family residential neighborhood. South of the site is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, with agricultural and residential uses located further south. To the east of the site is the DeJong property. DeJong The DeJong property consists of approximately 80.0 acres and makes up the northeastern portion of the overall proposed project site. To the west of the DeJong property is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, and to the south is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site. North of the DeJong property is a residential development, and land east of the property is approved for residential development and currently used for agriculture. 3.4 Project Objectives The objectives for the proposed project are as follows: 1. Provide additional residential opportunities for the expanding populations of Manteca to help accommodate the growing community. 2. Implement the Manteca General Plan goals by providing for residential development for which adequate services can be provided in a timely manner. 3. Create an inviting village setting composed of distinct yet integrated neighborhoods with neighborhood parks, all of which would provide a desirable small town atmosphere and attractive lifestyle choice for residents. CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-4

71 4. Provide the infrastructure necessary for the delivery of safe and reliable public services including water, sewer, drainage, and roadway infrastructure improvements that enhance the entire City of Manteca. 3.5 Project Components As discussed above, the proposed project is made up of three distinct sites referred to as Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong. All three sites are proposed to be annexed into the City of Manteca and Prezoned with City zoning, as required under State law. While the DeJong portion of the proposed project includes only the programlevel entitlements (Annexation and Prezoning), the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II portions of the proposed project would include tentative maps and Development Agreements as well. The program- and project-level entitlements are discussed below, for each project site, as appropriate. Annexation The project site is currently located within San Joaquin County and has a San Joaquin County General Plan land use designation of General Agriculture (A/G). The proposed project includes a request for annexation of the acre project site to the City of Manteca, which ultimately requires San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval. In addition, in order to avoid the creation of a County island area, the two non-participating parcels located immediately west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, along Pillsbury Road, have been included in the proposed annexation area. It should be noted, however, that the two parcels are not included as part of the proposed project improvements. Figure 3-3 illustrates the proposed annexation area. It should be noted that the project site is currently served by the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District. Upon annexation of the proposed project area into the City of Manteca, the Manteca Fire Department would take responsibility for providing fire and emergency medical response services to the proposed project area. As a result, the project includes detachment from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District, which requires San Joaquin County LAFCO approval. The Manteca General Plan designates the entire project site as Low Density Residential (LDR), allowing for 2.1 to 8.0 residential units per gross acre, which is consistent with the residential densities proposed for the overall project site. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment would not be needed. Prezone Consistent with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, Prezoning shall be applied to the annexation areas (see Gov. Code Section 56375). Consistent with the Manteca General Plan Low Density Residential (LDR) designation for the project site, each of the three sites and non-participating properties would be Prezoned to the City s Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone district. CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-5

72 Figure 3-3 Project Site Annexation Map DRAFT EIR DeJong Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Non-Participating Properties CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-6

73 Tentative Subdivision Maps The total single family residential development for the overall project would be 706 units, with 171 units proposed for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, 185 units proposed for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, and 350 units proposed for the DeJong site. Further details regarding the proposed development for each site are provided below. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I The tentative map (TM) for the 54.2-acre Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site includes 171 single-family lots, a 3.53-acre park basin, which includes a 1-acre tot lot, landscaped entry, and Class I bike path with associated greenbelt (Parcel B), which would connect the park to the future extension of Atherton Drive (see Figure 3-4). The proposed lot sizes range from a minimum of 7,370 square feet to a maximum of 18,181 square feet. The TM identifies the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project would be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of 101 lots and comprise the western section of the site, while Phase 2 would consist of 70 lots and comprise the remaining eastern section. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II The TM for the 57.3-acre Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site includes 185 single-family lots for development of single-family homes and one 4.3-acre park basin (see Figure 3-5). Improvements will include grading, modifying the existing irrigation system, construction of public streets and street lighting, all to City of Manteca standards. The TM identifies that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II project would be completed in three phases. Phase 1 would consist of 64 lots and make up the southern portion of the project site; Phase 2 would consist of 69 lots and comprise the northern and a portion of the center section of the site; and Phase 3 would consist of the remaining 52 lots, split into two sections, and make up the central western and eastern portions of the site. DeJong Property It should be noted that a TM is not proposed for the DeJong property. However, for CEQA analysis purposes, 350 single-family units are assumed for the site, based on the Prezoning designation of R-1 for the site, as well as discussions with the applicant. Infrastructure The primary infrastructure systems installed as part of the proposed project would be sized to meet demands created by the proposed project. The proposed project infrastructure includes roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and wastewater, water, and storm drain systems (see Figure 3-6, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Utility Plan, and Figure 3-7, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Utility Plan). CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-7

74 Figure 3-4 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Tentative Subdivision Map DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-8

75 Figure 3-5 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Tentative Subdivision Map CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-9

76 Figure 3-6 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Utility Plan DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-10

77 Figure 3-7 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Utility Plan DRAFT EIR CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-11

78 Roadways Access to the project would be provided by Pillsbury Road via Woodward Avenue. The northerly access of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project would require removal of an existing median in Pillsbury Road, while the southern access point would line up to existing Mono Drive to create a four-way intersection. The northerly access of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II project would connect to the existing Heartland Drive, while the southern access point would connect to the existing Tannehill Drive. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project includes an area reserved for Atherton Drive right-of-way, which includes a 20- foot landscape frontage with meandering walk. Future internal roadway connections are proposed within the three projects. Water Manteca receives its water supply from two sources: groundwater from local wells and surface water supplied by the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). The SSJID operates a water treatment plant near the SSJID s Woodward Reservoir, and the treated water is conveyed to Manteca through a series of pipelines. Water would be provided to the project site via new connections to the existing water infrastructure surrounding the project site. Eight-inch diameter pipes would be arrayed in a typical looped system to ensure adequate flow to all portions of the project for both domestic use and fire protection. For the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II projects, water lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Pillsbury Road. Infrastructure details have not been submitted for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for this site, but it is anticipated that water lines would be extended onto the site from the main in Pillsbury Road or Woodward Avenue. Wastewater The City s Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF) has capacity to treat 9.87 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats 6.5 mgd. The project site is located in the South Manteca Trunk Sewer shed. Wastewater from the proposed project would be conveyed via a system of eight-inch pipelines. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project sewer system would include the construction of 2,670+/- lineal feet of sewer line in the Pillsbury Road rightof-way, from the northwest corner of the site, north to Woodward Avenue. This offsite sewer line would connect to the 30-inch sewer trunk in Woodward Avenue. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II wastewater would also be transported to the sewer line in the Pillsbury Road right-of-way, which would be built as part of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project. Infrastructure details have not been submitted for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for this site, but it is anticipated that on-site sewer lines would connect to the lines in Pillsbury Road or Woodward Avenue. Stormwater Detention Manteca s stormwater drainage system is managed by the City s Public Works Department. The backbone of the City s storm drains is a long standing relationship with the South San Joaquin CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-12

79 Irrigation District (SSJID) and use of the SSJID s drains and laterals. The relationship is formalized in a 2006 agreement that allows the City the use of SSJID facilities to the year City use of SSJID facilities is limited to availability of SSJID capacity. The SSJID owns the drains and laterals that are the backbone of the City s storm drain system, and the City operates and maintains the storm drainage system. The City depends on drains and laterals of the SSJID to convey stormwater runoff west to French Camp Slough and the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The City collects runoff in an urban storm drain system and conveys flows in most cases to one of more than 54 detention basins. Storm drainage from the project area is gravity discharged into the French Camp Outlet Canal, which eventually flows into French Camp Slough. As shown in Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7, the proposed park areas for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II would include surface storage basins to detain stormwater during major storm events. For Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, the surface basin would then discharge the stormwater into SSJID Lateral X, per the City of Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan. The stormwater from the Phase 1 portion of Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II would flow directly into SSJID Lateral X. The detention basin serving Phases 2 and 3 of Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II would discharge into the existing SSJID Lateral X storm drain trunk line, per the City of Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan. Infrastructure details have not been submitted for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for this site, but it is anticipated that an on-site park/basin area would detain stormwater flows prior to discharging treated flows into the SSJID Lateral X storm drain trunk line. 3.6 Required Public Approvals The City of Manteca has discretionary authority and is the lead agency for the proposed project. The proposed project requires approval of the following entitlements by the City of Manteca: Approval of an Annexation for the overall acre project site and detachment from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District; Prezone of the acre site to Single Family Residential (R-1); Approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and Approval of the applicant-requested Development Agreements for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II. The proposed project would require the following additional City of Manteca approvals: Approval of a Grading Permit; Approval of Building Permits; and Tentative Map(s) for the DeJong Property. CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-13

80 The following are actions required by other agencies: Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Compliance Any project that disturbs more than 10,000 square feet of land is required to obtain a permit for stormwater discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the RWQCB. The proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under the program for construction phase and post-construction phase stormwater discharge and would be required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Annexation and Detachment Approval Upon City approval of an Annexation Resolution, authorizing the applicants to submit formal annexation applications to San Joaquin County LAFCO, the annexation of the acre site would require approval by the San Joaquin County LAFCO. In addition, the proposed project would include detachment from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District, which would also require approval by the San Joaquin County LAFCO. Well Abandonment Permit An existing irrigation well is located on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, and additional wells may potentially be present on the DeJong property. Prior to development within 50 feet of any well, a well abandonment permit must be obtained from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. Proper abandonment of any wells would be subject to review and approval by the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. CHAPTER 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-14

81 4. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

82 4.0. INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS

83 4.0 INTRODUCTION to the ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The environmental assessment of the South of Woodward Avenue North Project (proposed project) is included in Chapters 4.1 through 4.12 of this Draft EIR. Each technical chapter analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on a range of environmental issue areas. The format of each of the chapters is described below DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment (Public Resources Code 21068). The Guidelines implementing CEQA direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. The specific criteria for determining the significance of a particular impact are identified within the impact discussion in each chapter, and are consistent with significance criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS DRAFT EIR This Draft EIR provides the analysis necessary to address the technical environmental impacts of the proposed project. The following environmental issues are addressed in this Draft EIR: Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality and Climate Change; Biological Resources: Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity/Mineral Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing; Noise; Public Services and Utilities/Recreation; and Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation SECTION FORMAT Each technical chapter addressing a specific environmental issue begins with an introduction describing the purpose of the section. The introduction is followed by a description of the project s environmental setting as the setting pertains to that particular issue. The setting description is followed by the regulatory context and the impacts and mitigation measures Chapter 4.0 Introduction to the Analysis 4.0-1

84 discussion. This discussion contains the significance criteria, followed by the methods of analysis. The impact and mitigation discussion includes impact statements prefaced by a number in bold-faced type. An explanation of each impact and an analysis of the impact s significance follow each impact statement. All mitigation measures pertinent to each individual impact follow directly after the impact statement (see below). The degree of relief provided by identified mitigation measures is also evaluated. An example of the format is shown below: 4.x-1 Statement of Impact Discussion of impact for the proposed project in paragraph format. Statement of level of significance of impact prior to mitigation is included at the end of each impact discussion. Mitigation Measure(s) Statement of level of significance after the mitigation is included immediately preceding mitigation measures. 4.x-1(a) 4.x-1(b) Recommended mitigation measure(s) presented in italics and numbered in consecutive order. etc., etc. Chapter 4.0 Introduction to the Analysis 4.0-2

85 4.1. AESTHETICS

86 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 4.1 AESTHETICS INTRODUCTION The Aesthetics chapter of the Draft EIR describes existing visual and aesthetic resources for the project area and the region, and evaluates the potential aesthetic impacts of the South of Woodward Avenue project (proposed project). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) describes the concept of aesthetic resources in terms of scenic vistas, scenic resources (such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway), the existing visual character or quality of the project area, and light and glare impacts. The following impact analysis is based on information drawn from the Manteca General Plan 1 and the Manteca General Plan EIR. 2 In addition, portions of the impact analysis are based on a site visit that was conducted within the proposed project area by Raney Planning & Management, Inc. on October 10, EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following setting information provides an overview of the existing condition of visual resources in the proposed project area within San Joaquin County, California and consists of three sites located south of E. Woodward Avenue and east of Pillsbury Road (see Chapter 3, Figure 3-2, Project Location). The three distinct sites are referred to as Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong Property. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II encompass the southern and northwestern portion of the overall site, respectively, and DeJong comprises the northeastern portion. All three sites are proposed to be annexed into the City of Manteca and Prezoned with City zoning, as required under State law. Regional Visual Character The City of Manteca is located at the center of California s Central Valley and near the north end of the San Joaquin Valley. The nearest state scenic highway is located approximately 16 miles southwest of downtown Manteca. Typical of the Central Valley, the Manteca area is virtually flat, with the exception of views from highway overpasses that provide brief panoramic views, the entire cityscape and surrounding landscape are viewed from the ground level perspective. The terrain is characterized by agricultural uses, primarily orchards and field crops. The aesthetic qualities of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the Coastal Mountain Range, and Mount Boardman are one of the primary attractions of the area. The Sierra Nevada Mountains are located approximately 65 miles east of the City of Manteca and visible on most days. The Coastal Mountains, approximately 20 miles from the City, afford area residents a view to the west on clear days. In addition, Mount Boardman is visible to the southwest as part of the Coast Mountain Range. Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-1

87 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Project Area Visual Character The overall project site is relatively flat and has been used for agricultural purposes. Land west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, beyond Pillsbury Road, contains a singlefamily residential neighborhood consisting of single- and two-story homes as well as trees and grass for landscaping. The property to the west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I is the future Pillsbury Estates which is currently under construction. Similar residential subdivisions are located to the north of the project site, and agricultural land is located adjacent to the east and south. In addition, land located to the east of the DeJong project site is approved for residential development and has a current agricultural use. Summary of Viewing Conditions Existing views of the site and the site s surroundings are depicted in Figures through Figure shows a representative view from Pillsbury Road looking east towards the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II project site. The site is currently utilized as an almond orchard. Figure shows a representative view from Pillsbury Road looking west towards the adjacent residential development. The neighborhood includes one- and two-story single-family homes, landscaping, and public roadways. Figure shows the view looking southwest from Pillsbury Road of the Pillsbury Estates Project, currently under construction, across from the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property. Figure shows the view from E. Woodward Avenue looking south across the DeJong Property site. The property is currently being used as an almond orchard. Figure shows the view from E. Woodward Avenue looking south towards the DeJong Property site and the single-family residence located on the adjacent property to the east. This land is approved for residential development and currently has an agricultural use. Figure shows a representative view from E. Woodward Avenue looking north at the adjacent residential neighborhood. The neighborhood includes one- and two-story single-family homes and the view is characterized by a sound-wall, a landscaped center roadway median and typical landscaping along E. Woodward Avenue. Figure shows the view from E. Woodward Avenue at Moffat Boulevard looking southwest across the overall project site. The Hat Ranch mansion and Coastal Mountain Range can be seen is the distance. Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-2

88 Figure Pillsbury Road looking east Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Figure Pillsbury Road looking west Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-3

89 Figure Pillsbury Road looking southwest Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Figure E. Woodward Avenue looking south Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-4

90 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Figure E. Woodward Avenue looking south at east edge of DeJong Property Figure E. Woodward Avenue looking north Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-5

91 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Figure E. Woodward Avenue at Moffat Boulevard looking southwest REGULATORY SETTING Specific federal or State regulations do not directly pertain to the visual quality of an area. However, the existing goals and policies established in the Manteca General Plan are listed below, as applicable. Manteca General Plan The following are applicable goals and policies related to aesthetic resources from the Manteca General Plan. Community Design Element Goal CD-1 Retain the compact and cohesive community form of the City. Policy CD-P-7 Policy CD-P-6 The City shall implement neighborhood design standards in the Residential districts that contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood by emphasizing traditional residential features that enhance the sense of community, ensure a safe pedestrian orientation, and minimize the visual prominence of garages. Provide public spaces such as small parks and plazas, including a single plaza or City park that is recognized as the City center. Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-6

92 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Goal CD-9 Establish a durable sustainable community that utilizes resources efficiently. Policy CD-P-35 Policy CD-P-36 Architectural elements that contribute to a building s character, aid in climate control, and enhance pedestrian scale are encouraged. Examples include canopies, roof overhangs, projections or recessions of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings. Encourage the creation of an urban forest comprised of street trees, residential lot trees, and trees in non-residential parking lots and other public open-space. Goal CD-11 To the extent possible, new development shall retain or incorporate visual reminders of the agricultural heritage of the community. Policy CD-P-44 Policy CD-P-45 Policy CD-P-46 Policy CD-P-47 Provide minimal levels of street, parking, building, site and public area lighting to meet safety standards and provide direction. Provide directional shielding for all exterior lighting to minimize the annoyance of direct or indirect glare. Provide automatic shutoff or motion sensors for lighting features in newly developed areas. The City shall adopt light and glare standards that minimize the creation of new light source and the annoyance of direct and indirect glare Resource Conservation Element Policy RC-P-16 Policy RC-P-17 Policy RC-P-18 Provide public and private open-space within urbanized parts of Manteca, in order to provide visual contrast with the built environment and to provide for the recreational needs of residents. Provide access to public open space areas. New development shall maximize the potential for openspace and visual experiences. Manteca Zoning Ordinance The following are applicable goals and policies related to aesthetic resources from the Manteca Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-7

93 Control of Dangerous and Objectionable Conditions D. Glare. Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 1. No direct glare shall be permitted with the exception that parking areas and walkways may be illuminated by luminaries so hooded or shielded that the maximum angle of the cone of direct illumination shall be sixty degrees if the luminary is not less than six feet above the ground. Such luminaries shall be placed not more than twenty feet above ground level and shall not be in excess of ten-foot candles. 2. Indirect glare shall not exceed that value which is produced by an illumination of the reflecting surface, not to exceed: a. Ten foot-candle (maximum); b. Four foot-candle (average); c. One foot-candle (minimum); d. Any light or combination of lights shall not cast light on residential property and shall not exceed 0.0 foot-candles as measured from said property IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance An impact to the visual resources of the proposed project vicinity would be considered significant if the proposed project would result in any of the following: Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Method of Analysis The section below gives full consideration to the development of the project area and acknowledges the physical changes to the existing setting. Impacts to the existing environment of the project area are to be determined by the contrast between the site s visual setting before and after buildout of the proposed project. Although few standards exist to singularly define the various individual perceptions of aesthetic value from person to person, the degree of visual change can be measured and described in a reasonably objective manner in terms of visibility and visual contrast, dominance, and magnitude. Residences adjacent to the project site to the north and west would be considered sensitive to the visual and aesthetic alteration of the project Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-8

94 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project site. The standards of significance listed above will be used to delineate the significance of any visual or aesthetic alterations of the site. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of aesthetics impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, or have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway. In addition, the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project site, including a field survey, did not identify any rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on the site. The overall proposed project site is made of three distinct sites referred to as Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong Property. The project includes a request for annexation of the acre site to the City of Manteca and development of single-family residential subdivisions. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I encompasses the southern portion of the overall project site and currently consists of approximately 54.2 acres of agricultural land, currently utilized for the cultivation of row crops and an almond orchard. The proposed project would convert the existing agricultural setting to nonagricultural, residential development. The proposed development includes 171 single-family lots and would incorporate the construction of public streets and street lighting. Although views of the site would be permanently altered, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I would include a 3.53 acre park, landscaped entry, bike path and associated greenbelt to help maximize visual experiences and open-space consistent with Policy RC-P-16 and -17. In addition, the development would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II comprises the northwestern portion of the overall project site and is comprised of approximately 57.3 acres of agricultural land. The proposed project would convert the existing agricultural setting to nonagricultural, residential development. The proposed project includes 185 single-family lots for development and will incorporate the construction of public streets and street lighting. Although views of the site would be permanently altered, the site would include a 4.3 acre park to help maximize visual experiences and open-space consistent with Policy RC- P-16 and -17. In addition, the development would be consistent with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west. Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-9

95 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project DeJong Property The proposed site for the DeJong property comprises the remaining 80 acres of the overall site and has a Manteca General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR); however, the site is currently utilized for agriculture. Build-out of the DeJong site would result in the conversion of the existing agricultural setting to approximately 350 single-family residential lots. Although the proposed project would alter the current land use, the development would be consistent with the existing residential use to the north and the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II portion of the proposed project to the west. Conclusion The project site is not located within the vicinity of a State scenic highway and the Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project site did not identify any rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on the site. Therefore, development of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. However, the Manteca General Plan EIR states that development of agricultural areas at the edge of Manteca would impact the current views of open-space, which are primary vistas of agricultural fields and orchards. The Manteca General Plan EIR determined that new development would impact existing views and a significant and unavoidable impact would occur. Although the proposed project would include the creation of open-space in the form of parks and greenbelts, development would still alter the current visual experience of the site. Consistent with the City of Manteca determination in the General Plan EIR, the conversion of this site would also be considered significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Feasible mitigation does not exist to reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable Impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site and the site s surroundings. The proposed project includes the development of 706 single-family residential lots, 7.83 acres of parks, and associated infrastructure. In addition, improvements would include construction of public streets and street lighting. Development of the project site would alter the visual character of the project site from agricultural to residential. However, the residential uses would be similar to the existing residential uses to the north and west. Consistent with the Manteca General Plan Low Density Residence (LDR) designation for the project site, each of the three sites would be Prezoned to the City s Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone district. Development of the project would include the removal of agricultural vegetation on-site, causing the visual character of the site to be permanently Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics

96 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project altered. To offset the effects of development, the project design would incorporate new open-spaces and landscaping to increase the aesthetic quality of the project, and would thereby reduce the impacts the project would have on the conversion of the site to an urban setting. In addition, landscaping would be designed to be consistent with the goals and policies found in the Manteca General Plan. General Plan land use designations for the surrounding areas include low-density, medium-density, and high-density residential even though they are currently in agriculture use. The Manteca General Plan EIR states that future residential development would be similar in character to any existing residences. Thus, upon build-out of the General Plan, the proposed project would provide a consistent visual experience with the surrounding residential developments. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan EIR, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site and surrounding areas would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts associated with new sources of light and glare. The proposed project includes the development potential for 706 single-family residential lots, 7.83 acres of parks, and associate infrastructure. Development of the project would create new sources of light and glare that could adversely affect day and nighttime views in the area. The City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance has requirements for lighting and glare to reduce the impacts of glare and light trespass. The zone code for Manteca states that direct glare shall not be permitted. 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-45 requires the use of directionally shielded lighting for all exterior lighting. Policy CD-P-46 also requires automatic shut-off or motion sensors for lighting features in newly developed areas. The Manteca General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of goals and policies, light and glare from new development that is contiguous with existing development would be less-than-significant. Development of the project site would be contiguous and consistent with surrounding residential lighting. In addition, the proposed project would be required to incorporate the necessary design features to minimize the effects of light and glare. Therefore, due to the zoning codes and City requirements, development of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to light and glare. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics

97 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Cumulative aesthetic impacts associated with development of the project. The Manteca General Plan EIR determined that as the City of Manteca continues to expand, the cumulative loss of agricultural land that separates the neighboring communities could contribute to the loss of each community s sense of identity and place. The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative change in visual character of an agricultural area within the City of Manteca. Residential subdivisions are located to the north and west of the project site, and agricultural land is located adjacent to the east. South of the project site is the proposed Hat Ranch Project, the Austin Road Business Park and Master Planned Community are planned for development to the east, and three smaller residential projects are planned to the northwest of the project site. Therefore, in terms of the change to the visual character of the project area, development on the project site would be typical of what is anticipated to occur around the project site. Should development be allowed, the character of the area would change from flat fields and roadways to residences with trees and park/open-space areas. Development in the City, in addition to the development on the project site, would contribute to a change in the visual character of the area. The Manteca General Plan designates the entire project site as LDR allowing for 2.1 to 8.0 residential units per gross acre, which is consistent with the residential densities proposed for the overall project site, therefore, a General Plan Amendment would not be needed. The General Plan EIR addressed build-out of the plan area, which included the project area, and states that converting agricultural land to residential use would not create a significant impact. Therefore, the conversion of the project site, in addition to other lands in the project area, from a rural agriculture to urban residential setting would be considered less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, Chapter 4.1 Aesthetics

98 4.2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

99 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The Agricultural Resources chapter of the Draft EIR summarizes the status of the existing agricultural resources within the boundaries of the proposed project site, using the current State model and data, including identification of any Prime/Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the project boundaries. If Prime/Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance is determined to be on-site, the analysis will address the conversion of said lands to residential uses. In addition, any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or right-to-farm ordinances applicable to the proposed project will be identified. Furthermore, the chapter addresses the project s consistency with the policies and standards of the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) regarding agricultural resources. Documents referenced to prepare this chapter include the Manteca General Plan, 1 the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, 3 the Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California, 4 and the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations) EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Existing Environmental Setting section describes current farmland and soil productivity classification systems, as well as the extent and quality of the agricultural resources present on the project site. Farmland Classifications The NRCS uses two systems to determine a soil s agricultural productivity: the Soil Capability Classification and the Storie Index Rating System. The prime soil classification of both systems indicates the presence of few to no soil limitations, which if present, would require the application of management techniques (e.g., drainage, leveling, special fertilizing practices) to enhance production. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, part of the Division of Land Resource Protection, California Department of Conservation, uses the information from the NRCS to create maps illustrating the types of farmland in the area. Soil Capability Classification The Soil Capability Classification System takes into consideration soil limitations, the risk of damage when soils are used, and the way in which soils respond to treatment. Capability classes range from Class I soils, which have few limitations for agriculture, to Class VIII soils, which are unsuitable for agriculture. Generally, as the rating of the capability classification system Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-1

100 increases, the yields and profits are difficult to obtain. A general description of soil classification, as defined by the NRCS, is provided in Table Table Soil Capability Classification Class Definition I Soils have few limitations that restrict their use. II Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants, or that require special conservation practices. III Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require conservation practices, or both. IV Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. V Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations; impractical to remove and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. VI Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. VII Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. VIII Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial plants and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife habitat, or water supply or to aesthetic purposes. Source: USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, Storie Index Rating System The Storie Index Rating system ranks soil characteristics according to their suitability for agriculture from Grade 1 soils (80 to 100 rating), which do not have limitations or have few limitations for agricultural production, to Grade 6 soils (less than 10), which are not suitable for agriculture. Under this system, soils deemed less than prime can function as prime soils when limitations such as poor drainage, slopes, or soil nutrient deficiencies are partially or entirely removed. The six grades, ranges in index rating, and definition of the grades, as defined by the NRCS, are provided in Table 4.2-2, Storie Index Rating System. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 to continue the Important Farmland mapping efforts begun in 1975 by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS). The intent of the USDA-SCS was to produce agriculture maps based on soil quality and land use across the nation. As part of the nationwide agricultural land use mapping effort, the USDA-SCS developed a series of definitions known as Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) criteria. The LIM criteria classified the land s suitability for agricultural production; suitability included both the physical and chemical characteristics of soils and the actual land use. Important Farmland Maps are derived from the USDA-SCS soil survey maps using the LIM criteria. Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-2

101 Table Storie Index Rating System Grade Index Rating Definition 1 Excellent 80 through 100 Soils are well suited to intensive use for growing irrigated crops that are climatically suited to the region. 2 Good 60 through 79 Soils are good agricultural soils, although they may not be so desirable as Grade 1 because of moderately coarse, coarse, or gravelly surface soil texture; somewhat less permeable subsoil; lower plant available water holding capacity, fair fertility; less well drained conditions, or slight to moderate flood hazards, all acting separately or in combination. 3 Fair 40 through 59 Soils are only fairly well suited to general agriculture use and are limited in their use because of moderate slopes; moderate soils depths; less permeable subsoil; fine, moderately fine or gravelly surface soil textures; poor drainage; moderate flood hazards; or fair to poor fertility levels, all acting alone or in combination. 4 Poor 20 through 39 Soils are poorly suited. They are severely limited in their agricultural potential because of shallow soil depths; less permeable subsoil; steeper slope; or more clayey or gravelly surface soil texture than Grade 3 soils, as well as poor drainage; greater flood hazards; hummocky micro-relief; salinity; or poor fertility levels, all acting alone or in combination. 5 Very Poor 10 through 19 Soils are very poorly suited for agriculture, are seldom cultivated and are more commonly used for range, pasture, or woodland. 6 Non-Agriculture Less and 10 Soils are not suited for agriculture at all due to very severe to extreme physical limitations, or because of urbanization. Source: USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, Since 1980, the State of California has assisted the USDA-SCS with completing mapping in the State. The FMMP was created within the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to carry on the mapping activity on a continuing basis, and with a greater level of detail. The DOC applied a greater level of detail by modifying the LIM criteria for use in California. The LIM criteria in California utilizes the SCS and Storie Index Rating systems, but also considers physical conditions such as dependable water supply for agricultural production, soil temperature range, depth of the groundwater table, flooding potential, rock fragment content and rooting depth. Important Farmland Maps for California are compiled using the modified LIM criteria (as described above) and current land use information. The minimum mapping unit is 10 acres unless otherwise specified. Units of land smaller than 10 acres are incorporated into surrounding classifications. The Important Farmland Maps identify seven agriculture-related categories: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance (statewide farmland), unique farmland, farmland of local importance (local farmland), grazing land, urban and built-up land (urban land), and other land. Each is summarized below, based on A Guide to Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (1998), prepared by the Department of Conservation. Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-3

102 Prime Farmland Prime Farmland is land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain the long-term production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. The land must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles (a cycle is equivalent to two years) prior to the mapping date of 1998 (or since 1994). Statewide Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance is land similar to prime farmland, but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or with less ability to hold and store moisture. The land must have been used for the production or irrigated crops at sometime during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date (or since 1994). Unique Farmland Local Farmland Grazing Land Urban Land Unique Farmland is land of lesser quality soils used for the production of the State s leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, as found in some climatic zones in California. The land must have been cultivated at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date (or since 1994). Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county s Board of Supervisors and a local advisory committee. San Joaquin County local farmland includes lands which do not qualify as Prime, Statewide, or Unique designation, but are currently irrigated crops or pasture or non-irrigated crops; lands that would meet the Prime or Statewide designation and have been improved for irrigation, but are now idle; and lands that currently support confined livestock, poultry operations and aquaculture. Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suited to the grazing of livestock. The minimum mapping unit for this category is 40 acres. Urban Land is occupied with structures with a building density of at least one unit to one-half acre. Uses may include but are not limited to, residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration purposes, railroad yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water control structures, and other development purposes. Highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities are mapped as part of this unit, if they are part of a surrounding urban area. Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-4

103 Other Land Other Land is land that is not included in any other mapping categories. The following uses are generally included: rural development, brush timber, government land, strip mines, borrow pits, and a variety of other rural land uses. Project Site Characteristics According to the Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, the project site is made up of Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes (approximately 0.4 percent), Delhi fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (approximately 52.6 percent), Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (approximately 9 percent), and Tinnin loamy course sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes (approximately 38 percent). The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, San Joaquin County, 6 lists Bisgani loamy coarse sand, Delhi fine sand, Delhi loamy sand, and Tinnin loamy course sand as soils that meet the criteria for Farmland of Statewide Importance. Table lists the characteristics of Bisgani loamy coarse sand, Delhi fine sand, Delhi loamy sand, and Tinnin loamy course sand soil types, as determined in the Soil Survey of San Joaquin County (1992). Table On-Site Soil Capability Classification and Storie Index Rating Storie Index Soil Map Symbol and Name Soil Capability Classification Rating Grade Bisgani loamy coarse sand IIIw-4, irrigated, IVw-4, nonirrigated 30 4 Delhi fine sand, 0 to 5 percent IIIs-4, irrigated, IVe-4, nonirrigated 49 3 slopes Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 IIIs-4, irrigated, IVe-4, nonirrigated 65 2 percent slopes Tinnin loamy course sand IIIs-4, irrigated, IVe-4, nonirrigated 57 3 Source: USDA Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, REGULATORY SETTING The following is a description of federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the review of agricultural resources under CEQA. State Regulations California Land Conservation Act Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, has been the State s premier agricultural land protection program since the act s enactment in The California legislature passed the Williamson Act in 1965 to preserve agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Act creates an arrangement whereby private landowners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict land to agricultural and open space uses. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling term 10- Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-5

104 year contract (i.e., unless either party files a notice of non-renewal, the contract is automatically renewed annually for an additional year). In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their annual use, rather than potential market value. The properties making up the SOWA project site are not under a Williamson Act contract. Local Regulations The following are the local government environmental goals and policies relevant to the CEQA review process with respect to agricultural resources. City of Manteca Manteca General Plan 2023 The following are applicable goals and policies from the Manteca General Plan Land Use Element. General Land Use Goal LU-6 Provide open space as a framework for the city, and meet the active and passive recreational needs of the community. Policy LU-P-41 The City shall encourage the continuation of agricultural uses on lands within the Primary and Secondary Urban Services Boundary lines pending their development as urban uses consistent with the General Plan. Resource Conservation Goal RC-9 To promote the continuation of agricultural uses in the Manteca area and to discourage the premature conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses, while providing for the urban development needs of Manteca. Policy RC-P-19 Policy RC-P-20 Policy RC-P-21 The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban use, until urban development is imminent. The City shall provide an orderly and phased development pattern so that farmland is not subjected to premature development pressure. In approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, the City shall take actions so that such development will not unnecessarily constrain Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-6

105 agricultural practices or adversely affect the viability of nearby agricultural operations. Policy RC-P-24 Provide buffers at the interface of urban development and farmland; in order to minimize conflicts between these uses. Policy RC-P-25 Policy RC-P-26 The City shall ensure, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, that such development will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations. The City shall restrict the fragmentation of agricultural land parcels into small rural residential parcels except in areas designated for estate type development in the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The following are applicable goals and policies from the Manteca General Plan Community Design Element. Agricultural Heritage Goal CD-11 To the extent possible, new development shall retain or incorporate visual reminders of the agricultural heritage of the community. Policy CD-P-48 Allow pockets of agricultural activity to remain within the urban areas of the city where such uses are compatible with the surrounding urban use. City of Manteca Municipal Code The following are applicable regulations from the Manteca Municipal Code. Chapter Agricultural Mitigation Fee The Agricultural Mitigation Fee includes all development impact fees collected to offset the costs associated with the loss of agricultural lands in new development. In order to implement the goals and objectives of the City s General Plan and to mitigate impacts caused by new development within the City, an agricultural mitigation fee is necessary. This includes mitigating the loss of productive agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the City by permanently protecting agricultural lands planned for agricultural use and by working with farmers who voluntarily wish to place conservation easements on their land with fair compensation for such easements. The City Council has found that an Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-7

106 Agricultural Mitigation Fee is necessary for the following reasons (see Manteca Municipal Code Section ): (1) to benefit the local economy and provide jobs; (2) San Joaquin County farmland is of highly productive quality; (3) the City is surrounded by productive farmland on all sides; (4) the continuation of agricultural operations preserves the existing landscape, environmental and aesthetic resources of the area; (5) the Manteca General Plan sets forth policies to preserve productive farmland, including the development of a program to secure permanent agriculture on lands designated for agriculture in the City and/or County General Plan; (6) California is losing farmland at a rapid rate; (7) loss of agricultural land is consistently determined to be a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in development projects; (8) loss of farmland to development is irreparable and agriculture is an important component of the region s economy and rural community character; and (9) losing agricultural land will have a cumulatively negative impact on air quality, traffic, noise, public services demands, and aesthetics in the City and in the county of San Joaquin. It is the policy of the City to work cooperatively with San Joaquin County and its neighboring cities to preserve agricultural land within or adjacent to the Manteca planning area and its adopted Sphere of Influence, beyond that land deemed necessary for development. It is further the policy of the City to protect and conserve agricultural land in its vicinity. Chapter 8.24 Right to Farm Ordinance Chapter 8.24 of the Manteca Municipal Code is a right-to-farm ordinance intended to protect agricultural productivity in the City. The ordinance includes the following statement: San Joaquin County LAFCO It is the policy of this City to preserve, protect and encourage the use of viable agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products. When nonagricultural land uses extend into or approach agricultural areas, conflicts often arise between such land-uses and agricultural operations. Such conflicts often result in the involuntary curtailment or cessation of agricultural operations, and discourage investment in such operations. This chapter is intended to reduce the occurrence of conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses within the city. The following are applicable policies from San Joaquin LAFCO s Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). General Standards for Annexation and Detachment The General Standards for Annexation and Detachment govern LAFCO determinations regarding annexations and detachments to and from all agencies. The policy included below specifically relates to agricultural resources. It should be noted that other policies and procedures Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-8

107 from the General Standards are included in the following chapters of this Draft EIR, where applicable: Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning and Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities. 4. Development within Jurisdiction Development of existing vacant or non-prime agricultural lands for urban uses within the existing jurisdiction or within the sphere of influence should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open space lands for non-open space uses which are outside of the existing jurisdiction of the local agency or outside of the existing sphere of influence of the local agency. (Section 56377) IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance An agricultural impact may be considered to be significant if implementation of the proposed project would do any of the following: Result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use; Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production; Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses; or Conflict with the annexation and/or reorganization policies and procedures of San Joaquin LAFCO. The three properties that make up the SOWA project site are either currently in agricultural use or former agricultural sites that included row crops and orchards. The site is not located near forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the above thresholds related to forest land will not be further addressed in this Chapter. Method of Analysis The following resources were utilized for the Agricultural Resources chapter to assess the impacts of the proposed project: the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey performed for the project site, the Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, the Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, San Joaquin County, and the San Joaquin LAFCO Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources 4.2-9

108 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of agricultural impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland to non-agricultural use. The proposed project site is composed of approximately acres of agricultural land. The proposed project includes the development of residential units, which would result in the conversion of the site to urban development. The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as: 1) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I; 2) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and 3) DeJong Property. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site encompasses the southern portion of the overall proposed project site and consists of approximately 54.2 acres of agricultural land, formerly utilized for the cultivation of row crops and an almond orchard. To the north are the 57.3-acre Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site and the 80-acre DeJong property, both of which are part of the proposed project and are currently in agricultural use. As the project is surrounded by existing or planned residential developments of varying densities to the north, east, and west, the project would be consistent with Policy RC-P-20 of the Manteca General Plan, which requires an orderly and phased development pattern so that farmland is not subjected to premature development pressure. The Soil Survey of San Joaquin County shows that the project site is made up of Bisgani loamy coarse sand, Delhi fine sand, Delhi loamy sand, and Tinnin loamy coarse sand. According the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, San Joaquin County, Bisgani loamy coarse sand, Delhi fine sand, Delhi loamy sand, and Tinnin loamy coarse sand are listed as soils that meet the criteria for Farmland of Statewide Importance. These soils make up approximately 99 percent of the overall SOWA project site. In 2005, the City of Manteca adopted an Agricultural Mitigation Fee, which is intended to mitigate the loss of productive agricultural land. Specifically, Chapter 13.42, Agricultural Mitigation Fee, of the City s Code states that, in order to implement the goals and objectives of the City s General Plan and to mitigate impacts caused by new development within the City, an agricultural mitigation fee is necessary. This includes mitigating the loss of productive agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the City by permanently protecting agricultural lands planned for agricultural use and by working with farmers who voluntarily wish to place conservation easements on their land with fair compensation for such easements. Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources

109 Therefore, without payment of the Agricultural Mitigation Fee, the loss of Farmland of Statewide Importance caused by the project would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any approved tentative map, the applicant shall pay the City s Agricultural Mitigation Fee in effect on the date the tentative map application is deemed complete, or the date a permit is issued, as determined by the Community Development Director. Or If permissible under the Agricultural Mitigation Fee Ordinance at the time of building permit issuance, the project applicant(s) may purchase and provide off-site agricultural lands to the City by fee title or agricultural conservation easement. The off-site lands shall be similar to the agricultural lands on the SOWA site with respect to Storie Index rating and Soil Capability Classification. The agricultural mitigation lands shall be equal in acreage to the amount of agricultural lands converted by the project; and the final location of said mitigation lands shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to purchase by the applicant Impacts related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts. The SOWA project site is currently located within San Joaquin County, though the project site is within the City of Manteca Sphere of Influence and designated LDR in the Manteca General Plan. Current County zoning for the project site is AG-40, but consistent with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, prezoning shall be applied to annexation areas (see Gov. Code Section 56375). Consistent with the Manteca General Plan designation of LDR for the project site, each of the three sites would be prezoned to the City s Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone district. The conversion of the project area to residential land uses would be consistent with the urban land use designations in the Manteca General Plan for the project site. In addition, the project site is not under any Williamson Act Contracts. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact in regard to land that is currently zoned agriculturally or under a Williamson Act Contract. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources

110 4.2-3 Impacts related to compliance with the policies of San Joaquin County LAFCO pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land. The project site is currently located within San Joaquin County and has a San Joaquin County General Plan land use designation of General Agriculture (A/G), allowing for a maximum of one residential unit per 20 acres. The proposed project includes a request for annexation of the acre project site to the City of Manteca, which ultimately requires the approval of San Joaquin County LAFCO. According to San Joaquin LAFCO s Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations), development of existing vacant or nonprime agricultural lands within the current Sphere of Influence (SOI) for urban uses should be encouraged before approval of any proposal that would allow for, or lead to, the development of existing open space lands for non-open space uses that are located outside the existing jurisdiction of the local agency (City of Manteca) or outside the existing SOI of the local agency. The proposed project would not conflict with this policy, as the project site is located within the City of Manteca s SOI and is designated in the Manteca General Plan for development with low-density residential uses, as are lands surrounding the project site. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact in regard to compliance with LAFCO s policies related to the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Impacts related to cumulative loss of agricultural land. Approximately 29.1 percent of the Manteca Study Area, as of 2002, was developed. The Manteca General Plan EIR determined that, at buildout, approximately 66 percent of the existing important farmland within the study area would remain in agricultural use. However, the Manteca General Plan EIR also determined that even with implementation of mitigation measures, goals, and policies, impacts related to the conversion of agricultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. As stated above, the Manteca General Plan designates the project site for residential development and the conversion of this particular agricultural land was thereby anticipated in the Manteca General Plan EIR. In addition, as stated above, the project applicant would be required to pay the City s Agricultural Mitigation Fee for the project. Other, similar development projects in Manteca, resulting in conversion of farmland, would be required to pay the City s Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources

111 Agricultural Mitigation Fee. Payment of said fee would help ensure that each project mitigates the loss of productive agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the City by permanently protecting agricultural lands planned for agricultural use. Notwithstanding the above, the project s incremental contribution towards the significant impact of important farmland conversion would be considered cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with similar impacts from other development in the region. As a result, the proposed project s incremental contribution to the environmental effect of the buildout of the Manteca General Plan on agricultural resources is thereby determined to be significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would help reduce the project s incremental contribution towards the cumulative impact related to conversion of important farmland. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable due to the permanent loss of agricultural land attributable to the project Implement Mitigation Measure Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Accessed January 6, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California. October San Joaquin LAFCO. Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). Amended December 14, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, San Joaquin County. October Chapter 4.2 Agricultural Resources

112 4.3. AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

113 4.3 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE Introduction The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter of the Draft EIR describes the effects of the proposed project on local and regional air quality, as well as global climate change. The chapter discusses existing air quality conditions, applicable regulations, construction-related emissions, direct and indirect operational emissions, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, impacts of project emissions on both the local and regional scale, and mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate any identified significant impacts. The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter utilizes information obtained from the Manteca General Plan, 1 the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 and the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version (see Appendix C), and is primarily based on information, guidance, and analysis protocol provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the City of Manteca Climate Action Plan Existing Environmental Setting The following information provides an overview of the existing environmental setting in relation to air quality within the proposed project area. Air basin characteristics, ambient air quality standards (AAQS), regional attainment status, current air quality, sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project site, and global climate change are discussed. Air Basin Characteristics The City of Manteca is located within the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which consists of eight counties and represents approximately 16 percent of the State s geographic area. The topography and meteorology within the SJVAB, including low precipitation levels, cloudless days, high temperatures, and light winds during the summer and inversion layers in the atmosphere during the winter, provide ideal conditions for trapping air pollution for long periods of time and producing harmful levels of air pollutants, including ozone and particulate matter. In addition, the region houses the State s major arteries for goods and people movement, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west and State Route 99 (SR 99) through the central valley, thereby attracting a large volume of vehicular traffic. The geography of mountainous areas to the east, west, and south, in combination with long summers and relatively short winters, contributes to local climate episodes that prevent the dispersion of pollutants. Wind speed and direction play an important role in dispersion and transport of air pollutants. Wind at the surface and aloft can disperse pollution by mixing and by transporting the pollution to other locations. Especially in summer, winds in the SJVAB most frequently blow from the northwesterly direction. The region s topographic features restrict air movement and channel the air mass towards the southeastern end of the valley. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-1

114 Solar radiation and temperature are particularly important in the chemistry of ozone formation. Generally, the higher the temperature, the more ozone formed, because reaction rates increase with temperature. The SJVAB averages over 260 sunny days per year. Ozone levels are low during winter periods when there is much less sunlight to drive the photochemical reaction. In addition, precipitation, clouds, and fog can block the solar radiation required for ozone formation. Wet fogs can cleanse the air during winter as moisture collects on particles and deposits them on the ground. The winds and unstable air conditions experienced during the passage of winter storms result in periods of low pollutant concentrations and excellent visibility. Between winter storms, high pressure and light winds allow cold moist air to pool on the SJVAB floor, thus creating strong low-level temperature inversions and very stable air conditions. However, atmospheric moisture can also increase pollution levels. In fogs with less water content, the moisture acts to form secondary ammonium nitrate particulate matter, which is part of the SJVAB s PM 2.5 and PM 10 problem. Accordingly, wintertime conditions favorable to fog formation are also conditions favorable to high concentrations of respirable or suspended particulate matter (i.e., particles less than 10 microns in diameter or PM 10 ) and fine particles (i.e., particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter or PM 2.5 ). Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, because the criteria air pollutants could be detrimental to human health and the environment. The criteria pollutants include particulate matter, ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Primary standards are the set of limits based on human health, and secondary standards are the set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage. States may also establish their own ambient air quality standards, provided the State standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes. It should be noted that the State of California has established air quality standards for some pollutants not addressed by federal standards, including hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. The NAAQS and CAAQS summarized in Table represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects. A summary of the pollutants, their characteristics, health effects, and typical sources is provided in Table 4.3-2, followed by brief descriptions of each criteria pollutant. Of the pollutants, particle pollution and ground-level ozone are the most widespread health threats. Due to the SJVAB s meteorology, topography, and the chemical composition of the air pollutants, oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) is the primary culprit in the formation of both ozone and PM 2.5. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-2

115 Table Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQS Primary Secondary Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm - 8 Hour ppm ppm Same as primary Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour 9 ppm 9 ppm 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm - Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Mean ppm 53 ppb Same as primary 1 Hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb - 24 Hour 0.04 ppm - - Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hour ppm 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb - Respirable Annual Mean 20 ug/m 3 - Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) 24 Hour 50 ug/m ug/m 3 Same as primary Fine Particulate Annual Mean 12 ug/m 3 12 ug/m 3 15 ug/m 3 Matter (PM 2.5 ) 24 Hour - 35 ug/m 3 Same as primary Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 ug/m Calendar Quarter ug/m 3 Same as primary Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug/m Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm - - Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour ppm - - Visibly Reducing Particles 8 Hour see note below - - ppm = parts per million ppb = parts per billion µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter Note: Statewide Visibility Reducing Particle Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range. Sources: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at: Accessed November U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at: Accessed November California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at: June 4, Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-3

116 Table Summary of Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources Ozone Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Particulate Matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) Lead A highly reactive gas produced by the photochemical process involving a chemical reaction between the sun s energy and other pollutant emissions. Often called photochemical smog. An odorless, colorless, highly toxic gas that is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. A reddish-brown gas that discolors the air and is formed during combustion of fossil fuels under high temperature and pressure. A colorless, irrigating gas with a rotten egg odor formed by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. A complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets that can easily pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. A metal that is a natural constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Eye irritation Respiratory function impairment Impairment of oxygen transport in the bloodstream Impaired vision, reduced alertness, chest pain, and headaches Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations Lung irrigation and damage Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease Aggravation of chronic obstruction lung disease Increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease Aggravation of chronic respiratory disease Heart and lung disease Coughing Bronchitis Respiratory illness in children Loss of appetite, weakness, apathy, and miscarriage Lesions of the neuromuscular system, circulatory system, brain, and gastrointestinal tract. Combustion sources such as factories, automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels Automobile exhaust, combustion of fuels, and combustion of wood in woodstoves and fireplaces Automobile and diesel truck exhaust, industrial processes, and fossilfueled power plants Diesel vehicle exhaust, oil-powered power plants, and industrial processes Automobiles, power generation, industrial processes, wood burning, unpaved roads, farming activities, and fugitive windblown dust Gasoline-powered automobile engines Sources: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts May California Air Resources Board. Glossary of Air Pollution Terms. Available at: Accessed November Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-4

117 Ozone Ozone is a reactive gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. In the troposphere, ozone is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy, and is a secondary pollutant formed as a result of a complex chemical reaction between reactive organic gases (ROG) and NO X emissions in the presence of sunlight. As such, unlike other pollutants, ozone is not released directly into the atmosphere from any sources. Factories, automobiles, and evaporation of solvents and fuels are the major sources of ozone precursors. In the stratosphere, ozone exists naturally and shields Earth from harmful incoming ultraviolet radiation. Ozone at the Earth's surface causes numerous adverse health effects and is a major component of smog. High concentrations of ground level ozone can adversely affect the human respiratory system and aggravate cardiovascular disease and many respiratory ailments. Ozone also damages natural ecosystems such as forests and foothill communities, agricultural crops, and some manmade materials, such as rubber, paint, and plastics. Reactive Organic Gas Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) is a reactive chemical gas composed of hydrocarbon compounds typically found in paints and solvents that contributes to the formation of smog and ozone by involvement in atmospheric chemical reactions. A separate health standard does not exist for ROG. However, some compounds that make up ROG are toxic, such as the carcinogen benzene. Oxides of Nitrogen Oxides of Nitrogen (NO X ) are a family of gaseous nitrogen compounds and are precursors to the formation of ozone and particulate matter. The major component of NO X, nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), is a reddish-brown gas that discolors the air and is toxic at high concentrations. NO X results primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels under high temperature and pressure. Onroad and off-road motor vehicles and fuel combustion are the major sources of NO X. NO X reacts with ROG to form smog, which could result in adverse impacts to human health, damage the environment, and cause poor visibility. Additionally, NO X emissions are a major component of acid rain. Health effects related to NO X include lung irritation and lung damage and can cause increased risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease. Carbon Monoxide Carbon Monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless, highly toxic gas that is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels and is emitted directly into the air (unlike ozone). When CO enters the body, the CO combines with chemicals in the body, which prevents blood from carrying oxygen to cells, tissues, and organs. Symptoms of exposure to CO could include problems with vision, reduced alertness, and general reduction in mental and physical functions. Exposure to CO can result in chest pain, headaches, and reduced mental alertness, and can be fatal at very high concentrations. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-5

118 The main source of CO in the SJVAB is on-road motor vehicles, with other CO sources including other mobile sources, miscellaneous processes, and fuel combustion from stationary sources. Because of the local nature of CO problems, CARB and USEPA designate urban areas as CO nonattainment areas instead of the entire basin as with ozone and PM 10. Motor vehicles are by far the largest source of CO emissions. Emissions from motor vehicles have been declining since 1985, despite increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), with the introduction of new automotive emission controls and fleet turnover. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) is a sulfur oxide (SO X ) that is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg odor formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Like airborne NO X, suspended SO X particles contribute to the poor visibility that sometimes occurs in the SJVAB. The SO X particles are also a component of PM 10. The prevalence of low-sulfur fuel use in the SJVAB has minimized problems associated with SO X. Particulate Matter Particulate matter, also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. The USEPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, the particles could affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. Particle pollution is grouped into categories based on particle size and where they are deposited. The major particle pollution groups of concern include the following: "Inhalable coarse particles (PM )," which are found near roadways and dusty industries, are between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter. PM is deposited in the thoracic region of the lungs. "Fine particles (PM 2.5 )," which are found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. PM 2.5 particles could be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or could form when gases emitted from power plants, industries, and automobiles react in the air. They penetrate deeply into the thoracic and alveolar regions of the lungs. PM 10 and PM include primary pollutants (emitted directly to the atmosphere) as well as secondary pollutants (formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions among precursors). Generally speaking, PM 2.5 is emitted by combustion sources like vehicles, power generation, industrial processes, and wood burning, while PM 10 sources include the same sources plus roads and farming activities. Fugitive windblown dust and other area sources also represent a source of airborne dust in the SJVAB. Acute and chronic health effects associated with high particulate levels include the aggravation of chronic respiratory diseases, heart and lung disease, as well as coughing, bronchitis, and respiratory illnesses in children. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-6

119 Lead Lead is a metal that is a natural constituent of air, water, and the biosphere. Lead is neither created nor destroyed in the environment, and, thus, essentially persists forever. The health effects of lead poisoning include loss of appetite, weakness, apathy, and miscarriage. Lead poisoning can also cause lesions of the neuromuscular system, circulatory system, brain, and gastrointestinal tract. Gasoline-powered automobile engines were a major source of airborne lead through the use of leaded fuels. The use of leaded fuel has been mostly phased out, with the result that ambient concentrations of lead have dropped dramatically. Lead concentrations were last systematically measured in the SJVAB in 1989, when the average concentrations were approximately five percent of the State lead standard. Though monitoring was discontinued in 1990, lead levels are predicted to be well below applicable standards, and the SJVAB is designated attainment for lead. Sulfates Sulfates are the fully oxidized ionic form of sulfur and are colorless gases. Sulfates occur in combination with metal and/or hydrogen ions. In California, emissions of sulfur compounds occur primarily from the combustion of petroleum-derived fuels (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) that contain sulfur. The sulfur is oxidized to SO 2 during the combustion process and subsequently converted to sulfate compounds in the atmosphere. The conversion of SO 2 to sulfates takes place comparatively rapidly and completely in urban areas of California due to regional meteorological features. The CARB sulfates standard is designed to prevent aggravation of respiratory symptoms. Effects of sulfate exposure at levels above the standard include a decrease in ventilatory function, aggravation of asthmatic symptoms, and an increased risk of cardio-pulmonary disease. Sulfates are particularly effective in degrading visibility, and, because they are usually acidic, can harm ecosystems and damage materials and property. Data collected in the SJVAB demonstrate levels of sulfates significantly less than the health standards. Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen Sulfide is associated with geothermal activity, oil and gas production, refining, sewage treatment plants, and confined animal feeding operations. Hydrogen sulfide is extremely hazardous in high concentrations; especially in enclosed spaces (800 ppm can cause death). Vinyl Chloride Vinyl Chloride (C 2 H 3 Cl, also known as VCM) is a colorless gas that does not occur naturally, but is formed when other substances such as trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene are broken down. Vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) which is used to make a variety of plastic products, including pipes, wire and cable coatings, and packaging materials. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-7

120 Visibility Reducing Particles Visibility Reducing Particles are a mixture of suspended particulate matter consisting of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. The standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range. Toxic Air Contaminants In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are also a category of environmental concern. TACs are present in many types of emissions with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Cars and trucks release at least 40 different TACs. In terms of health risks, the most volatile contaminants are diesel particulate matter (DPM), benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene and acetaldehyde. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations as well as accidental releases. Health risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, which typically are associated with long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. Health effects of exposure to TACs (other than cancer) include birth defects, neurological damage, and death. Attainment Status and Regional Air Quality Plans Areas not meeting the NAAQS presented above are designated by the USEPA as nonattainment. Further classifications of nonattainment areas are based on the severity of the nonattainment problem, with marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment classifications for ozone. Nonattainment classifications for PM range from marginal to serious. The CAA requires areas violating the NAAQS to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP contains the strategies and control measures for states to use to attain the NAAQS. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, rules, and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The USEPA reviews SIPs to determine if they conform to the mandates of the federal CAA amendments and would achieve air quality goals when implemented. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of The CCAA classifies ozone nonattainment areas as moderate, serious, severe, and extreme based on severity of violations of CAAQS. For each nonattainment area classification, the CCAA specifies air quality management strategies that must be adopted. For all nonattainment areas, attainment plans are required to demonstrate a five-percent-per-year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive three-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. Air districts with air quality that is in violation of CAAQS are required to prepare an air quality attainment plan that lays out a program to attain the CCAA mandates. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-8

121 Table presents the current attainment status of the jurisdictional area of the SJVAPCD. As shown in the table, at the federal level, the area is designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8- hour ozone standard, nonattainment for PM 2.5, and attainment or unclassified for all other criteria pollutants. At the State level, the area is designated as severe nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard, and nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM 10, and PM 2.5 standards. The area is designated attainment or unclassified for all other State standards. Table Attainment Status Designation/Classification Pollutant Federal Standards State Standards Ozone 1-Hour Revoked in 2005 Nonattainment/Severe Ozone 8-Hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment PM 10 Attainment Nonattainment PM 2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Lead No Designation/Classification Attainment Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at: Accessed November Due to the nonattainment designations, the SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain the State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control measures have worked, and show how air pollution will be reduced. In addition, the plans include the estimated future levels of pollution to ensure that the area will meet air quality goals. Each of the attainment plans currently in effect are discussed in further detail below. 1-Hour Ozone Plan Effective June 15, 2005, the USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, finding that the 8-hour ozone standard was more health protective. Nonetheless, the area must still attain the revoked NAAQS before the CAA Section 185 fees collected under Rule 3170 can be rescinded. Thus, the SJVAPCD has developed a new plan for USEPA s revoked 1-hour ozone standard. The SJVAPCD s 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard was approved on September 19, The modeling included in the plan confirms that the SJVAB will attain the revoked 1-hour ozone standard by Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change 4.3-9

122 8-Hour Ozone Plan The SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan on April 30, 2007, which is intended to address the USEPA s 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 84 ppb established in The 2007 Ozone Plan, with innovative measures and a dual path strategy, assures expeditious attainment of the federal 8- hour ozone standard. The plan projects that the SJVAB will achieve the 8-hour ozone standard by CARB approved the 2007 Ozone Plan on June 14, 2007, and USEPA approved the plan effective April 30, It should be noted that the SJVAPCD intends to submit a plan addressing the USEPA s 2008 revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb to the USEPA in 2015/2016. PM 10 Plan Based on PM 10 measurements taken from 2003 to 2006, the USEPA found that the SJVAB has reached federal PM 10 standards. On September 21, 2007, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, which demonstrates that the SJVAB will continue to meet the PM 10 standard. USEPA approved the document, and on September 25, 2008, the SJVAB was redesignated to attainment. PM 2.5 Plans The SJVAPCD adopted the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan on April 30, 2008, which includes control measures to reduce directly produced PM 2.5 in order to meet the USEPA s annual PM 2.5 standard established in The plan estimates that the SJVAB will reach the PM 2.5 standard by The CARB approved the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan on May 22, 2008, and the USEPA approved most provisions of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan effective January 9, In addition, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan in December 2012, which addresses the USEPA s 24-hour PM 2.5 standard established in Local Air Quality Monitoring The SJVAPCD, CARB, U.S. National Park Service, and the Santa Rosa Rancheria in Lemoore operate an extensive air monitoring network to measure progress toward attainment of the NAAQS. Some monitors are operated specifically for use in determining attainment status, while others are operated for other purposes such as generating daily air quality forecasts. The SJVAPCD utilizes ozone and PM data from over 60 monitors operated at 29 sites within the SJVAB. The closest monitoring stations to the proposed project site are the Stockton-Hazelton Street station, located at 1693 East Hazelton Avenue in Stockton, approximately 13 miles north of the project site, and the Tracy Airport station, located at 5749 South Tracy Boulevard in Tracy, approximately 15 miles southwest of the project site. Data from the Stockton-Hazelton Street station and the Tracy Airport station for the number of days that each criteria air pollutant standard was exceeded is provided in Table and Table 4.3-5, respectively, for the years 2010 through Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

123 Table Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for the Stockton-Hazelton Street Station Days Standard Exceeded During: Pollutant Standard Ozone 1-Hour State 8-Hour State 8-Hour Federal Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour State and Federal Hour State* Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour State and Federal Sulfur Dioxide* 1-Hour State and Federal 24-Hour State Hour Federal PM 2.5 Annual Mean State and Federal* PM 10 * Data not available. 24-Hour State 24-Hour Federal Annual Mean State* Source: California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM): Top Four Summary. Available at: http: // Accessed November Table Air Quality Monitoring Data Summary for the Tracy Airport Station Days Standard Exceeded During: Pollutant Standard Ozone 1-Hour State 8-Hour State 8-Hour Federal Carbon Monoxide* 8-Hour State and Federal Hour State* Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour State and Federal Sulfur Dioxide* 1-Hour State and Federal 24-Hour State Hour Federal PM 2.5 * Annual Mean State and Federal* PM 10 * Data not available. 24-Hour State* 24-Hour Federal Annual Mean State* Source: California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM): Top Four Summary. Available at: http: // Accessed November Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

124 Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities. The proposed project involves the creation of new housing; thus, would introduce new sensitive receptors to the area. Accordingly, the proposed project would be considered a sensitive receptor. In addition, the existing residences to the north and west of the site would be the nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site. Global Climate Change Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range, trapping heat in the earth s atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric concentrations of GHG has resulted in more heat being held within the atmosphere, which is the accepted explanation for global climate change. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through both natural processes and human activities. Other GHGs are created and emitted solely through human activities. Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and ozone. Certain human activities add to the levels of most of the naturally occurring gases. Other GHGs that are not naturally occurring include fluorinated carbons. The primary GHG emitted by human activities is CO 2, with the next largest components being CH 4 and N 2 O. The primary sources of CH 4 emissions include domestic livestock sources, decomposition of wastes in landfills, releases from natural gas systems, coal mine seepage, and manure management. The main human activities producing N 2 O are agricultural soil management, fuel combustion in motor vehicles, nitric acid production, manure management, and stationary fuel combustion. Emissions of GHG by economic sector indicate that energyrelated activities account for the majority of U.S. emissions. Electricity generation is the largest single-source, and transportation is the second largest source, followed by industrial activities. The agricultural, commercial, and residential sectors account for the remainder of emissions. Emissions of GHGs are offset by uptake of carbon and sequestration in forests, trees in urban areas, agricultural soils, and landfilled yard trimmings and food scraps. Attainment concentration standards for GHGs have not been established by the federal or State government. Global Warming Potential Global Warming Potential (GWP) is one type of simplified index (based upon radiative properties) that can be used to estimate the potential future impacts of emissions of various gases. According to the USEPA, the global warming potential of a gas, or aerosol, to trap heat in the atmosphere is the cumulative radiative forcing effects of a gas over a specified time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit mass of gas relative to a reference gas. The reference gas for comparison is CO 2. GWP is based on a number of factors, including the heat-absorbing ability of each gas relative to that of CO 2, as well as the decay rate of each gas relative to that of CO 2. Each gas s GWP is determined by comparing the radiative forcing associated with Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

125 emissions of that gas versus the radiative forcing associated with emissions of the same mass of CO 2, for which the GWP is set at one. Methane gas, for example, is estimated by the USEPA to have a comparative global warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO 2, as shown in Table Table GWPs and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Select GHGs Global Warming Potential (100 year time horizon) Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) 12±3 21 Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) HFC ,700 HFC-134a ,300 HFC-152a PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF 4 ) 50,000 6,500 PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C 2 F 6 ) 10,000 9,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6 ) 3,200 23,900 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: , February As shown in the table, at the extreme end of the scale, sulfur hexafluoride is estimated to have a comparative GWP 23,900 times that of CO 2. The specified time horizon is related to the atmospheric lifetimes of such GHGs, which are estimated by the USEPA to vary from 50 to 200 years for CO 2, to 50,000 years for tetrafluoromethane. Longer atmospheric lifetimes allow GHG to buildup in the atmosphere; therefore, longer lifetimes correlate with the global warming potential of a gas. The common indicator for GHG is expressed in terms of metric tons of CO 2 equivalents (MTCO 2 e). Analysis of GHGs and Global Climate Change Analysis of global climate change presents the challenge of analyzing the relationship between local and global activities. GHGs are not generally thought of as traditional air pollutants because GHGs, and their impacts, are global in nature, while air pollutants affect the health of people and other living things at ground level in the general region. Accordingly, the issue of global climate change is different from any other areas of air quality impact analysis. A global climate change analysis must be conducted on a global level, rather than the typical local or regional setting, and requires consideration of not only emissions from the project under consideration, but also the extent of the displacement, translocation, and redistribution of emissions. In the usual context, where air quality is linked to a particular location or area, it is appropriate to consider the creation of new emissions in that specific area to be an environmental impact whether or not the emissions are truly new emissions to the overall globe. In fact, the approval of a new developmental plan or project does not necessarily create new automobile drivers the primary source of a land use project s emissions. Rather, a new land use project may simply be Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

126 redistributing existing mobile emissions; accordingly, the use of models that measure overall emissions increases without accounting for existing emissions will substantially overstate the impact of the development project on global warming. Thus, an accurate analysis of GHG emissions substantially differs from other air quality impacts, where the addition of redistributed emissions to a new locale can make a substantial difference to overall air quality in that area Regulatory Setting Air quality and GHG is monitored through the efforts of various international, federal, State, and local government agencies. The agencies work jointly and individually to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for regulating and improving the air quality within the City of Manteca area are discussed below. Federal Regulations The most prominent federal regulation is the CAA, which is implemented and enforced by the USEPA. CAA and USEPA The CAA requires the USEPA to set NAAQS and designate areas with air quality not meeting NAAQS as nonattainment. The USEPA is responsible for enforcement of NAAQS for atmospheric pollutants and regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government including emissions of GHGs. The USEPA s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the CAA, which was signed into law in Congress substantially amended the CAA in 1977 and again in The EPA has adopted policies consistent with CAA requirements demanding states to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIP) that demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The 1990 amendments of the CAA added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The USEPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance to the mandates of the CAA, and the amendments thereof, and determine if implementation would achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan may be prepared for the nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated timeframe may result in sanctions to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. The USEPA has been directed to develop regulations to address the GHG emissions of cars and trucks. The Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule requires reporting of GHG emissions from large sources and suppliers in the U.S., and is intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

127 or industrial GHG, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the USEPA. To track the national trend in emissions and removals of GHG since 1990, USEPA develops the official U.S. GHG inventory each year. The national GHG inventory is submitted to the United Nations in accordance with the UNFCCC. On December 7, 2009, USEPA issued findings under Section 202(a) of the CAA concluding that GHGs are pollutants that could endanger public health. Under the so-called Endangerment Finding, USEPA found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed GHGs CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, PFCs, SF 6, and HFCs in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. These findings do not, by themselves, impose any requirements on industry or other entities. State Regulations California has adopted a variety of regulations aimed at reducing air pollution and GHG emissions. The adoption and implementation of the key State legislation described in further detail below demonstrates California s leadership in addressing air quality and global climate change. CCAA and CARB The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA. The CCAA requires that air quality plans be prepared for areas of the State that have not met the CAAQS for ozone, CO, NO X, and SO 2. Among other requirements of the CCAA, the plans must include a wide range of implemental control measures, which often include transportation control measures and performance standards. In order to implement the transportation-related provisions of the CCAA, local air pollution control districts have been granted explicit authority to adopt and implement transportation controls. The CARB, California s air quality management agency, regulates and oversees the activities of county air pollution control districts and regional air quality management districts. The CARB regulates local air quality indirectly using State standards and vehicle emission standards, by conducting research activities, and through planning and coordinating activities. In addition, the CARB has primary responsibility in California to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by the USEPA. Furthermore, the CARB is charged with developing rules and regulations to cap and reduce GHG emissions. The most prominent and applicable California air quality- and GHG-related legislation are included below; however, an exhaustive list and extensive details of California air quality legislation could be found at the CARB website ( Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

128 Senate Bill 656 In 2003, the Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 656 to reduce public exposure to PM 10 and PM 2.5. The legislation requires the CARB, in consultation with local air pollution control and air quality management districts, to adopt a list of the most readily available, feasible, and costeffective control measures that could be implemented by air districts to reduce PM 10 and PM 2.5. The legislation establishes a process for achieving near-term reductions in PM throughout California ahead of federally required deadlines for PM 2.5, and provides new direction on PM reductions in those areas not subject to federal requirements for PM. Sources categories addressed by SB 656 include measures to address residential wood combustion and outdoor greenwaste burning, fugitive dust sources such as paved and unpaved roads and construction, combustion sources such as boilers, heaters, and charbroiling, solvents and coatings, and product manufacturing. Some of these measures include, but are not limited to, the following: Reduce or eliminate wood-burning devices allowed; Prohibit residential open burning; Permit and provide performance standards for controlled burns; Require water or chemical stabilizers/dust suppressants during grading activities; Limit visible dust emissions beyond the project boundary during construction; Require paving/curbing of roadway shoulder areas; and Require street sweeping. Assembly Bill 32 In September 2006, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488) (Health & Saf. Code, et seq.). AB 32 delegated the authority for its implementation to the CARB and directs CARB to enforce the State-wide cap. Among other requirements, AB 32 required CARB to (1) identify the State-wide level of GHG emissions in 1990 to serve as the emissions limit to be achieved by 2020, and (2) develop and implement a Scoping Plan. Accordingly, the CARB has prepared the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) for California, which was approved in The Scoping Plan provides the outline for actions to reduce California s GHG emissions. Based on the reduction goals called for in the 2008 Scoping Plan, a 29 percent reduction in GHG levels relative to a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario would be required to meet 1990 levels by A BAU scenario is a baseline condition based on what could or would occur on a particular site in the year 2020 without implementation of a proposed project or any required or voluntary GHG reduction measures. A project s BAU scenario is project- and site-specific, and varies from project to project. In 2011, the baseline or BAU level for the Scoping Plan was revised to account for the economic downturn and State regulation emission reductions (i.e., Pavley, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and Renewable Portfolio Standard). 12 According to the revisions, the Scoping Plan emission reduction target from BAU levels required to meet 1990 levels by 2020 was modified from 29 percent to 21 percent (where BAU levels is based on 2010 levels) or 16 percent (where BAU levels is based on 2010 levels including accounting for percentages of emission reductions Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

129 captured for implementation of Pavley and RPS). The amended Scoping Plan was re-approved August 24, California GHG Cap-and-Trade Program The AB 32 Scoping Plan identifies a cap-and-trade program as one of the strategies California will employ to reduce the GHG emissions that cause climate change. The program will help put California on the path to meet the GHG emission reduction goal of 1990 levels by the year 2020, and ultimately achieving an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by Under cap-andtrade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors would be established by the capand-trade program and facilities subject to the cap would be able to trade permits (allowances) to emit GHGs. The CARB has designed a California cap-and-trade program that is enforceable and meets the requirements of AB 32. The program started on January 1, 2012, with an enforceable compliance obligation beginning with the 2013 GHG emissions. AB 1493 California AB 1493 (Stats. 2002, ch. 200) (Health & Safety Code, 42823, ), known as Pavley, was enacted on July 22, AB 1493 requires that the CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by the CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state. On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted a waiver of CAA preemption to California for the State s GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year. Pursuant to the CAA, the waiver allows for the State to have special authority to enact stricter air pollution standards for motor vehicles than the federal government s. The CARB estimates that the regulation would reduce GHG emissions from the light-duty passenger vehicle fleet by an estimated 18 percent in 2020 and by 27 percent in Executive Order S On January 18, 2007, then-governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-01-07, which mandates that a State-wide goal be established to reduce carbon intensity of California s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by The Order also requires that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California. Executive Order S On June 1, 2005, then-governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-03-05, which established total GHG emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to year 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by The Executive Order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal- EPA) to coordinate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to the target levels. The Secretary is also directed to submit biannual reports to the governor and state legislature describing: (1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets; (2) impacts of global Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

130 warming on California s resources; and (3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the Executive Order, the Secretary of the Cal-EPA created a Climate Act Team (CAT) made up of members from various State agencies and commissions. In March 2006, CAT released their first report. In addition, the CAT has released several white papers addressing issues pertaining to the potential impacts of climate change on California. Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Established in 2002 under SB 1078, accelerated in 2006 under SB 107, and expanded in 2011 under SB 2, California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) is one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by SB 375 In September 2008, then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, which is intended to build on AB 32 by attempting to control GHG emissions by curbing sprawl. SB 375 enhances CARB s ability to reach goals set by AB 32 by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and In addition, CARB will work with the State s 18 metropolitan planning organizations, including the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), to align their regional transportation, housing, and land-use plans and prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled in their respective regions and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets. SB 375 provides incentives for creating walkable and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities, and allows home builders to get relief from certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. Furthermore, SB 375 encourages the development of alternative transportation options, which will reduce traffic congestion. SJCOG is currently in the process of preparing the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Valley Visions San Joaquin, which will coordinate future coordinate future transportation investments and land use strategies to prioritize a multi-modal investment plan covering a 27- year period extending out to California Building Standards Code California s building codes (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24) are published on a triennial basis, and contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) is responsible for the administration and implementation of each code cycle, which includes the proposal, review, and adoption process. Supplements and errata are issued throughout the cycle to make necessary mid-term corrections. The 2013 code has been Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

131 prepared and became effective January 1, 2014, with minor exceptions to Part 6, Part 1, and energy provisions of Part 11, which will not become effective until July 1, The California building code standards apply State-wide; however, a local jurisdiction may amend a building code standard if the jurisdiction makes a finding that the amendment is reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. California Green Building Standards Code The 2013 California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), became effective January 1, As mentioned above, the energy provisions of the CALGreen Code do not become effective until July 1, 2014; however, the remainder of the CALGreen Code is currently effective. The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The provisions of the code apply to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure throughout California. The key features of the CALGreen Code include the following mandates: 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use, with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35 and 40 percent reductions; Separate indoor and outdoor water meters to measure nonresidential buildings indoor and outdoor water use with a requirement for moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects; Diversion of 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and 75 percent for new homes and 80 percent for commercial projects; Mandatory periodic inspections of energy systems (i.e., heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies; and Mandatory use of low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particle board. In addition to the mandatory measures listed above and to other State-wide mandates, the CALGreen Code encourages local governments to adopt more stringent voluntary provisions, known as Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions, to further reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency, and conserve natural resources. If a local government adopts one of the tiers, the provisions become mandates for all new construction within that jurisdiction. SB 97 SB 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an important environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. The bill directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

132 As directed by SB 97, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) amended the CEQA Guidelines, effective March 18, 2010, to provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents. The amendments include revisions to the Appendix G Initial Study Checklist that incorporates a new subdivision to address project-generated GHG emissions and contribution to climate change. The new subdivision emphasizes that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA's requirements for cumulative impacts analysis. In addition, the revisions include a new subdivision to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of project related GHG emissions such as the extent to which the project may generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and whether the project conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs. Guidance on determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions is provided in the amendments. The guidance suggests a careful judgment be made by the lead agency that should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. When assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment, lead agencies can consider the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance determined applicable to the project, and/or the extent to which the project complies with adopted regulations or requirements to implement a State-wide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. When adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. If GHG emissions of a project are determined to be significant, feasible means of mitigating GHG emissions, such as the following, shall be applied: AB 170 Measurement of the reduction of emissions required as part of the lead agency s decision; Reductions in emissions resulting from project through project features, design, or other measures; Off-site measures, including offsets, to mitigate a project s emissions; Measures that sequester GHG gases; and If a GHG reduction plan, ordinance, regulation, or other similar plan is adopted, mitigation may include project-by-project measures, or specific measures or policies found in the plan that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions. AB 170, also known as Reyes, was adopted in 2003 creating Government Code , which requires cities and counties in the San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

133 designed to improve air quality. The amendments are due no later than one year from the due date specified for the next revisions of a jurisdiction s housing element. As required in b, cities and counties within the San Joaquin Valley must amend their general plan to include a discussion of the status of air quality and strategies to improve air quality. The elements to be amended include, but are not limited to, those elements dealing with land use, circulation, housing, conservation, and open space. Section c identifies four areas of air quality discussion required in the amendments, which are as follows: 1. A report describing local air quality conditions, attainment status, and State and federal air quality and transportation plans; 2. A summary of local, district, State, and federal policies, programs, and regulations to improve air quality; 3. A comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives to improve air quality; and 4. Feasible implementation measures designed to achieve these goals. Local Regulations The following are the regulatory agencies and regulations pertinent to the proposed project on a local level. SJVAPCD The SJVAPCD was formed to administer local, state, and federal air quality management programs for San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare Counties, and the Valley portion of Kern County. The SJVAPCD monitors, evaluates, and implements control measures for enforcing air quality and GHG standards and regulations and reducing emissions from motor vehicles. The SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing certain programs and regulations required by the federal CAA and the CCAA. To assist lead agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project-specific air quality and GHG emissions, the SJVAPCD has prepared a number of guidelines, including the Environmental Review Guidelines Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, 13 the Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, 14 and the Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts As set forth in the SJVAPCD guidelines, the SJVAPCD has adopted thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions. In August 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP directed the District Air Pollution Control Officer to develop guidance to assist lead agencies, project proponents, permit applicants, and interested parties in assessing and reducing the impacts of project-specific GHG emissions on global climate change. Accordingly, on December 17, 2009, the SJVAPCD adopted the Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA 16 and the District Policy Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. 17 The guidance and policy rely on the use of performance based standards, otherwise known as Best Performance Standards (BPS), to assess significance of project-specific GHG Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

134 emissions on global climate change during the environmental review process, as required by CEQA. Use of BPS is a method of streamlining the CEQA process of determining significance and is not a required emission reduction measure. Projects implementing BPS would be determined to have a less-than-cumulatively-significant impact. Otherwise, demonstration that a project s emissions would be reduced or mitigated consistent with AB 32 would be required in order to determine that a project would have a less-than-cumulatively-significant impact. It should be noted that the guidance does not limit a lead agency s authority in establishing its own process and guidance for determining significance of project-related impacts on global climate change. Rules and Regulations All projects under the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD is required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. The SJVAPCD s regulations and rules include, but are not limited to, the following: Regulation II (Permits) Regulation II (Permits) deals with permitting emission sources and includes rules such as permit requirements (Rule 2010), New and Modified Stationary Source Review (Rule 2201), and implementation of Emission Reduction Credit Banking (Rule 2301). District Regulation II ensures that stationary source emissions will be reduced or mitigated to below the District s significance thresholds. Regulation IV (Prohibitions) District Regulation IV (Prohibitions) is comprised of prohibitory rules that are written to achieve emission reductions from specific source categories or from all sources. The rules are applicable to existing sources (retrofit requirements) as well as new sources. Examples of prohibitory rules would be Rule 4901 (Wood burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters), Rule 4102 (Nuisance), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibition) The purpose of Regulation VIII is to reduce ambient concentrations of PM 10 by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate anthropogenic fugitive dust emissions. Regulation VIII requires property owners, contractors, developers, equipment operators, farmers and public agencies to control fugitive dust emissions from specified outdoor fugitive dust sources, including the following: construction sites; excavation and earthmoving; bulk material handling, storage and transport; vacant land; paved and unpaved roads; and unpaved vehicle traffic areas. Regulation VIII specifies the following measures to control fugitive dust: Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

135 Apply water to unpaved surfaces and areas; Use non-toxic chemical or organic dust suppressants on unpaved roads and traffic areas; Limit or reduce vehicle speed on unpaved roads and traffic areas; Maintain areas in a stabilized condition by restricting vehicle access; Install wind barriers; During high winds, cease outdoor activities that disturb the soil; Keep bulk materials sufficiently wet when handling; Store and handle materials in a three-sided structure; When storing bulk materials, apply water to the surface or cover the storage pile with a tarp; Don t overload haul trucks. Overloaded trucks are likely to spill bulk materials; Cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover. Or, wet the top of the load enough to limit visible dust emissions; Clean the interior of cargo compartments on emptied haul trucks prior to leaving a site; Prevent trackout by installing a trackout control device; Clean up trackout at least once a day. If along a busy road or highway, clean up trackout immediately; and Monitor dust-generating activities and implement appropriate measures for maximum dust control. For projects in which construction-related activities would disturb equal to or greater than one acre of surface area, the SJVAPCD recommends that demonstration of receipt of a District-approved Dust Control Plan or Construction Notification form, prior to issuance of the first grading permit, be made a condition of project approval. It should be noted that although compliance with Regulation VIII substantially reduces project-specific fugitive dust emissions, the regulation alone may not be sufficient to reduce project-specific emissions to less-than-significant levels. Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review [ISR]) is intended to reduce a project s impact on air quality through project design elements or mitigation by payments of applicable off-site mitigation fees. The ISR rule, which went into effect March 1, 2006, requires developers of larger residential, commercial, and industrial projects to reduce smog-forming and particulate emissions generated by their projects. The ISR rule seeks to reduce the growth in NO X and PM 10 emissions associated with construction and operation of new development projects in the San Joaquin Valley. The ISR rule requires developers to reduce construction exhaust NO X and PM 10 emissions by 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively, and reduce operational emissions of NO X and PM 10 emissions by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively, as compared to the unmitigated baseline. Developers can achieve the required reductions through any combination of SJVAPCDapproved on-site emission reduction measures. When a developer cannot achieve the Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

136 required reductions through on-site measures, off-site mitigation fees are imposed to mitigate the difference between the required emission reductions and the mitigations achieved on-site. Monies collected from the fee are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects in the San Joaquin Valley on behalf of the project. Individual development projects would be subject to ISR requirements if upon full buildout the project would include or exceed the size limits specified by the SJVAPCD. For a residential development, the size limit is 50 dwelling units. For projects subject to Rule 9510, the SJVAPCD recommends that demonstration of compliance with the rule, including payment of all applicable fees before issuance of the first building permit, be made a condition of project approval. It should be noted that although compliance with Rule 9510 substantially reduces project specific impacts on air quality, the rule alone may not be sufficient to reduce projectspecific emissions to less-than-significant levels. City of Manteca The City of Manteca is the lead agency for the proposed project. The applicable regulations set forth by the City are presented in further detail below. Manteca General Plan The Manteca General Plan establishes the following goals and policies applicable to air quality and global climate change. Goal AQ-1 Improve air quality by: Achieving and maintaining ambient air quality standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District; Minimizing public exposure to toxic or hazardous air pollutants; and Minimizing public exposure to pollutants that create a public nuisance, such as unpleasant odors. Goal AQ-4 Reduce air emissions through energy conservation. Policy AQ-P-2 Policy AQ-P-3 Develop a land use plan that will help to reduce the need for trips and will facilitate the common use of public transportation, walking, bicycles, and alternative fuel vehicles. Segregate and provide buffers between land uses that typically generate hazardous or obnoxious fumes and residential or other sensitive land uses. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

137 Policy AQ-P-4: Develop and maintain street systems that provide for efficient traffic flow and thereby minimize air pollution from automobile emissions. Policy AQ-P-5 Policy AQ-P-6: Policy AQ-P-7 Policy AQ-P-8 Policy AQ-P-9: Policy AQ-P-10 Develop and maintain circulation systems that provide alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycles routes, pedestrian paths, bus transit, and carpooling. Coordinate public transportation networks, including trains, local bus service, regional bus service and rideshare facilities to provide efficient public transit service. New construction will be managed to minimize fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions. Woodburning devices shall meet current standards for controlling particulate air pollution. Burning of any combustible material within the City will be controlled to minimize particulate air pollution. Encourage energy efficient building designs. Goal CD-9 Establish a durable sustainable community that utilizes resources efficiently. Policy CD-P-32: New buildings shall be designed to be responsive to the local climate in a manner that provides shelter from sun and rain for pedestrians. Policy CD-P-33 Passive solar design features are encouraged whenever possible. Design of buildings should consider energy-efficient concepts such as natural heating and/or cooling, sun and wind exposure and orientation, and other solar energy opportunities. Policy CD-P-34: Solar collectors, if used, shall be oriented away from public view or designed as an integral element of the roof structure. Policy CD-P-35: Architectural elements that contribute to a building s character, aid in climate control, and enhance pedestrian scale are encouraged. Examples include canopies, roof overhangs, projections or recessions of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings. Policy CD-P-36: Encourage the creation of an urban forest comprised of street trees, residential lot trees, and trees in non-residential parking lots and other public open space. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

138 Goal CD-10 Establish a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment in neighborhoods and commercial and office land use areas. Goal C-3 Goal C-7 Expand transportation alternatives within the City, including public transit, walking, and bicycling. Maintain coordinated, efficient bus service that provides an effective alternative to private automobile use. Policy C-P-33 Bicycle travel through residential streets shall be facilitated as much as possible without the use of Class II bike lanes. In general, residential streets have sufficiently low volumes as to not require bike lanes and the narrower street cross section will assist in calming traffic. Goal RC-4 Goal RC-5 Encourage private development to explore and apply non-traditional energy sources such as co-generation, wind, and solar to reduce dependence on traditional energy sources. Promote energy efficiency in new development and in building design. Policy RC-P-6 Policy RC-P-9 Comply with construction and design standards that promote energy conservation. The City shall support use of alternative energy sources in new commercial, industrial and residential development. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan 18 The City of Manteca has prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) as the primary strategy for ensuring that the buildout of the Manteca General Plan supports the goals of AB 32. The CAP is designed to reduce community-related and City operations-related GHG emissions to a degree that would not hinder or delay implementation of AB 32. Achieving the State target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would require a reduction in emissions of 21.7 percent. Applying the 21.7 percent reduction to the City s overall 2020 business as usual (BAU) emissions would result in a target reduction for the City of 429,693 MTCO 2 e per year or 4.91 MTCO 2 e per person per year. In order to meet the target reduction, the City has developed a variety of reduction strategies. For new development projects constructed in the City of Manteca, the CAP requires the development projects to achieve GHG emissions reductions by taking the following actions: Comply with the applicable land use, sustainable development, and resource conservation policies of the Manteca General Plan. Construct project transportation infrastructure that supports walking, bicycling, and transit use. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

139 Implement transportation demand management programs in projects with large numbers of employees. Design and construct project buildings to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent. Implement project buildings including water conservation measures that meet or exceed the California Green Building Code standards 20 percent requirement. Install project landscaping that meets or exceeds water conservation standards of the City s adopted landscaping ordinance 20 percent reduction requirement. Develop programs to exceed state recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent. The strategies proposed in the CAP are expected to achieve local reductions that are adequate to meet the City s 2020 target. Cities with Climate Action Plans that are consistent with the State and regional AB 32 and SB 375 reduction targets can use their CAP as the basis for determining if projects would result in significant climate change impacts under CEQA. The City of Manteca CAP contains the elements necessary to fulfill such a function Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance Based on criteria derived from the questions found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and the recommendations of the SJVAPCD, an air quality impact would be considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would result in, or potentially result in, any of the following conditions: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (i.e., exceed the SJVAPCD Criteria Pollutant Thresholds of Significance presented in Table 4.3-7); Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (including localized concentrations of CO and TAC emissions); Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable AAQS (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (i.e., the City of Manteca CAP). Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

140 Table SJVAPCD Criteria Pollutant Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Construction Emissions (tons/yr) Operational Emissions (tons/yr) ROG NO X CO SO X PM PM Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts May Method of Analysis The proposed project s short-term construction, long-term operational, and GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version software - a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify air quality emissions, including GHG emissions, from land use projects. 19 The model applies inherent default values for various land uses, including trip generation rates based on the ITE Manual, vehicle mix, trip length, average speed, etc. However, where project-specific data was available, such data was input into the model (e.g., construction phases and timing, projected trip rate, sustainable design features, etc.). Carbon monoxide concentrations were estimated utilizing the CALINE4, version 2.1, software for intersections exceeding the screening threshold established by the SJVAPCD. 20 The CALINE4 model is a dispersion model for predicting air pollutant concentrations near roadways. The results of the model were compared to the thresholds established by the SJVAPCD, which refer to the State and federal concentration standards (pursuant to the NAAQS or CAAQS). The results of emissions estimations were compared to the standards of significance discussed above in order to determine the associated level of impact. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above. The following impacts and mitigation measures, where appropriate, are applicable to all three sites (Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II, and the DeJong property), unless otherwise noted Impacts related to a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction. During construction of the project, various types of equipment and vehicles would temporarily operate on the project site. Construction exhaust emissions would be Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

141 generated from construction equipment, vegetation clearing and earth movement activities, construction workers commute, and construction material hauling for the entire construction period. The aforementioned activities would involve the use of dieseland gasoline-powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria pollutants. Project construction activities also represent sources of fugitive dust, which includes PM 10 emissions. As construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions intermittently within the site, and in the vicinity of the site, until all construction has been completed, construction is a potential concern because the proposed project is in a nonattainment area for ozone and PM. The proposed project is required to comply with all SJVAPCD rules and regulations for construction, including, but not limited to, Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM 10 Prohibition), Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 4641 (Cutback Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations). In addition, as discussed above, a development project would be subject to ISR requirements if upon full buildout the project would include or exceed the size limits specified by the SJVAPCD, which, for a residential development, is 50 dwelling units. The proposed project consists of 706 dwelling units, thus, would be subject to Rule 9510 requirements. Therefore, a reduction of construction-related NO X and PM 10 emissions of 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively, would be required as compared to the unmitigated baseline, which would be achieved through a combination of SJVAPCDapproved on-site emission reduction measures, and off-site mitigation fees for the difference between required emission reductions and the mitigations achieved on-site. It should be noted that under compliance with Rule 9510, the SJVAPCD has performed an ISR for development of Atherton Homes at Woodward I and II, including the necessary off-site mitigation fees required for emission reductions. However, an ISR or Air Impact Assessment (AIA) has not been prepared for the DeJong property. The proposed project s unmitigated construction-related emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod and are presented in Table Table Maximum Unmitigated Project Construction-Related Emissions Pollutant Project Emissions (tons/yr) SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr) ROG NO X CO SO X PM PM Source: CalEEMod, January 2014 (see Appendix C). As shown in the table, the proposed project s unmitigated construction-related emissions would be below the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. It should be noted that the project s compliance with Rule 9510, which requires a reduction in construction-related Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

142 NO X and PM 10 emissions of 20 percent and 45 percent, respectively, compared to the unmitigated baseline, either through on-site emission reduction measures or off-site mitigation fees, would further reduce the project s construction-related emissions presented above. Therefore, the proposed project s construction-related emissions would not result in a contribution to the region s nonattainment status of ozone or PM, and would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Consequently, a less-than-significant impact related to a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction would occur. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation during operations, and, thus, a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be generated by the proposed project from both mobile and stationary sources. Day-to-day activities such as future residents vehicle trips to and from the project site would make up the majority of the mobile emissions. Emissions would occur from area sources such as natural gas combustion from heating mechanisms, landscape maintenance equipment exhaust, and consumer products (e.g., deodorants, cleaning products, spray paint, etc.). As stated above, the project is required to comply with all SJVAPCD rules and regulations, such as those listed previously for construction, as well as the following for operations: Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions); Rule 4102 (Nuisance); Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters); and Rule 4902 (Residential Water Heaters). The proposed project s unmitigated operational emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod and are presented in Table It should be noted that the proposed project s inherent site and sustainability features have been applied to the modeling, including the project s density, proximity to existing transit station, and bicycle and pedestrian connection improvements. In addition, compliance with the applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations as noted above have been included in the modeling. As shown in the table, the proposed project s unmitigated operational emissions would be below the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance, with the exception of ROG and NO X emissions. Thus, the proposed project could violate an air quality standard and contribute to an existing air quality violation associated with ozone during operations. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

143 Table Unmitigated Project Operational Emissions Pollutant Project Emissions (tons/yr) SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr) ROG NO X CO SO X PM PM Source: CalEEMod, January 2014 (see Appendix C). It should be noted that the proposed project would be subject to Rule 9510 requirements, as the project size exceeds that of the size limits specified by the SJVAPCD, which is 50 dwelling units for a residential development. Thus, a reduction of operational NO X and PM 10 emissions by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively, would be required as compared to the baseline, which could be achieved through any combination of SJVAPCD-approved on-site emission reduction measures. When the required reductions cannot be achieved through on-site measures, off-site mitigation fees would be imposed for the difference between the required emission reductions and the reductions achieved through on-site measures. It should be noted that under compliance with Rule 9510, the SJVAPCD has prepared an ISR for development of Atherton Homes at Woodward I and II, including the necessary off-site mitigation fees required for emission reductions. However, an ISR or AIA has not been prepared for the DeJong property. Compliance with the required NO X and PM 10 emissions per Rule 9510 would result in total project operational emissions as presented in Table Table Project Operational Emissions With Rule 9510 Compliance Pollutant Project Emissions (tons/yr) SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr) ROG NO X CO SO X PM PM As shown in the table, compliance with Rule 9510 would reduce the total proposed project s operational emissions of NO X from tons/yr to tons/yr, which would still exceed the SJVAPCD s thresholds of significance for NO X of 10 tons/yr. In addition, emissions of ROG would exceed the SJVAPCD s thresholds of significance of 10 tons/yr as well. Therefore, the proposed project could violate an air quality standard and contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation during operations. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

144 Due to the nonattainment designations, the SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain the State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The plans include the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 2007 PM 10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, and the 2012 PM 2.5 Plan. The SJVAPCD thresholds of significance are based on the SJVAPCD source review offset requirements, which are a major component of the SJVAPCD s air quality plans. Thus, according to the SJVAPCD, projects with emissions below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SJVAPCD s air quality plans. As the proposed project would result in emissions of criteria pollutants that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, the proposed project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. It should be noted, however, that the proposed project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan land use designation for the site, and, thus, has been anticipated by the City. Consequently, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, and, thus, a conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan due to operational emissions of ROG and NO X. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level (a) 4.3-2(b) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development on the DeJong property, the applicant shall submit for review an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the SJVAPCD, showing compliance with Rule 9510 through a reduction of NO X and PM 10 emissions by 33.3 percent and 50 percent, respectively, or payment of applicable off-site mitigation fees, if necessary, to mitigate the difference between the required emission reductions and the mitigations achieved on-site. Proof of compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510 shall be provided to the City Planning Division. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for development on all three properties, the project applicant(s) shall pay their fair share of the additional off-site mitigation fee (calculated using the SJVAPCD s fee per ton current at the time) sufficient to mitigate the operational emissions of ROG and NO X to the 10 tons per year CEQA threshold of significance. Proof of payment to the SJVAPCD shall be provided to the City Planning Division. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

145 4.3-3 Impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized CO emissions and TAC emissions, which are addressed in further detail below. Localized CO Emissions Although mass emissions of CO resultant from the proposed project were estimated to be below the applicable SJVAPCD threshold of significance, as analyzed above, localized concentrations of CO could occur in the project vicinity. Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes on streets near the project site; therefore, the project would be expected to increase local CO concentrations. Concentrations of CO approaching the ambient air quality standards are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high. The State-wide CO Protocol document 21 identifies signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F, or projects that would result in the worsening of signalized intersections to LOS E or F, as having the potential to result in localized CO concentrations in excess of the State or federal AAQS, as a result of large numbers of cars idling at stop lights. In accordance with the State CO Protocol, the SJVAPCD has established preliminary screening criteria for determining whether the effect that a project would have on any given intersection would cause a potential CO hotspot. If neither of the following criteria is met by the proposed project at all affected intersections, the proposed project would not be expected to have the potential to create a violation of the CO standard: A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen (i.e., increase delay by more than five percent) an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at more or more intersections in the project vicinity. If either of the above criteria would occur as a result of the proposed project, further CO analysis would be required. According to the traffic impact study that was prepared for the proposed project, with implementation of the proposed project, all signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under Existing Plus Project conditions. However, operations at the following unsignalized intersections would be degraded to LOS E or F: Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue LOS E or better to LOS F during the PM peak hour; and Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

146 Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard LOS C or better to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Although the above conditions would trigger further CO analysis, it should be noted that implementation of Mitigation Measures a and 4.121b, as set forth in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation, of this Draft EIR, which require installation of traffic signals at the currently unsignalized intersections, as well as improvements to Woodward Avenue, would improve operations at the above intersections to acceptable (LOS D or better) conditions. Thus, further CO analysis would not be required, as the above intersections would operate at acceptable levels with implementation of the required mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR. In addition, the proposed project would cause cumulatively considerable degradation in operations at the affected intersections as presented in Table below. As shown in the table, the majority of impacts at the intersections are the result of already projected unacceptable operations being further exacerbated by the proposed project. The proposed project traffic would increase delay at 10 intersections by more than five percent under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, which would constitute a substantial worsening of LOS such that further CO analysis is required. It should be noted that Mitigation Measures a through d, as set forth in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation, of this Draft EIR, which require payment of fair share fees towards the necessary improvements, would restore operations at all study intersections to acceptable LOS D or better. However, in order to determine the health risks associated with a worstcase condition, further analysis for localized CO emissions has been conducted. Due to the lowest LOS, the highest average delay, and the proximity to the nearest sensitive receptor, the Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr intersection would represent the worst-case scenario for new localized CO emissions associated with operation of the proposed project. All other intersections that would be potentially affected by the proposed project would not be expected to experience CO concentrations in excess of the highest predicted CO concentrations at the intersections listed above, as all other intersections would experience less traffic and would be located further away from sensitive receptors. The Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr intersection has three residences located on the northwestern, northeastern, and southwestern corners of the intersection, with Woodward Park located to the southeast. Three residences are located adjacent to the intersection to the southwest, northwest, and northeast. Table shows the worst-case concentration of CO from the Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr intersection at the closest sensitive receptor during both 1-hour and 8-hour scenarios, which were modeled using the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) CALINE4 roadway dispersion model. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

147 Table Cumulatively Considerable Degradation in Intersection Operations Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Increase in Intersection Hour (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Delay (%) 1. Main St / Industrial AM 31 C 65 E 52.3 Park Dr PM 56 E 66 E Industrial Park Dr / Van Ryn Ave 3. Moffat Blvd / Industrial Park Dr 4. Main St / SR 120 WB Ramps 5. Main St / SR 120 EB Ramps 6. Main St / Atherton Dr 7. Main St / Woodward Ave 8. Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr 9. Woodward Ave / Van Ryn Dr 11. Woodward Ave / Atherton Dr 13. Moffat Blvd / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp 14. Moffat Blvd / Austin Rd AM 99 (390) F (F) 162 (596) F (F) 38.9 (34.6) PM 533 (-) F (F) 566 (-) F (F) 5.8 AM 46 D 62 E 32.3 PM 57 E 58 E 1.7 AM 71 E 79 E 10.1 PM 48 D 52 D 7.7 AM 119 F 110 F -7.6 PM 131 F 219 F 40.2 AM 127 F 127 F 0.0 PM 103 F 100 F -2.9 AM 233 F 256 F 9.0 PM 30 C 31 C 3.2 AM 4 (29) A (D) 4 (50) A (F) 0.0 (42.0) PM 43 (434) E (F) 75 (828) F (F) 42.7 (47.6) AM OPERATES ACCEPTABLY PM 5 (31) A (D) 11 (72) B (F) 56.9 AM - (-) F (F) - (-) F (F) - PM - (-) F (F) - (-) F (F) - AM 373 F 386 F 3.4 PM 806 F 524 F AM 353 F 378 F 6.6 PM 710 F 464 F Austin Rd / SR 99 AM 513 F 438 F NB Ramps PM 815 F 601 F Source: Fehr & Peers, December Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

148 Table Maximum Predicted CO Concentrations Intersection CO Concentration (ppm) 1-Hour Average Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr 2.5 State Standard 20.0 Federal Standard Hour Average Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr 2.5 State Standard 9.0 Federal Standard 9.0 Source: CALINE4, January As shown in Table , the highest predicted concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor would be well below the established thresholds of significance. Because all other affected intersections had less of a delay and were located further from sensitive receptors than the Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr intersection, the CO concentrations at all other intersections would be expected to be less than what has been estimated for the Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr intersection. Therefore, the project s impact related to a contribution to local mobile-source concentrations of CO would be less than significant. TAC Emissions Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The CARB s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses near sources typically associated with significant levels of TAC emissions, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. 23 The CARB has identified DPM from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure. Health-related risks associated with DPM in particular are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer. The proposed project, being a residential development, would not involve long-term operation of any stationary diesel engine or other major on-site stationary source of TACs. Construction activities have the potential to generate DPM emissions related to the number and types of equipment typically associated with construction. Off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment used for site grading, paving, and other construction activities result in the generation of DPM. The existing residences north and west of the project site would be considered the closest sensitive receptors to the site and could become exposed to DPM emissions from the site during construction activities. However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project. In addition, buildout of the proposed project Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

149 would occur in phases, where only portions of the site would be disturbed at a time. Operation of construction equipment would occur on such portions of the site intermittently throughout the course of a day and would be regulated. Accordingly, construction equipment on-site would not operate for any long periods of time and would be used at various locations within the site, not always the same location for long periods of time. Thus, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time would be very low. Because health risks associated with exposure to DPM or any TAC are correlated with high concentrations over a long period of exposure (e.g., over a 70-year lifetime), the temporary, intermittent construction-related DPM emissions would not be expected to cause any health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. Overall, the proposed project would not generate emissions of, or expose any nearby existing sensitive receptors to, TACs. Due to the lack of idling trains, the CARB does not consider train tracks themselves to be a significant source of TAC emissions; however, rail yards are considered a significant source of TACs by the CARB due to the substantial amount of trains and idling. The CARB recommends a setback of 1,000 feet from a major rail yard, as well as other limitations and mitigation approaches for sensitive land uses within one mile. The northeastern-most point of the project site is located approximately 840 feet west of the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks parallel to SR 99. The tracks are utilized solely for passing trains that do not idle at that location. A rail yard is not located in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not be affected by DPM emissions associated with a rail yard. The CARB s Handbook includes distribution centers with associated diesel truck trips of more than 100 trucks per day as a source of substantial TAC emissions. The proposed project site is not located near any such facilities, and, thus, would not be exposed to any associated DPM emissions. The CARB, per its Handbook, recommends the evaluation of emissions when freeways are within 500 feet of sensitive receptors. Any project placing sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a major roadway or freeway may have the potential to expose those receptors to DPM. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities. The proposed project is a residential development that would introduce new sensitive receptors to the area. The SR 99 / SR 120 interchange is located east of the project site. At the nearest point (i.e., the northeastern-most point of the project site), the proposed project is located approximately 1,400 feet to the nearest travel lane along the SR 120 southbound connection to SR 99. As such, a sufficient buffer would be provided between the proposed project site and the nearest freeway, and the proposed project would not be expected to expose any sensitive receptors to a significant increase in individual cancer risk from DPM. Thus, a detailed, site-specific health risk assessment is not warranted. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

150 Conclusion The proposed project would not cause or be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized CO or TACs. Therefore, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to the creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative or formulaic methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist. The intensity of an odor source s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. Common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, food processing facilities, feed lots, and/or dairies. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity any such sources; thus, would not be expected to be affected by any associated objectionable odors. Existing agricultural land uses are located to the south and the east of the project site. Accordingly, the future residents of the proposed project could potentially be exposed to odors associated with the ongoing agricultural operations. However, land to the east of the site is designated for residential development, and land to the south of the site is currently proposed for residential development (i.e., the proposed Hat Ranch agerestricted project). In addition, a 56-foot right-of-way dedication for the future Atherton Drive extension would be provided along the eastern border of the project site. The rightof-way would serve as a buffer between the proposed project and the ongoing agricultural operations to the east until such time as the planned residential development occurs to the east, consistent with the Manteca General Plan. Thus, the nearby agricultural operations would not be expected to create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people on the project site. Furthermore, it should be noted that Mitigation Measure in Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR requires deed notification for future property owners disclosing the project s proximity to existing and ongoing agricultural activities and potential issues associated with such, consistent with the City s Right-to-Farm Ordinance. Diesel fumes from construction equipment are often found to be objectionable; however, construction is temporary and associated diesel emissions would be regulated. Emissions of DPM from the nearby freeway could result in objectionable odor; however, as presented above, the buffer between the project site and the freeway would be sufficient Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

151 to avoid high concentrations of DPM. Thus, odors related to DPM would not be expected to be considerable or affect a substantial number of people. Residential land uses are not typically associated with the creation of substantial objectionable odors. Thus, the proposed project would not represent a source of objectionable odors and would not affect a substantial number of people. For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors, nor would the project site be affected by any existing sources of substantial objectionable odors, and a less-than-significant impact related to objectionable odors would result. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. A cumulative impact analysis considers a project over time in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects whose impacts might compound those of the project being assessed. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development. Future attainment of AAQS is a function of successful implementation of SJVAPCD attainment plans. Consequently, the SJVAPCD s application of thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants is relevant to the determination of whether a project s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. A lead agency may determine that a project s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located [CCR 15064(h)(1)]. Thus, according to the SJVAPCD, if projectspecific emissions would be less than the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the area is in non-attainment under applicable AAQS. As presented above, the proposed project would result in project-specific operational emissions of ROG and NO X that exceed the applicable thresholds of significance; however, with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Consequently, in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance, Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

152 because the proposed project would result in emission less than the thresholds of significance with implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would correspondingly be considered to result in a less than significant cumulative impact to air quality. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions and/or a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions, but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Emissions of GHG attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO 2 and other GHG pollutants, including CH 4 and N 2 O, from mobile sources and utility usage. It should be noted that construction-related GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change, as global climate change is inherently a cumulative effect that occurs over a long period of time. As discussed above, the City of Manteca has developed a CAP supporting the goals of AB 32. The CAP is designed to reduce community-related and City operations-related GHG emissions to a degree that would not hinder or delay implementation of AB 32. Achieving the State target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would require a reduction in emissions of 21.7 percent from projected 2020 BAU conditions. In order to meet the target reduction, the City has developed a variety of reduction strategies. For new development projects constructed in the City of Manteca, the CAP requires the development projects to achieve GHG emissions reductions by implementing the following reduction strategies: Comply with the applicable land use, sustainable development, and resource conservation policies of the Manteca General Plan; Construct project transportation infrastructure that supports walking, bicycling, and transit use; Implement transportation demand management programs in projects with large numbers of employees; Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

153 Design and construct project buildings to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent; Implement project buildings including water conservation measures that meet or exceed the California Green Building Code standards 20 percent requirement; Install project landscaping that meets or exceeds water conservation standards of the City s adopted landscaping ordinance 20 percent reduction requirement; and Develop programs to exceed state recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent. The strategies proposed in the CAP are expected to achieve local reductions that are adequate to meet the City s 2020 target. Cities with Climate Action Plans that are consistent with the State and regional AB 32 and SB 375 reduction targets can use their CAP as the basis for determining if projects would result in significant climate change impacts under CEQA. The City of Manteca CAP contains the elements necessary to fulfill such a function. Therefore, compliance with the strategies proposed in the City s CAP would be considered to reduce a project s impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change to less-than-significant levels. The proposed project is a residential development and would not introduce any new employees to the area. Thus, implementation of transportation demand management programs would not be necessary for the project. The proposed project s overall consistency with the Manteca General Plan goals and policies is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR. As determined in Chapter 4.9 of this Draft EIR, the overall proposed project would be consistent with the Manteca General Plan. In addition, the design of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites would comply with the applicable sustainable development and resource conservation policies included in this chapter to the extent practicable. However, because a tentative map has not yet been submitted for the DeJong property, compliance with the specific applicable sustainable development and resource conservation policies of the General Plan cannot be confirmed at this time. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the tentative maps for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites include transportation infrastructure supportive of alternative transportation, such as a Class I bike path, connections to existing adjacent developments, and sidewalks. However, as a tentative map has not yet been submitted for the DeJong property, the inclusion of supportive infrastructure on the site is currently unknown. It should be noted that dial-a-ride transit services would be available for use by the future residences of the proposed project. Thus, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites would comply with the first three measures listed above that are required per the City s CAP. However, because a tentative map has not yet been submitted for the DeJong property, compliance with the same measures cannot currently be verified. In addition, because design-level plans for all three sites have not been developed as of yet, whether the project would comply with the last four measures presented in the list above is not currently known. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

154 Because the strategies included in the CAP would achieve local reductions that are adequate to meet the City s 2020 target, which is consistent with the AB 32 reduction targets, if the project would be consistent with the City s CAP, the proposed project would not be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may result in a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. The proposed project is required to comply with the City of Manteca s CAP. Without providing proof of compliance with the required measures of the City s CAP, the proposed project could be considered to result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emission and global climate change. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level (a) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any development on the DeJong property, the project applicant shall prepare a GHG mitigation plan for review and approval by the City Planning Division. The GHG mitigation plan shall show that the proposed project design would include compliance with the City s CAP, specifically through implementation of the following requirements: Project design shall comply with the applicable land use, sustainable development, and resource conservation policies of the Manteca General Plan; Project transportation infrastructure shall be constructed to support walking, bicycling, and transit use; Buildings shall be designed and constructed to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent; Building designs shall include water conservation measures sufficient to meet or exceed the CALGreen standard of a 20 percent reduction requirement; Landscaping shall be included sufficient to meet or exceed the water conservation standards of the City s adopted landscaping ordinance of a 20 percent reduction requirement; and A recycling or diversion program sufficient to exceed the State recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent shall be implemented. Or, If compliance with the specific measures of the City s CAP listed above is proven to be infeasible for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide a detailed GHG emissions assessment for the entire project, including modeling that shows compliance with the CAP s GHG reduction Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

155 target of 21.7 percent from BAU levels (i.e., baseline condition based on buildout of the proposed project without implementation of any required or voluntary GHG reduction measures) by The GHG emissions assessment shall be provided to the City Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits (b) Prior to issuance of any building permits for any development on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I or II properties, the project applicant shall prepare a GHG mitigation plan for review and approval by the City Planning Division. The GHG mitigation plan shall show that the proposed project design would include compliance with the City s CAP, specifically through implementation of the following requirements: Buildings shall be designed and constructed to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent; Building designs shall include water conservation measures sufficient to meet or exceed the CALGreen standard of a 20 percent reduction requirement; Landscaping shall be included sufficient to meet or exceed the water conservation standards of the City s adopted landscaping ordinance of a 20 percent reduction requirement; and A recycling or diversion program sufficient to exceed the State recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent shall be implemented. Or, If compliance with the specific measures of the City s CAP listed above is proven to be infeasible for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide a detailed GHG emissions assessment for the entire project, including modeling that shows compliance with the CAP s GHG reduction target of 21.7 percent from BAU levels (i.e., baseline condition based on buildout of the proposed project without implementation of any required or voluntary GHG reduction measures) by The GHG emissions assessment shall be provided to the City Planning Division for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

156 Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, Michael Brandman Associates. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan. August 21, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at: Accessed November U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at: Accessed November California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at: June 4, California Air Resources Board. Glossary of Air Pollution Terms. Available at: Accessed November California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM): Top Four Summary. Available at: http: // Accessed November Ibid. 10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: February California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December California Air Resources Board. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. Available at: http// Accessed April San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Environmental Review Guidelines Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. August San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. As revised January 10, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts May San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. District Policy Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. December 17, Michael Brandman Associates. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan. August 21, ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts. California Emissions Estimator Model User s Guide Version July California Department of Transportation. User s Guide for CL4: A User-Friendly Interface for the CALINE4 Model for Transportation Project Impact Assessments. June University of California, Davis. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. December Fehr & Peers. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation. December California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April Chapter 4.3 Air Quality and Climate Change

157 4.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

158 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The Biological Resources chapter of the Draft EIR evaluates the biological resources known to occur, or potentially occur, within the South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) project (proposed project) site. This chapter describes potential impacts to those resources, and identifies measures to avoid, or substantially reduce, those impacts to less-than-significant levels. Existing plant communities, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and potential for special-status species and communities are discussed for the project area. The information contained in this analysis is primarily based on the Biological Resources Analysis, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I & II, and the DeJong Property Project Site 1, prepared by Monk & Associates (see Appendix D), the Manteca General Plan, 2 and the Manteca General Plan EIR EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following sections describe the existing environmental setting and biological resources occurring, or potentially occurring, in the proposed project area. Regional Setting The proposed project site is located in an agricultural area in San Joaquin County, southeast of the City of Manteca City limits. The project site is bounded by E. Woodward Avenue to the north, the proposed Hat Ranch project to the south, agricultural land and the future Atherton Drive extension to the east, and Pillsbury Road to the west. Project Setting Project Boundaries and Current Uses The project site is comprised of three adjacent properties, totaling approximately acres south of Woodward Avenue and east of Pillsbury Road in Manteca, San Joaquin County. Due to their location in San Joaquin County, the project includes annexation of the overall site into the City of Manteca. The three properties are referred to as: 1) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I; 2) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and 3) DeJong Property. The three properties are proposed for residential development, though tentative maps have only been submitted for two of the three properties at this time. It should be noted that, in order to avoid the creation of a County island area, two non-participating parcels located immediately west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site have been included in the proposed annexation area. Thus, the total annexation area for the project is acres. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-1

159 The acre project site has a long history of agricultural land use and is currently used as an almond orchard and for the cultivation of row crops. The proposed project site is relatively flat, with an elevation of 47 feet above sea level, and lacks extraordinary topographic features. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I The Woodward Park I site is approximately 54.2 acres and comprises the southern portion of the project site. Woodward Park I is currently planted with alfalfa, with 12 slightly raised berms, running north to south, creating 13 farming units that are independently irrigated with water supplied by the irrigation district. Existing irrigation control valves are located at the northern extent of each contained area and separately control water input into each of these units. Other herbaceous species were not observed within this portion of the project site. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II The Woodward Park II site is approximately 57.3 acres and comprises the northwestern portion of the project site. This portion of the project site is currently a well-maintained almond orchard, irrigated via a drip irrigation system. Woodward Park II does not currently have any drainage or irrigation ditches. However, the site does have five irrigation control valves along the northern border. Herbaceous species were not observed within this portion of the project site. DeJong Property The DeJong Property is approximately 80 acres and comprises the northeastern portion of the project site. Well-maintained almond orchards and vineyards are currently planted in this portion of the project site. The orchards and vineyards are irrigated via a drip irrigation system. Currently, drainage or irrigation ditches are not located within the DeJong Property. Herbaceous species were not observed within this portion of the project site. On-Site Vegetation The existing vegetation over the entirety of the project area is classified as agrestal and is the result of long-term ground manipulation and cultivation. Plants introduced by humans, generally for agriculture commodity crops, dominate these communities. The cultivation of agricultural fields continually disturbs the soil. As a result, these areas typically do not support native plant species or communities. Agrestal An agrestal community is a weed dominated community of rural, agricultural areas (Holland & Keil 1995). Agrestal communities form in areas that have been disturbed by cultivation. While cultivation can eliminate most plants other than those grown intentionally as crops, many species of weeds thrive in edge areas alongside croplands. In general, agrestal areas do not provide habitat for many wildlife species. Most farms are clean farmed, eliminating naturalized habitats that would support a diversity of wildlife species. The Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-2

160 intense cultivation and manipulation of the soil, including the application of pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer, tend to limit the number of wildlife species that occupy or use cropland habitats. Hay fields often provide habitat for a number of resident species, particularly small mammal populations, which in turn serve as prey for various raptors, including the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and redshouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). However, due to the intensive pest control measures in place at the project site, rodents, or evidence of rodents, were not observed during M&A s September 2013 survey. Migratory bird species also use agrestal communities, particularly in the winter months after crops are harvested. Waterfowl and shorebirds often stop to rest and forage in agricultural fields in the winter months en route to and from nesting grounds. Special-Status Species Potentially Occurring On-site Special-status species are species that have been listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), or are of special concern to federal resource agencies, the State, or private conservation organizations. A species may be considered special-status due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. A full description of the criteria and laws pertaining to special-status classifications is described below. Plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the CESA (Fish and Wildlife Code 2050 et seq.; 14 CCR et seq.) or the FESA (50 CFR for plants; 50 CFR for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species); Plants and animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages , October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (California Fish and Wildlife Code 2068); Plants and animals that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR 15380) that may include species not found on either State or Federal Endangered Species lists; Plants occurring on Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, and 4 of CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2001). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recognizes that Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of cases, would qualify for State listing, and CDFW requests their inclusion in EIRs. Plants occurring on CNPS Lists 3 and 4 are "plants about which more information is necessary," and "plants of limited distribution," respectively (CNPS 2001). Such plants may be included as special-status species on a case by case basis due to local significance or recent biological information; Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-3

161 Migratory nongame birds of management concern listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The list 1995; Office of Migratory Bird Management; Washington D.C.; Sept. 1995); Animals that are designated as "species of special concern" by CDFW (2013); and Animal species that are fully protected in California (Fish and Wildlife Codes 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). In the paragraphs below further definitions of legal status are provided as they pertain to the special-status species discussed in this chapter. Federal Endangered or Threatened Species. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the FESA is protected from unauthorized take (that is, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to take a Federal listed Endangered or Threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, permission from the USFWS must be obtained prior to initiating the take. State Threatened Species. A species listed as Threatened under the State Endangered Species Act ( 2050 of California Fish and Game Code) is protected from unauthorized take (that is, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to take a State-listed Threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, permission from the CDFW must be obtained prior to initiating the take. California Species of Special Concern. These are species in which their California breeding populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible. This designation affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15380), some species of special concern could be considered rare. Pursuant to its rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species could be considered a significant effect on the environment ( 15382). Thus, species of special concern must be considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency. CNPS Rank Species. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains an inventory of special status plant species. This inventory has four lists of plants with varying rarity. These lists are: Rank 1, Rank 2, Rank 3, and Rank 4. Although plants on these lists have no formal legal protection (unless they are also state or federal listed species), the CDFW requests the inclusion of Rank 1 species in environmental documents. In addition, other State and local agencies may request the inclusion of species on other lists as well. The Rank 1 and 2 species are defined below: Rank 1A Presumed extinct in California; Rank 1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Rank 2A Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere; Rank 2B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-4

162 All of the plants constituting Rank 1B meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing (CNPS 2001). Rank 2 species are rare in California, but more common elsewhere. Ranks 3 and 4 contain species about which there is some concern, and are review and watch lists, respectively. Additionally, in 2006 CNPS updated their lists to include threat code extensions for each list. For example, Rank 1B species would now be categorized as Rank 1B.1, Rank 1B.2, or Rank 1B.3. These threat codes are defined as follows:.1 is considered seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) ;.2 is fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened) ;.3 is not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known). Fully Protected Birds. Fully protected birds, such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle, are protected under California Fish and Game Code ( 3511). Fully protected birds may not be taken or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time. Special-Status Plant Species Figure provides a graphical illustration of the closest known records for special-status plant species within 5 miles of the project site. Based on a records search of the CNDDB and the USFWS lists, and field observations by project biologists, Monk & Associates, special-status plant species have not been detected on or adjacent to the project site. This is likely due to the long history of agricultural practices in the region. According to the 1972 USGS Manteca, California Quadrangle, the project site and surrounding properties have been farmed for at least 40 years. The only special-status plant species recorded within five miles of the project site is the delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum) (see Table 4.4-1, Special-Status Plant Species Occurring within a Five-Mile Radius of the Project Site). This plant is found in riparian habitats and wetlands, including vernal pools. However, such habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the project site. Due to the project site s long history of disturbance associated with agricultural practices that have altered the soil profile, plant communities, hydrology patterns, natural or native habitats do not exist on the project site. Thus, special-status plant species are not expected to occur on the project site. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-5

163 Figure Special-Status Species Occurrences within a Five-Mile Radius Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-6

164 Table Special-Status Plant Species Occurring within a Five-Mile Radius of the Project Site Common Name Scientific Name Status Associated Habitat Blooming Period Area Locations Probability on Project Site Apiaceae Delta button-celery Eryngium racemosum Riparian scrub (vernally mesic clay depressions) June- August Federal: FE - Federal Endangered FT - Federal Threatened FPE - Federal Proposed Endangered FPT - Federal Proposed Threatened FC - Federal Candidate Fed: State: CE CNPS: Rank 1B.1 State: CE - California Endangered CT - California Threatened CR - California Rare CC - California Candidate CSC - California Species of Special Concern Closest record for this species is located approximately 4.8 miles south of the project site (Occurrence No. 5) CNPS: Rank 1A - Presumed extinct in California Rank 1B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 1B.1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) Rank 1B.2 - Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) Rank 1B.3 - Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Rank 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2A - Extirpated in California, common elsewhere Rank 2B.1 - Seriously endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B.2 - Fairly endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B.3 - Not very endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 - Plants about which we need more information (Review List) Rank Plants about which we need more information (Review List), seriously endangered in California Rank Plants about which we need more information (Review List), fairly endangered in California Rank 4 - Plants of limited distribution - a watch list Source: Monk & Associates, Inc None. No riparian habitat, seasonal wetlands, or vernal pools occur on or adjacent to the project site. Entire site is covered with agricultural crops or landscaping. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-7

165 Special-Status Wildlife Species Figure provides a graphical illustration of the closest known records for special-status wildlife species within 5 miles of the project site. Special-status animal records have not been mapped on or adjacent to the project site, which is likely due to the long history of agricultural practices in the region. However, eight (8) special-status animal species have been identified within 5 miles of the project site (see Table 4.4-2). Due to the project site s long history of disturbance associated with agricultural practices that have altered the soil profile, plant communities, and hydrology patterns, natural or native habitats do not remain on the project site. Burrows, large stature trees, ponds, wetlands, or suitable host plant species are not present on the project site. A single special-status animal, Swainson s hawk (Buteo swainsonii), could occur on the project site. Swainson s hawk The Swainson's hawk is a State-listed Threatened species, afforded protection pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, Title 14, California Code of Regulations. While Swainson s hawk has no special federal status, the bird is protected from direct take under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C ). Swainson s hawks, their nests, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code ( 3503, , 3513, and 3800). Finally, pursuant to CEQA, this hawk would be considered rare and impacts to its nest sites would be regarded as significant. Impacts to foraging habitat can be regarded as significant pursuant to the CEQA, based upon guidelines provided by the Department of Fish and Wildlife for this raptor species. The Swainson s hawk is generally a summer visitor to California. In the fall months, most Swainson s hawks migrate to South America before returning to the United States to breed once again in the late spring. A small population of Swainson s hawks remains resident in California year-round. The nesting population of Swainson s hawks in California has significantly recovered due to the enactment of the California Endangered Species Act in The Swainson s hawk inhabits open to semi-open areas at low to middle elevations in valleys, dry meadows, foothills, and level uplands (Kochert 1986). The hawk nests almost exclusively in trees and will nest in almost any tree species that is at least 10 feet tall (Schmutz et. al. 1984). Nests are constructed in isolated trees that are dead or alive along drainages and in wetlands, or in windbreaks in fields and around farmsteads (Palmer 1988). Swainson s hawks occasionally nest in shrubs, on telephone poles, and on the ground. In the Central Valley of California, the majority of Swainson's hawk nests and territories are associated with riparian systems and nests are commonly found in cottonwoods and oaks (Schlorff et. al. 1984). Swainson s hawks have also been documented nesting in eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), black walnut (Juglans hindsii), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), almond (Prunus dulcis), Osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Arizona cypress (Cupressus arizonica) and pine (Pinus spp.) (CNDDB records). Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-8

166 Table Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring within a Five-Mile Radius of the Project Site Species Status Habitat Closest Locations Potential for Occurrence Insects Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Amphibians California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Birds Swainson s hawk Buteo swainsoni Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Fed: FT State: Other: Fed: FT State: CT Other: Fed: State: CT Other: Fed: State: CSC Other: Fed: State: CSC Other: Riparian and other habitats with elderberries (Sambucus sp.). Prefers shrubs with stems 1-5 inches in diameter. Found in grassland habitats of the valleys and foothills. Requires burrows for aestivation and standing water until late spring (May) for larvae to metamorphose. Migratory and resident raptor that breeds in open areas with scattered trees. Prefers riparian and sparse oak woodland habitats for nesting. Requires nearby grasslands, grain fields, or alfalfa for foraging. Found in open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably, the California ground squirrel. Colonial nester in dense cattails, tules, brambles, or other dense vegetation. Requires open water, dense vegetation, and open grassy areas for foraging. (Continued on next page) Closest record for this species is located approximately 5.0 miles south of the project site (Occurrence No. 45) Closest record for this species is a larval sighting in a pond located approximately 4.5 miles west of the project site (Occurrence No. 37). Closest record for this species is located approximately 2.0 miles south of the project site (Occurrence No. 2434). Closest record for this species is located approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the project site (Occurrence No. 251). Closest record for this species is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site (Occurrence No. 100). None. No riparian habitat or elderberry plants occur on or adjacent to the project site. Entire site is covered with agricultural crops or landscaping. None. No suitable upland aestivation or open water habitat occurs on or adjacent to the project site. Entire site is covered with agricultural crops or landscaping. Low to None. No trees of suitable size for nesting occur on or adjacent to the project site. However, the alfalfa field provides marginal foraging habitat. None. No suitable habitat occurs on or adjacent to the project site. No burrows were observed on the project site during the September 2013 survey. None. No open water or emergent marsh vegetation occur on or adjacent to the project site. Entire site is covered with agricultural crops or landscaping. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-9

167 Table Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurring within a Five-Mile Radius of the Project Site Species Status Habitat Closest Locations Potential for Occurrence Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Mammals Riparian brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani riparius Riparian woodrat Neotoma fuscipes riparia Fed: State: Other: * Fed: FE State: CE Other: Fed: FE State: CSC Other: Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands with dense vegetation and deep water. Often along borders of lakes or ponds. Only three known populations of this subspecies exist. One population occurs in Caswell Memorial State Park in Stanislaus County, two populations occur in San Joaquin County. Found only in riparian habitats along the San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Rivers. Requires areas with a mix of trees and shrubs. Federal: State: FE - Federal Endangered CE - California Endangered FT - Federal Threatened CT - California Threatened FPE Federal Proposed Endangered CR - California Rare FPT Federal Proposed Threatened CC - California Candidate FC - Federal Candidate CSC - California Species of Special Concern FPD Federally Proposed for Delisting WL - Watch List. Not protected pursuant to CEQA. An historic (1894) record for this species is located approximately 5.0 miles west of the project site (Occurrence No. 5). Closest record for this species is located approximately 5.0 miles west of the project site (Occurrence No. 5) Closest record for this species is located approximately 5.0 miles south of the project site (Occurrence No. 5). None. No open water or wetlands occur on or adjacent to the project site. Entire site is covered with agricultural crops or landscaping. None. No riparian habitat occurs on or adjacent to the project site. Entire site is covered with agricultural crops or landscaping. None. No riparian habitat occurs on or adjacent to the project site. Entire site is covered with agricultural crops or landscaping. *Other: Most birds have protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Raptors and their nests are protected by provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. A few species, such as the monarch butterfly and California Fully Protected Animals, may be protected by policies of the California Department of Fish and Game. Source: Monk & Associates, Inc Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

168 Foraging habitats include alfalfa fields, fallow fields, beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops, dry-land and irrigated pasture, and rice land when not flooded. The Swainson's hawk generally forages in open habitats with short vegetation containing small mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects. The hawk s primary prey in the Central Valley is California meadow vole (Microtus californicus). Agricultural areas are often preferred over more natural grassland habitats due to larger prey populations. In addition, agricultural practices (planting, maintenance, harvesting, disking) allow for access to prey, and very likely increases foraging success of Swainson s hawks when farm equipment flushes prey during harvesting. During the nesting season, Swainson s hawks usually forage within two miles of their nests. Swainson s hawk does not require habitats that contain many perches because it most often searches for prey aerially; therefore, the hawk can occupy habitats with few or no perches except the nest tree. A 2009 record for a nesting Swainson s hawk is located approximately 2.0 miles south of the project site in a Eucalyptus tree surrounded by orchards (CNDDB Occurrence No. 2434). Swainson s hawks have not been observed nesting any closer than 2.0 miles from the project site, likely because the surrounding area is also agricultural and does not provide suitable nesting habitat. The CDFW has prepared a Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson s Hawks in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994) (hereinafter the Mitigation Guidelines) that prescribe avoidance and mitigation guidelines for impacts to Swainson s hawk nesting and foraging habitats. This document presents a case that impacts within 10 miles of any active nesting territory, which are not mitigated, would be contrary to protections afforded Swainson s hawks through CEQA (14 CCR 15380). The Mitigation Guidelines further state that acceptable mitigation to offset impacts to Swainson s hawk foraging habitat can be met by Fee Title acquisition of Swainson s hawk habitat, or by acquisition of conservation easements over lands that can be managed for this hawk species (hereinafter, Habitat Management Lands). In lieu of such mitigation, applicants may purchase credits from a Department-approved conservation bank, or if in a Habitat Conservation Planning area, may pay a fee to the HCP implementing agency. The project site is located within the 10-mile radius of a known Swainson s hawk nest (CNDDB records), and is therefore within the defined foraging area for this species (CDFG 1994). The alfalfa field on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I portion of the project site is a crop that is defined by the Department as a foraging habitat for Swainson s hawks. Alfalfa fields support microtine rodent populations and thus, are used as foraging habitat by Swainson s hawks. In the Impacts and Mitigations Section below, mitigation is prescribed that would compensate for the loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat. Migratory Birds Several species of raptors and passerine birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project site does not provide suitable for nesting raptors or passerine birds. However, almond trees on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and DeJong portions of the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for passerine birds. Several migratory birds were observed on-site by Monk & Associates, including but not Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

169 limited to, Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), California quail (Callipepla californica), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Bewick s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Townsend s warbler (Dendroica townsendi), and Anna s hummingbird (Calypte anna). Jurisdictional Waters of the United States Waters of the United States (U.S.), including wetlands, are broadly defined under 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328 to include navigable waterways, tributaries of navigable waterways, and adjacent wetlands. State and federal agencies regulate these habitats, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that a permit be secured prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Both CDFW and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have jurisdiction over modifications to riverbanks, lakes, stream channels, and other wetland features. In addition, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. could be defined by exhibiting a defined bed and bank and ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined by the USACE as [ ] that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. (33 C.F.R [e]) Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface water or groundwater, supporting vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Jurisdictional wetlands are vegetated areas that meet specific vegetation, soil, and hydrologic criteria defined by the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). Waters of the U.S. are drainage features or water bodies as described in 33 CFR The USACE holds sole authority to determine the jurisdictional status of waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. include, but are not limited to, perennial and intermittent creeks and drainages, lakes, seeps, and springs; emergent marshes; riparian wetlands; and seasonal wetlands. Wetlands and waters of the U.S. provide critical habitat components, such as nest sites and a reliable source of water for a wide variety of wildlife species. The Biological Resources Analysis determined that the project site does not include features that would meet the criteria of Jurisdictional Waters of the United States and would therefore not have any impact on such waters REGULATORY SETTING The following is a description of federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the CEQA review process. Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The United States Congress passed the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) in 1973 to protect endangered species or species that are threatened with extinction. The FESA is intended Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

170 to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. The FESA prohibits the take of endangered or threatened wildlife species. Take is defined as harassing, harming (including significantly modifying or degrading habitat), pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species, or any attempt to engage in such conduct (16 USC 1532, 50 CFR 17.3). Taking can result in civil or criminal penalties. The FESA and NEPA Section 404 guidelines prohibit the issuance of wetland permits for projects that would jeopardize the existence of threatened or endangered wildlife or plant species. The USACE must consult with the USFWS and National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) when threatened or endangered species may be affected by a proposed project to determine whether issuance of a Section 404 permit would jeopardize the species. Migratory Bird Treaty Act Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by a number of State and federal laws. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. Section of the California Fish and Wildlife Code states, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Clean Water Act The USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA. Discharge of fill material is defined as the addition of fill material into waters of the U.S. including, but not limited to, the following: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for the structure s construction; site-development fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and subaqueous utility lines (33 C.F.R [f]). In addition, Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the U.S. to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. Waters of the U.S. include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. (33 C.F.R [b]) Furthermore, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. can be defined by exhibiting a defined bed and bank and the OHWM. The OHWM is defined by the USACE as that line on shore established Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

171 by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. (33 C.F.R [e]) State California Endangered Species Act In 1984, the State of California enacted CESA, which is similar to the FESA but pertains to State-listed endangered and threatened species. CESA requires State agencies to consult with the CDFW when preparing CEQA documents to ensure that the actions of the lead agency do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. Lead agencies are directed by CESA to consult with CDFW on projects or actions that could affect listed species. In addition, CESA directs CDFW to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows CDFW to identify reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project consistent with conserving the species. Agencies can approve a project that affects a listed species if they determine that overriding considerations exist; however, the agencies are prohibited from approving projects that would result in the extinction of a listed species. CESA prohibits the taking of State-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species. The CDFW exercises authority over mitigation projects involving State-listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. Taking may be authorized by CDFW if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. In addition, CDFW requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines. California Department of Fish and Wildlife The CDFW exercises jurisdiction over wetland and riparian resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes under CDFW Code Section 1600 to The CDFW has the authority to regulate work that would do any one or more of the following: 1) Divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) Change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) Use material from a streambed. The CDFW asserts that the jurisdictional area along a river, stream, or creek is usually bounded by the top-of-bank or the outermost edges of riparian vegetation. Typical activities regulated by CDFW under Section authority include installing outfalls, stabilization of banks, creek restoration, implementing flood control projects, constructing river and stream crossings, diverting water, damming streams, gravel mining, logging operations, and jack-and-boring. Careful project design, including the minimization of impacts and reduction of hard structure surface area (i.e., minimal amounts of cement or rip-rap), is critical for CDFW approval. The CDFW emphasizes the use of biotechnical or bioengineered creek-related components (emphasis Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

172 on natural materials, sometimes in conjunction with hard materials) that minimize the need for hard structures in creeks. CDFW Species of Special Concern In addition to a formal listing under FESA and CESA, plant and wildlife species receive additional consideration during the CEQA process. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of Species of Special Concern developed by the CDFW. Species whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened are tracked by CDFW in California. CDFW Birds of Prey Protection Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Wildlife Code, Section , (1992), which states, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered taking by the CDFW. Waters of the State Waters of the State, including wetlands, are considered sensitive biological resources and fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFW and California s Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The CDFW exercises jurisdiction over wetland and riparian resources associated with rivers, streams, and lakes under California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600 to The CDFW has the authority to regulate work that would substantially divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or use material from a streambed. CDFW s jurisdictional area along a river, stream or creek is usually bounded by the top-of-bank or the outermost edges of riparian vegetation. Typical activities regulated by CDFW under Section authority include installing outfalls, stabilizing banks, implementing flood control projects, constructing river and stream crossings, diverting water, damming streams, gravel mining, and logging. Regional Water Quality Control Board Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines, in order for a USACE federal permit applicant to conduct any activity which may result in discharge into navigable waters, they must provide a certification from the RWQCB that such discharge will comply with the State water quality standards. The RWQCB has a policy of no-net-loss of wetlands in effect and typically requires mitigation for all impacts to wetlands before the RWQCB will issue water quality certification. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

173 Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code Section ), the RWQCB is authorized to regulate the discharge of waste that could affect the quality of the State s waters. Therefore, even if a project does not require a federal permit (i.e., a Nationwide Permit (NWP) from the USACE), the project may still require review and approval of the RWQCB, in light of the approval of new NWPs on March 9, 2000 and the Supreme Court's decision in the case of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) vs. USACE. The RWQCB in response to this, issued guidance for regulation of discharges to isolated water on June 25, The guidance states: Discharges subject to Clean Water Act section 404 receive a level of regulatory review and protection by the USACE and are also subject to streambed alteration agreements issued by the CDFW; whereas discharges to waters of the State subject to SWANCC receive no federal oversight and usually fall out of CDFW jurisdiction. Absent of RWQCB attention, such discharges will generally go entirely unregulated. Therefore, to the extent that staffing constraints require the RWQCB to regulate some dredged and fill discharges of similar extent, severity, and permanence to federally-protected waters of similar value. Dredging, filling, or excavation of isolated waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the State, and prospective dischargers are required to submit a report of waste discharge to the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of Porter- Cologne. When reviewing applications, the RWQCB focuses on ensuring that projects do not adversely affect the beneficial uses associated with waters of the State. Generally, the RWQCB defines beneficial uses to include all of the resources, services and qualities of aquatic ecosystems and underground aquifers that benefit the State. In most cases, the RWQCB seeks to protect these beneficial uses by requiring the integration of water quality control measures into projects that will result in discharge into waters of the State. For most construction projects, RWQCB requires the use of construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). In many cases, proper use of BMPs, including bioengineering detention ponds, grassy swales, sand filters, modified roof techniques, drains, and other features, will speed project approval from RWQCB. Development setbacks from creeks are also requested by RWQCB as they often lead to less creek-related impacts in the future. California Native Plant Society CNPS maintains a list of plant species native to California that has low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review. Definitions of the CNPS listings have been described in the Existing Environmental Setting Section above. Local Manteca General Plan The Manteca General Plan, Environmental Resources Management Element, identifies the following goals and policies to provide further protection to biological resources: Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

174 Goal RC-10 Protect sensitive native vegetation and wildlife communities and habitat in Manteca. Policy RC-P-31 Policy RC-P-32 Policy RC-P-33 Minimize impact of new development on native vegetation and wildlife. Condition new development in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River and Walthall Slough to protect riparian habitat, wetlands, and other native vegetation and wildlife communities and habitats. 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. Policy RC-P-34 Protect special status species and other species that are sensitive to human activities. Policy RC-P-35 Allow contiguous habitat areas. Policy RC-P-36 Consider the development of new drainage channels planted with native vegetation, which would provide habitat as well as drainage. Policy RC-I-32 Policy RC-I-33 Continue to support and comply with the requirements of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) when reviewing proposed public and private land use changes. Project proponents who opt not to participate in the SJMSCP shall: Satisfy applicable U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), California Endangered Species Act (CESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulation provisions through consultations with the Permitting Agencies and local planning agencies. Provide site-specific research and ground surveys for proposed development projects. This research must include a detailed inventory of all biological resources onsite, and appropriate mitigation measures for avoiding or reducing impact to these biological resources. This requirement may be waived if Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

175 determined by the City that the proposed project area is already sufficiently surveyed. Policy RC-I-34 Policy RC-I-35 Policy RC-I-36 Policy RC-I-37 Until such time that a Clean Water Act regional general permit or its equivalent is issued for coverage under the SJMSCP, acquisition of a Section 404 permit by project proponents will continue to occur as required by existing regulations. Project proponents shall comply with all requirements for protecting federally protected wetlands. Continue to enforce the City s heritage tree ordinance which defines and identifies mature trees to be protected, and establishes regulations for their protection and removal. Limit the access of pedestrians and bicyclists to wetland areas so that access is compatible with long-term protection of these natural resources. The City shall implement multiple use of resource areas, where feasible, that includes passive recreational and educational opportunities with the protection of wildlife and vegetation habitat areas. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) adopted the San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) on November 14, The Plan was prepared with the cooperation of regulatory agencies, cities, and other interested parties with the purpose of balancing the often conflicting interests of agriculture, development, and the environment. One of the primary goals of the SJMSCP was to obtain permits from State and federal agencies that would cover a variety of project activities over the next 50 years. This goal was partially achieved when the USFWS and the CDFW issued incidental take permits in conformance with the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The SJMSCP has a variety of mechanisms for complying with the CESA and FESA. The SJMSCP provides a mechanism for applicants to pay a fee to the SJCOG to mitigate impacts to special-status plant and animal species that could occur on a project site. It should be noted that two important federal agencies (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board) have not issued permits to the SJCOG and payment of fee towards the SJMSCP will not modify requirements now imposed by these two agencies. In addition, activities affecting the federally-protected giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) are not covered by the SJMSCP. If the USFWS determines the project site provides suitable habitat for giant garter snake, an incidental take permit would be required from the USFWS. Similarly, those projects affecting waters of the United States must still be permitted by Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

176 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). All three properties making up the project site have been annexed into the SJMSCP area of coverage. Accordingly, all three properties can participate in the SJMSCP IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance For the purposes of this Draft EIR, the following standards of significance were adopted from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS; Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to marshes, vernal pools, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; Have a substantial adverse effect on the environment by converting oak woodlands; and/or Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Method of Analysis A Biological Resources Analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Monk & Associates in October Monk & Associates conducted a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for historic and recent records of special-status plant and animal species known to occur within five miles of the project site. In addition, an electronic version of the 2013 California Native Plant Society s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Sixth Edition) was searched for records of special-status plants known to occur within the region of the project site. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

177 On September 10, 2013, Monk & Associates conducted a site survey of the project site to record biological resources and to assess the likelihood of agency regulated areas on the project site. The survey involved searching all habitats on-site and recording all plant and wildlife species observed. Monk & Associates cross-referenced the habitats found on the project site against the habitat requirements of local or regionally known special-status species to determine if the proposed project could directly or indirectly impact such species. Monk & Associate s site evaluation also included a cursory examination of the site to determine if there could be potential areas within the project site that would be regulated as waters of the United States and/or State. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of biological resources impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above Impacts to Swainson s hawk. The Swainson s hawk is a State-listed Threatened species. While the Swainson s hawk has no special federal status, the hawk is protected from direct take under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C ). Swainson s hawks, their nests, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code ( 3503, , 3513, and 3800). Swainson s hawks are known to nest within 2.0 miles (south) of the project site (CNDDB Occurrence Number 2434). While the project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat, foraging habitat occurs in the alfalfa fields on the southern portion of the site (Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I). Based on the proximity of known nesting Swainson s hawks to the foraging habitat on the project site, implementation of the proposed project would be viewed by the CDFW as a loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat. The project s conversion of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level Under the SJMSCP, each acre of Swainson s hawk habitat (i.e., Agricultural Habitat Lands) converted to non-open space uses would need to be mitigated by the establishment of one acre of Row and Field Crop/Riparian Preserve (a 1:1 mitigation ratio). Because the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property was recently incorporated into the SJMSCP, the property has not been assigned a Category/Pay Zone. This mitigation measure assumes that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property will be part of the Category B/Pay Zone A, given that the adjacent properties fall into this category. However, the appropriate Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

178 Category/Pay Zone for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property shall be determined by SJCOG prior to the applicant s payment of mitigation fees. Pursuant to the SJMSCP, in order to mitigate impacts to Swainson s hawk foraging habitat, prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall pay habitat impact fees (on a per acre basis, one-to-one mitigation ratio) for the 54 acres of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property to the SJCOG, as determined by said agency. This payment shall not be additive to the applicant s payment to the SJCOG for purposes of mitigating the loss of open space (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-3). Or Subject to the authorization of the SJCOG, in lieu of mitigating for the loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat through payment of fees (on a per acre basis) to the SJCOG, the applicant shall purchase and provide offsite lands to the SJCOG by fee title or conservation easement on a per acre basis (one-to one mitigation ratio), including an endowment for easement monitoring. Interests in mitigation lands shall be held in trust by an entity acceptable to the SJCOG in perpetuity. The off-site land(s) shall be equal in acreage (54 acres) and habitat value as the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property. The location of the off-site mitigation lands shall be approved by SJCOG; and the lands shall be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property. This mitigation for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property shall not be additive to the mitigation required in Mitigation Measure for mitigating the loss of open space Impacts to nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Nesting birds could be impacted by the proposed project. Almond trees on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and DeJong portions of the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory passerine birds. Substantial portions of these two properties contain almond orchards. Birds and their nests are protected under California Fish and Wildlife Code (Sections 3503, , 3513), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Due to the fact that most birds can fly out of harms-way, development of the project site would not be expected to harm adult birds. However, nesting birds are susceptible to take through disturbance that harms eggs or young. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds, their eggs, and/or young resulting from the proposed project are regarded as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and DeJong properties would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

179 4.4-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for development on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and DeJong properties, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted on, and within a zone of influence of, the project site. The zone of influence shall include those areas off of the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth-moving vibrations, noise, or tree and/or building removal. Accordingly, the nesting survey(s) must cover the project sites and an area around the sites boundaries. If disturbance associated with the project would commence between March 1 st and September 1 st ( the nesting season ), the nesting surveys shall be completed 15 days prior to commencing with the work (note: If disturbance associated with the project would occur outside of the nesting season, no surveys shall be required). If common (non special-status) birds are identified as nesting on or adjacent to the project site, a non-disturbance buffer of 75-feet shall be established or as otherwise prescribed by a qualified ornithologist. The buffer shall be demarcated with painted orange lath or via the installation of orange construction fencing. Disturbance within the buffer shall be postponed until a qualified ornithologist has determined that the young have attained sufficient flight skills to leave the area or that the nesting cycle has otherwise completed. In addition under the SJMSCP, a setback of 100-feet shall be established from yellow warbler (not expected on the project site), sharp-shinned hawk (not expected to nest on the project site), and/or loggerhead shrike nesting areas. The setback buffer shall be maintained during the nesting season for the period encompassing nest building and continuing until fledglings leave nests, as determined by a qualified biologist. This setback applies whenever construction or other ground-disturbing activities would begin during the nesting season in the presence of nests that are known to be occupied Impacts to the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (the SJMSCP). The acre project site is entirely agricultural, planted with almond trees, grapevines, and alfalfa. According to the San Joaquin County Council of Governments (SJCOG), the three properties are mapped as Multi-Purpose Open Space Habitat Land in the SJMSCP. 4 The SJMSCP describes Multi-Purpose Open Space Lands as lands of limited importance with respect to providing benefits to species covered under the Plan; yet, these lands provide habitats to common plant and wildlife species. Eliminating Multi-Purpose Open Space Lands is significant on a cumulative basis and projects that would convert said lands shall share in the costs of enhancing, maintaining, and administering Open Space Preserves pursuant to the SJMSCP. The implementation of the proposed project would result in the conversion of approximately acres of Multi-Purpose Open Space Lands to residential housing. Pursuant to the SJMSCP, such a loss of Open Space that otherwise provides support to wildlife communities in San Joaquin County, would result in a potentially significant impact. Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

180 Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact of all SOWA properties to a less-than-significant level Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall pay a fee to the SJCOG to mitigate the loss of approximately 191 acres of open space associated with project implementation. The fees will be used by the SJCOG to otherwise preserve similar open space lands in perpetuity. Pursuant to the SJMSCP, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and DeJong Property fall into the Category B/Pay Zone A. Because the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property was recently incorporated into the SJMSCP, the property has not been assigned a Category/Pay Zone. This mitigation measure assumes that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property will also be part of the Category B/Pay Zone A, given that the adjacent properties fall into this category. However, the appropriate Category/Pay Zone for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property shall be determined by SJCOG prior to the applicant s payment of mitigation fees. This mitigation shall not be additive to the mitigation required for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property in Mitigation Measure for loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat. Or Subject to the authorization of the SJCOG, in lieu of mitigating for the loss of Multi-Purpose Open Space Lands through payment of fees (on a per acre basis) to the SJCOG, the applicant shall purchase and provide offsite lands to the SJCOG by fee title or conservation easement on a per acre basis (one-to one mitigation ratio), including an endowment for easement monitoring. Interests in mitigation lands shall be held in trust by an entity acceptable to the SJCOG in perpetuity. The off-site land(s) shall be equal in acreage and habitat value as the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II properties, as well as the DeJong property. The location of the off-site mitigation lands shall be approved by SJCOG; and the lands shall be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of any grading permits. With respect to the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I property, this mitigation shall not be additive to the mitigation for said property required in Mitigation Measure regarding the loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat Impacts related to the movement of native wildlife species. The project site is an active agricultural area that is regularly disturbed. Development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of open space agricultural lands, which provide some habitat value for common wildlife and, with respect to the alfalfa Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

181 fields on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, one special-status species (i.e., Swainson s hawk). As indicated in the Manteca General Plan EIR (p. 6-27), the urban/suburban central area of the General Plan Study Area is surrounded by intensely farmed agricultural fields and orchards. Known native wildlife corridors passing through this developed and intensely farmed Study Area do not exist. Given the lack of known movement corridors on-site and within the vicinity of the project site, the residential development associated with the project would have a less-than-significant impact on wildlife movement corridors. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Cumulative loss of biological resources and the effects of ongoing urbanization in the region. The City of Manteca, like other cities and communities in the region, is experiencing urban growth. Some housing developments have already been approved or planned in the surrounding areas. Cumulatively, these projects would reduce common and special-status plant and wildlife habitats. However, as explained in the Manteca General Plan EIR (p. 6-29), the SJMSCP is, in effect, a plan to mitigate both the site-specific and the cumulative impacts of individual projects on biological resources within San Joaquin County. All three properties making up the South of Woodward Avenue Project (SOWA) are participating in the SJMSCP. Mitigation Measures and require the applicant(s) for the SOWA Project to pay impact fees to the SJCOG for the conversion of Multi-Purpose Open Space Lands. As a result, the project s incremental contribution to the cumulative biological impact related to increasing urbanization would be less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes 1 Monk & Associates. Biological Resource Analysis, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I & II, and the DeJong Property Project Site. October 10, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, Laurel Boyd, Habitat Planner Technician, SJCOG, Inc. SJMSCP Response to Lead Agency, dated April 17, Chapter 4.4 Biological Resources

182 4.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES

183 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The Cultural Resources chapter of the Draft EIR describes cultural resources known to be located within the proposed project area. Prehistoric resources are those sites and artifacts associated with indigenous, non-euroamerican populations, generally prior to contact with people of European descent. Historical resources include structures, features, artifacts, and sites that date from Euroamerican settlement of the region. The extent to which development of the proposed project could remove, damage, or destroy existing cultural resources is evaluated. Information presented in this chapter is based upon the Manteca General Plan, 1 the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 and A Cultural Resources Survey for the South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) North Project, Manteca, San Joaquin County, California (Cultural Resources Survey) (see Appendix E), prepared by Tom Origer & Associates, Inc EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following environmental setting discussion for the proposed project consists of the prehistoric context, historic context, and a description of the project area. Prehistoric Context Prehistoric context can include paleontological and archeological resources. Paleontological resources include fossils and trace fossils of prehistoric life (i.e. dinosaur bones). Archeological resources includes human activity. The prehistory of the Manteca area is based on the archaeology of the greater Sacramento Delta region. The earliest known culture dating back to the Middle Archaic of 3000 B.C. was that of hunter-gatherers who buried their dead on clay knolls above the flood plains. The villages of these early settlers were located along the Central Valley s creeks, rivers and delta. The Bear Creek site, located in Stockton, is one example of a Middle Archaic site, which was excavated by archaeologists in the early 1960s. Between 2000 and 500 B.C., Utian-speaking populations appear to have occupied the Sacramento Delta, the areas along rivers and streams, marshlands, as well as the hills on both the east and west sides of the Sacramento Valley. Expansion westward into the San Francisco Bay area seems to have brought about some type of fusion between the bearers of Utian languages and the resident speakers of Hokan and Yukian languages. A relatively rapid climatic shift after 400 A.D. coincided with dramatic changes in prehistoric California cultures. During this period, ancestral Yokuts-speaking people, members of the Utian language family, probably abandoned foothill areas and congregated at villages near delta waterways. Relatively cool and moist climatic conditions from 1450 to 1850 A.D. coincided with population growth and fluorescence Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-1

184 of native cultures. By the 1600s and 1700s, Yokuts-speaking people held nearly the entire San Joaquin Valley. Manteca lies between the historic territory of the Chulamni and Lakisamne Yokuts tribelets. Unfortunately, little is known with respect to ethnography and archaeology in the northern San Joaquin Valley. Because the native people were decimated by disease, missionization, and effects of the Gold Rush, it was too late for anthropologists to gather much useful information from the native people themselves. Nonetheless, scholars have characterized the core of the Northern Valley Yokuts' homeland as the San Joaquin River, with its maze of channels and sloughs. Yokuts villages consisted of dwellings oval in shape, constructed of light poles pulled together at the top, and covered with tule mats. Earth-covered sweat houses and earth-covered ceremonial lodges were also constructed in the villages. Salmon and acorns figured prominently in the Yokuts diet, as noted in archaeological excavations at Yokuts village sites. Fish of all kinds were taken by nets and by harpoons. Yokuts fished from boats made of bundled tules. The Yokuts people also hunted waterfowl. Scholars suggest that although elk and antelope were abundant, Northern Valley Yokuts seem to have focused on smaller game, and gathered acorns, tule roots and other wild crops. Historic Context The first Europeans to arrive in the area, in 1769, were deserters from the Spanish military. In 1813, Spanish Franciscan friars, accompanied by soldiers, entered the San Joaquin Valley to round up the deserters, convert the Native Americans to Catholicism, and search for suitable mission sites. Although the Yokuts at first coexisted with the Europeans, they were eventually exploited by the newcomers and fought with the settlers. Two notable conflicts took place on the banks of the Stanislaus River, about one and one-half miles upstream from its confluence with the San Joaquin River. In the first battle on May 5, 1829, the combined Spanish forces from San Jose and San Francisco were defeated by the Indians, lead by Chief Estanislao. The Spanish later named the Stanislaus River after the Indian chief. General Vallejo returned to the area and on May 19, 1829, defeated the Yokuts, inflicting great losses. In 1832, Colonel Warner, a member of a trapping expedition, reported finding numerous Indian villages along the San Joaquin River. Upon his return, he found the villages greatly depopulated due to a smallpox epidemic. Disease, war, and the displacement of Indians from their original hunting and fishing grounds had brought them to virtual extinction. Euro-American settlements in California increased sharply with the Gold Rush of French Camp, located approximately two miles north of the study area, was one of these first settlements and is one of the oldest existing settlements in San Joaquin County. French Camp was the terminus of the Oregon-California Trail used by French Canadian trappers employed by the Hudson Bay Company from about On January 14, 1844, the Governor of California issued a land grant to Charles Weber and William Gulnac. The grant included French Camp and present day Stockton. Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-2

185 The first structures, including a public house, store, and adobe structure, were erected in French Camp in August French Camp grew rapidly between 1851 and 1853 as French Camp Road was the only passable all-weather route for thousands of miners working in the Mother Lode. By 1854, a post office was established. As roads between Stockton and the Mother Lode improved, business in French Camp declined. In addition to the discovery of gold in 1848 and the start of the Gold Rush in 1849, American annexation of California in 1846 and California statehood in 1850 contributed to the transformation of the Manteca area. Many gold seekers of 1850 turned their attention to the soil when they realized gold would not earn them a living. Ranchers who remained prominent in local agriculture for decades John McMullin, Cutler Salmon, James Reynolds, Peter Clapp, George and Orseamis Sperry, and Joshua Cowell were all well established by the mid-1860s. The major outside influence on the area changed from gold mining in the Sierra Foothills, which slowed in the 1860s, to the railroad, which arrived in the 1870s. Lathrop, at the junction of two rail lines heading to Stockton, replaced French Camp as the Manteca area s major town. Manteca did not yet exist, although the railroad set up a flag stop, Powell s Station, at the present location of downtown. Community life within Manteca s present City limits focused on the corner of Louise Avenue and Union Road. The East Union School was moved there in A new school building, constructed in 1865, had a second floor for church services and public events. A cemetery was established on another corner in 1872, and a church was constructed on a third corner in The economy of Manteca was tied to the vast international grain combine. When prices collapsed in the 1890s, the entire country descended into a severe economic depression. To stay in business, local ranchers promoted irrigation for their farmland, which allowed more intense and more profitable use of the land. In 1909, the South San Joaquin Irrigation District was formed. The district delivered its first water in Another agricultural development of the period was deeper land cultivation. This practice led to a widespread cultivation of watermelons on local ranches. Cowell s Station, at first just an unwheeled boxcar, became the shipping point for local produce. It offered a convenient place at the junction of two wagon roads. In 1896, a skimming station for raw milk was added. Additional enterprises followed. Soon, the Southern Pacific acknowledged the growing commercial activity by giving its station a more formal name, Manteca, and replaced the boxcar with a small building. Between 1905 and 1911, Manteca s downtown was the site for its first brick building, a winery, followed by its first telephone exchange, a post office and a hotel. A board of trade was set up in In 1910, a branch library and the town s first lumberyard were opened. In 1914, the Manteca Canning Company was founded and a large plant for dairy products opened. In the next few years, three more canneries went into operation. In 1916, the Board of Trade succeeded in bringing a Spreckels sugar factory to town. The new plant, complete with office buildings, a clubhouse, landscaped grounds, and housing, opened in The City of Manteca was incorporated on May 28, Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-3

186 Project Area Description The project site is comprised of three adjacent properties, totaling approximately acres south of Woodward Avenue and east of Pillsbury Road in Manteca, San Joaquin County. Due to their location in San Joaquin County, the project includes annexation of the overall site into the City of Manteca. The three properties are referred to as: 1) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I; 2) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and 3) DeJong Property. All properties are proposed for residential development, though tentative maps have only been submitted for two of the three properties at this time. The project site is made up of relatively flat agricultural land and is surrounded by residential developments, as well as agricultural land. Presently, two single-family homes exist within the annexation limits of the project (western end of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site), but outside of the tentative map area. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, 4 these homes were built in the 1990s. As these homes are outside of the proposed development area, they would remain on-site and not be impacted by the project. Other buildings or structures are not located on the project site. Soils within the study area consist of the Bisgani, Delhi, and Tinnin series soils. These soils are used primarily for irrigated crops, orchards, or vineyards, but have also been used for irrigated pasture and home sites. The project area primarily has moderately well-drained soils that probably once supported a variety of plants that could have served as food and cover for animals. The presence of these attributes suggests that the study area would have been suitable to prehistoric occupants as a place to gather resources and hunt. Existing Cultural Resources This section includes a discussion of any existing cultural resources within the proposed project area. Cultural Resources Survey A Cultural Resources Survey was prepared for the proposed project site by Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. in October The Cultural Resources Survey included archival research at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) at California State University, Stanislaus (CCIC File No. 8734L), examination of the library and files of Tom Origer & Associates, field inspection of the project location, and contact with the Native American community. Archival Study Findings Archival research found that portions of the project site have been subjected to prior cultural resources surveys (ASI Archaeology and Cultural Resource Management 1998; Clark Baloian et al. 2004). These surveys covered a linear strip of land between the orchard and the alfalfa field in the southern portion of the project site, and the linear strip of land along Woodward Avenue. The project site has also been subject to two overview studies, but none of these incorporated Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-4

187 fieldwork (Napton 1993; Windmiller and Napoli 2002). Cultural resources have not been found within a one-mile radius of the project area that could extend into the current project site. Field Survey Findings Based on the distribution of known cultural resources and their environmental settings, it was anticipated that prehistoric archaeological sites could be found within the study area. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators expected to be found in the region include but are not limited to: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements such as slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles; bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of bone, shellfish, and fire affected stones. Historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.g., wells, privy pits, dumps). During the field survey, prehistoric or historic-era archaeological sites were not found within the study area; therefore, resource-specific recommendations are not warranted. Two single family homes, built in the 1990s, are located in the annexation limits of the project, but west of the tentative map boundaries. Other buildings or structures are not located in the project area REGULATORY SETTING Federal, State, and local governments have developed laws and regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources that may be affected by actions that they undertake or regulate. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are the basic federal and State laws governing preservation of historic and archaeological resources of national, regional, State, and local significance. Federal Regulations The following are the federal environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources. Section 106 for the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 Federal regulations for cultural resources are governed primarily by Section 106 of the NHPA of Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council s implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties, are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for determining NRHP eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part 60. Amendments to the Act (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things, strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must follow federal regulations, most projects by private developers and landowners do not require Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-5

188 this level of compliance. Federal regulations only come into play in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or if it uses federal funding. State Regulations The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources. California Environmental Quality Act State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections and and Sections and (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). The California Environmental Quality Act requires lead agencies to carefully consider the potential effects of a project on historical resources. Historical resources include, but are not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code Section ). Section of the CEQA Guidelines specifies criteria for evaluating the importance of cultural resources, including consideration whether: The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history; The resource is associated with the lives of important persons from our past; The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history. Advice on procedures to identify such resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several agency publications, such as the series produced by the Governor s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 5 The technical advice series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations, and societies be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, State law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave items regardless of the antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Local Regulations The following are the local government s environmental policies that are intended to protect cultural resources by mitigating the potential impacts of new development in areas containing important archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources. Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-6

189 Manteca General Plan The Manteca General Plan identifies the following goals and policies to provide further protection to cultural and historical resources. Goal RC-11 Goal RC-12 Preserve and enhance Manteca's archaeological and historic resources for their aesthetic, educational and cultural values. Protect Manteca s Native American heritage. Policy RC-P-37 Policy RC-P-38 The City shall not knowingly approve any public or private project that may adversely affect an archaeological site without consulting the California Archaeological Inventory at Stanislaus State University, conducting a site evaluation as may be indicated, and attempting to mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. City implementation of this policy shall be guided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The City shall require that the proponent of any development proposal in an area with potential archaeological resources, and specifically near the San Joaquin River and Walthall Slough, and on the east side of State Highway 99 at the Louise Avenue crossing, shall consult with the California Archaeological Inventory, Stanislaus State University to determine the potential for discovery of cultural resources, conduct a site evaluation as may be indicated, and mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. The survey and mitigation shall be developer funded IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, a cultural resources impact is considered significant if the proposed project would: Substantially cause adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines, Section ; Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-7

190 Substantially cause adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section ; Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or Disturb any human remains, including these interred outside of formal cemeteries. Method of Analysis Determinations of impacts to cultural resources were based on information from the Manteca General Plan EIR and the Cultural Resources Survey for the South of Woodward Avenue North Area prepared by Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. Archival Study Procedures Archival research included examination of the library and project files at Tom Origer & Associates. A review (CCIC File No. 8734L) was completed of the archaeological site base maps and records, survey reports, and other materials on file at the Central California Information Center (CCIC), California State University Stanislaus, Turlock. Sources of information included but were not limited to the current listings of properties on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Historical Landmarks, California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and California Points of Historical Interest, as listed in the Office of Historic Preservation s Historic Property Directory (OHP 2012). The Office of Historic Preservation has determined that structures older than 45 years should be considered potentially important historical resources, and former building and structure locations could be potentially important historical archaeological sites. Archival research included an examination of historical maps to gain insight into the nature and extent of historical development in the general vicinity, and especially within the study area. Maps ranged from hand-drawn maps of the 1800s (e.g., GLO plats) to topographic maps issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) from the early to the middle 20th century. In addition, ethnographic literature that describes appropriate Native American groups, county histories, and other primary and secondary sources were reviewed. Native American Heritage Commission Consultation The Native American Heritage Commission was contacted and requested to check its Sacred Lands File to identify any known conflicts within the project area. Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. received a response from NAHC stating that a search of its Sacred Land File failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Contact info, however, was provided for one tribe that could have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. sent a letter to this tribe, but a response has not been received. Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-8

191 Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures It should be noted that historical resources were not found on-site. Only two recently built residential structures are present on-site; and these structures would remain on-site once the project is implemented. Therefore, additional evaluation of historical resources is not included below The proposed project could damage or destroy prehistoric cultural resources or human remains. According to the Cultural Resources Survey performed for the project, prehistoric paleontological and archaeological resources were not found within the study area. Furthermore, a search of the archives at the Central California Information Center (CCIC) at California State University, Stanislaus, determined that archaeological resources have not been previously recorded within the project site. The project site is not located adjacent to a waterway and is primarily dry, which suggests that the project site has a low potential for containing prehistoric sites. However, the project area primarily has moderately well-drained soils, which probably once supported a variety of plants that could have served as food and cover for animals. The presence of these attributes at least suggests that the study area would have been suitable to prehistoric occupants as a place to gather resources and hunt. In addition, the area has been subject to impact from agricultural operations that could have obscured cultural deposits that might have otherwise been present. Excavation and grading during project construction could unearth previously unknown resources. Therefore, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact related to damaging or destroying prehistoric cultural resources or human remains. Mitigation Measures(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level (a) 4.5-1(b) If buried archeological resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City and other appropriate agencies. If human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, it is necessary to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, which, according to the California Health and Safety Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5-9

192 Code (Section 8100), consist of six or more human burials at one location, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the County Coroner contacted. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity, which shall be carried out by the project contractor under supervision of a qualified archaeologist, hired at the applicant s expense. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Cumulative development in the City of Manteca, in conjunction with the development of the proposed project, could contribute incrementally to the regional loss of cultural resources in San Joaquin County. Cultural resources are unique and non-renewable resources, and development activities continue to damage and destroy both prehistoric and historical sites and features in many cases before the information inherent in them can be reviewed, recorded, and interpreted. As noted above in Impact 4.5-1, the potential exists for unknown subsurface prehistoric cultural resources to be unearthed during site excavation and grading. The proposed project along with other development in Manteca could damage or destroy cultural resources particular to that area. The archaeology of prehistoric and historical resources in their original context is crucial in developing an understanding of the social, economic, and technological character. According to the Manteca General Plan EIR, with implementation of Manteca General Plan goals and policies related to the protection of cultural resources, impacts to cultural resources resulting from buildout of the Manteca General Plan would be less-thansignificant. For example, Policy RC-P-37 in the Manteca General Plan requires the City to not knowingly approve any public or private project that could adversely affect an archaeological site without consulting the California Archaeological Inventory at Stanislaus State University, conducting a site evaluation as may be indicated, and attempting to mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. City implementation of this policy shall be guided by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The proposed project complies with General Plan Policy RC-P-37 in that the California Archaeological Inventory at Stanislaus State was consulted and a site evaluation performed by a qualified archaeologist. Future developments would also be Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources

193 required to adhere to the Manteca General Plan goals and policies to protect archaeological resources. The Cultural Resources Survey conducted by Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. did not find any recorded prehistoric or archaeological deposits in the area researched; however, buildout of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts related to historical or prehistoric resources if previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction and damaged. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project could be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-1(a) and 4.5-1(b). Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. A Cultural Resources Survey for the South of Woodward Avenue North Project, Manteca, San Joaquin County, California. October Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I. April 9, 2013, p State of California, Governor s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Archaeological Resources Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources

194 4.6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY/ MINERAL RESOURCES

195 4.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY / MINERAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources chapter of the Draft EIR describes the geologic and soil characteristics of the project site and evaluates the extent to which implementation of the South of Woodward Avenue Project (proposed project) could be affected by seismic hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, and expansive soil characteristics. Informational sources for this evaluation include the Manteca General Plan, 1 the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for San Joaquin County (Soil Survey), 3 and the Preliminary Geotechnical Reports conducted by Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (see Appendix F) EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The following setting information focuses on the seismic, geotechnical, and soil conditions of the proposed project site. In addition, existing mineral resources in the area are described. Regional Seismicity A fault is defined as a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side. A fault zone is a zone of related faults that commonly are braided and subparallel, but may be branching or divergent. Movement within a fault causes an earthquake. When movement occurs along a fault, the energy generated is released as waves which cause ground shaking. Ground shaking intensity varies with the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of rock or sediment the seismic waves move through. The regional seismicity near the proposed project is dominated by the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults; with the Rescue Lineament-Bear Mountains fault zone, Clayton-Marsh Creek-Greenville fault, O'Neil fault system, and Ortigalita faults having less of a potential impact. The known faults nearest to the City are the Tracy-Stockton Fault crossing southwest near Tracy to the northeast near Linden, and a small buried fault running southeast from the Tracy area. Strong ground shaking is described as a motion of sufficient strength to affect people and their environment or any ground movement recorded on a strong motion instrument or seismograph. The common way to describe ground motion during an earthquake is with the motion parameters of acceleration and velocity in addition to the duration of the shaking. The project site is located in an area rated as a low-intensity earthquake zone (Seismic Zone III). A low-intensity zone is defined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as an area that is Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-1

196 likely to experience an earthquake measuring a maximum of in magnitude on the Richter scale, and a maximum intensity of VII or VIII on the Modified Mercalli scale. The Richter scale measures the amplitude of seismic waves recorded by a seismograph. The Modified Mercalli scale measures the intensity of an earthquake by the way the shaking is felt and responded to by humans, and by the amount of damage the earthquake causes to buildings and structures. The Modified Mercalli scale is shown in Table Table Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensity Scale Effects I. Earthquake shaking not felt. II. Shaking felt by those at rest. III. Felt by most people indoors; some can estimate the duration of shaking. Felt by most people indoors. Having objects swing, windows and doors rattle, IV. wooden walls and frames creak. Felt by everyone indoors; many estimate duration of shaking. Standing autos rock. V. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle, and glasses clink. Doors close, open, or swing. Felt by everyone indoors and most people outdoors. Many now estimate not only the duration of the shaking, but also its direction and have no doubt as to its cause. VI. Sleepers awaken. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced. Weak plaster and weak materials crack. Many are frightened and run outdoors. People walk unsteadily. Pictures thrown off VII. walls, books off shelves. Dishes or glasses broken. Weak chimneys break at roofline. Plaster, loose bricks, unbraced parapets fall. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged. Difficult to stand. Shaking noticed by auto drivers, waves on ponds. Small slides and VIII. cave-ins along sand or gravel banks. Stucco and some masonry walls fall. Chimneys, factory stacks, towers, elevated tanks twist or fall. General fright. People thrown to the ground. Steering of autos affected. Branches IX. broken from trees. General damage to foundations and frame structures. Reservoirs seriously damaged. Underground pipes broken. General panic. Conspicuous cracks in ground. Most masonry and frame structures X. destroyed along their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges are destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, and embankments. Railroads bent slightly. General panic. Large landslides. Water thrown out of banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flatland. General destruction XI. of buildings. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Railroads bent greatly. General panic. Damage nearly total, the ultimate catastrophe. Large rock masses XII. displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into air. Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geotechnical Setting The regional geology is influenced by the Great Valley, an elongated lowland, which extends 500 miles north and south, separating the Sierra Nevada from the Coastal Ranges. This elongated asymmetric structural basin was formed by the westward tilting of the Sierra Nevada block against the eastern flank of the Coastal Ranges. The basement rock complex of the Sierra extends westward, beneath the valley, on a gentle slope reaching points near the Coastal Ranges. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-2

197 Elevation in the valley is generally several hundred feet above sea level, but ranges from a low point below sea level to approximately 1,000 feet above sea level. Generally, slopes are nearly level across the City of Manteca with the elevation ranging from approximately 10 to 50 feet above sea level, gently rising from the San Joaquin River on the west toward the east and the Sierra Nevada. Drainage into the San Joaquin Valley is mainly from the Sierra Nevada. The Great Valley is filled with thick sedimentary rock sequences or strata, which began deposition approximately 200 million years ago. Large alluvial fans that consist of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay have developed on each side of the Valley. The larger and more gently sloping fans are located on the east side of the Valley and overlie metamorphic and igneous basement rocks. This basement rock is exposed in the Sierra Nevada Foothills and consists of metasediments, volcanics, and granites. The sediments that form the Valley floor were largely derived by erosion of the Sierra Nevada. The smaller and steeper slopes on the west side of the Valley overlie sedimentary rocks more closely related to the Coastal Ranges. Project Site Soil Conditions The proposed project is comprised of three sites (Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong Property) located in the San Joaquin Valley. Geotechnical borings and samples were conducted for the project site. Although Geotech Reports were prepared for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II only, the soil composition for DeJong is similar to the surrounding sites. In fact, the soil types identified in the Geotech Reports comprise approximately 99.7 percent of the on-site soils. Based on the Geotech Reports and the NRCS web soil survey, (see Figure 4.6-1) the following are the soils located on the project site: Delhi fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes; Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes; and Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes. Soil characteristics may or may not make the soils suitable for accommodating uses such as shallow excavations, local roads and streets, and foundations associated with residential development. Soil limitations can include slow or very slow permeability, limited ability to support a load, high shrink-swell potential, moderate depth to hardpan, low depth to rock, and frequent flooding. Each soil type identified above has characteristics that affect soil behavior, and each is described in further detail below. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-3

198 Figure Project Site Soils Project Site San Joaquin County, California (CA077) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes Delhi fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Acres in AOI Percent of AOI % % % % Totals for Area of Interest % Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-4

199 Delhi fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes The Delhi series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils. They formed in wind modified material weathered from granitic rock sources. Delhi soils are on floodplains, alluvial fans and terraces. Slopes are 0 to 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is approximately 13 inches and the mean annual temperature is approximately 62 degrees Fahrenheit. Delhi soils are somewhat excessively drained, negligible to slow runoff, and demonstrate rapid permeability. Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes The Delhi loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes soil type is a very deep soil formed on nearly level and gently sloping surfaces of former sand dunes complexes, in aeolian sediment derived from granitic sources. The surface layer typically consists of grayish brown and light brownish gray loamy sand approximately 16 inches deep, overlying approximately 10 inches of grayish brown loamy sand, which in turn overlies approximately 34 inches of pale brown sand. The surface layer locally consists of loamy fine sand or fine sand. The soil is somewhat excessively drained, and permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and water erosion hazard is slight. Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes The Tinnin loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a very deep, well drained, nearly level soil found on alluvial fans. The surface layer is typically grayish brown loamy, coarse sand approximately 28 inches thick, overlaying approximately 25 inches of brown, mottled loamy coarse sand. The lower part to a depth of 75 inches is pale brown, mottled loamy coarse sand. Permeability is rapid and water capacity is low. Runoff is slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight. In areas used for homesite development, the main limitation is the rapid permeability. Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes The Bisgani loamy coarse sand, partially drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes is a very deep, poorly drained, nearly level soil found on low alluvial fans. Typically, the surface layer is gray loamy coarse sand about 11 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 60 inches is mottled light gray and light brownish gray loamy coarse sand. Permeability is rapid and available water capacity is low. Runoff is very slow and the hazard of water erosion is slight. In areas used for homesite development, the main limitations are the high water table and the rapid permeability. Subsidence Potential Subsidence is the settlement of soils. Settlement can result from either desiccation (dehydration) and shrinkage, or oxidation of organic material, or both, following drainage. As noted in the Manteca General Plan EIR, the Soil Survey for the area found that subsidence is not a characteristic of the soils that occur within the City, which includes those at the proposed project site. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-5

200 Expansive Soils Expansive soils are those that increase in volume when they absorb water and shrink when they dry out, commonly referred to as shrink-swell potential. Soil surveys generally rate shrinkswell potential in soils on a low, medium, and high basis. If the shrink-swell potential is rated moderate to high, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures. Mineral Resources According to the Manteca General Plan and General Plan EIR, the California Division of Mines and Geology has identified one location within the General Plan study area as a Zone MRZ-2, Significant Mineral Resources Zone. The zoning designation refers to sand deposits that are considered to be of regional significance located near the San Joaquin River. Brown Sand and Gravel, Incorporated, has produced processed sand at the Oakwood Lake Pit within the study area; however, mining operations have been completed and the Oakwood Lake Resort has been built on the reclaimed mined lands. In addition, a residential project has been approved by San Joaquin County on the site of the former quarry. As a result, mineral resources were found not to be a significant issue for the City and further environmental analysis was not required in the Manteca General Plan EIR REGULATORY SETTING The following section is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which geology, soils, and seismic hazards are managed at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act Passed by Congress in 1977, the Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act is intended to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes. The Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The goals of NEHRP are to educate and improve the knowledge base for predicting seismic hazards, improve land use practices and building codes, and to reduce earthquake hazards through improved design and construction techniques. State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The 1972 AP Zone Act was passed to prevent the new development of buildings and structures for human occupancy on the surface of active faults. The Act is directed at the hazards of surface fault rupture and does not address other forms of earthquake hazards. The locations of active faults are established into fault zones by the AP Zone Act. Local agencies regulate any new developments within the appropriate zones in their jurisdiction. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-6

201 Seismic Hazards Mapping Act Passed in 1990, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses non-surface rupture earthquake hazards, which may include liquefaction and subsidence. A mapping program is also established by this Act, which identifies areas within California that have the potential to be affected by such non-surface rupture hazards. California Building Standards Code / Uniform Building Code The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24). The California Uniform Building Code (CUBC) is based on the federal Uniform Building Code (UBC) used widely throughout the United States. The CBC includes specific safety and design standards for new structures to resist the forces of strong winds and seismic activity. California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act The primary State law concerning conservation and development of mineral resources is the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975, as amended. California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division 2, Chapter 9, Section 2710, et. seq. includes the SMARA. In 1975, SMARA was enacted to limit new development in areas with significant mineral deposits and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. According to SMARA, a State Geologist must classify the lands within California based on mineral resource availability. Local Manteca General Plan The Manteca General Plan establishes the following goals and policies applicable to geology, soils and seismicity. Goal S-1 Goal S-2 Prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to geological hazards and seismic activity. Prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to the collapse of buildings and critical facilities, and to prevent disruption of essential services in the event of an earthquake. Policy S-P-1 The City shall require preparation of geological reports and/or geological engineering reports for proposed new development located in areas of potentially significant geological hazards, including potential subsidence (collapsible surface soils) due to groundwater extraction. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-7

202 Policy S-P-2 The City shall require new development to mitigate the potential impacts of geologic hazards through Building Plan review. Policy S-P-3 The City shall require new development to mitigate the potential impacts of seismic induced settlement of uncompacted fill and liquefaction (water-saturated soil) due to the presence of a high water table IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance The following thresholds of significance related to geology, soils, and seismicity are derived from the criteria listed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts resulting from the project would be considered significant if the project would: Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: o Rupture of a known earthquake fault; o Seismic ground shaking; o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and o Landslides Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil; Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; or Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State or of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Method of Analysis The Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources chapter identifies any impacts to and from geological, seismic, or soils-related impacts that could occur during the construction and/or operation of the proposed project. Evaluation of potential geological and soil impacts were based on a review of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Geotechnical Reports. Although a Geotechnical Report was not prepared for the DeJong Property site, the soil characteristics are similar to the adjacent Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites. Impacts related to mineral resources were evaluated based on the Manteca Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-8

203 General Plan. The standards of significance listed above will be used to delineate the significance of any potential impacts associated with the geology, soils, and seismicity, as well as mineral resources of the site. It should be noted that impacts associated with erosion can be found in the Hydrology and Water Quality Chapter of the Draft EIR (Chapter 4.8). Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures If significant impacts are identified for the construction and operational phases of the proposed project, recommended mitigation measures have been included to reduce the identified impacts to less-than-significant levels, as feasible Risks to people and structures associated with earthquakes, including seismic activity, liquefaction, fault rupture, and landslides. As described above in the Existing Environmental Setting, the proposed project would be located in an area that is seismically active. Given the known faults in the region, the project area can be expected to experience earthquakes ranging from 5.0 to 5.9 in magnitude on the Richter scale, and a maximum intensity of VII or VIII on the Modified Mercalli scale. In addition, significant earthquakes from regional fault systems have affected all of San Joaquin County in the past; therefore, the possibility of some level of regional ground shaking in the future is likely. During earthquakes, ground shaking may cause a loss of strength in cohesionless saturated soils. This process is called liquefaction and occurs most commonly in loose sands associated with a high water table. At the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites, sands are located below the groundwater table; however, according to the Geotechnical Reports a low potential exists for liquefaction to occur due to the relatively low ground accelerations expected at the site and the density of the sands below the groundwater table. Additionally, the State regulates development in California through a variety of tools that reduce hazards from earthquakes and other geologic hazards. The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The City of Manteca s building regulations are included in the City s Municipal Code as chapter The proposed project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the 2013 CBC, which would reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking and other seismic-related effects, including liquefaction. Therefore, because strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would not be expected to occur, and because the project would be required to comply with the 2013 CBC requirements, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources 4.6-9

204 4.6-2 Risks associated with structural damage from unstable or expansive soils. Expansive soils are those that increase in volume when they absorb water and shrink when they dry out, commonly referred to as shrink-swell potential. Soil surveys generally rate shrink-swell potential in soils on a low, medium, and high basis. If the shrink-swell potential is rated moderate to high, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures; as a result, special design is often needed. According to the Manteca General Plan EIR, four of the 22 General Plan Study Area soils have been identified as expansive soils: Egbert (152), Egbert (153), Guard (169), and Galt (160). As indicated in Figure above, none of these soil types are found on the SOWA project site. In addition, according to the Preliminary Geotechnical Reports prepared for AHWPI and AHWPII, the on-site soil conditions are conducive to the type of residential development anticipated. Notwithstanding the above considerations, the preliminary Geotechnical Reports recommend that design-level geotechnical investigations be prepared to formulate site-specific recommendations for the proposed project improvements, as appropriate. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur to the proposed residential structures and associated infrastructure systems from unstable soils if said structures are not properly designed from a geotechnical engineering perspective. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level (a) Prior to any final map approval, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Division, for review and approval, a design-level geotechnical engineering report produced by a California Registered Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall address and make recommendations on the following: Road, pavement, and parking area design; Structural foundations, including retaining wall design (if applicable); Grading practices; Erosion/winterization; Special problems discovered on-site, (i.e., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils, etc.); and Slope stability (if applicable to any required trenching activities) (b) All grading and foundation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division and the Building Safety Division, respectively, prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report(s) are properly incorporated and utilized in the design. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources

205 4.6-3 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. The proposed project would connect to the existing City wastewater collection infrastructure and be served by the City s Wastewater Quality Control Facility. Therefore, the proposed project would not utilize a septic tank system and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to mineral resources. The Manteca General Plan identified one area within the vicinity of the City that has been designated by the California Division of Mines and Geology as an area with mineral resources of regional significance, which is located approximately five miles west of the project site down Woodward Avenue. However, mining operations have since been completed and the mined lands have been reclaimed. The General Plan notes that a residential project has been approved by San Joaquin County on the site of the former quarry. Known mineral resources are not located on the project site or in the immediate vicinity, and land designated or zoned for mineral resources is not within the City limits. As mineral resources are not located in the vicinity of the proposed project or the City, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The continuing buildout of developments in the City of Manteca and surrounding areas would be expected to increase the need for surface grading and excavation and, consequently, increase the potential for impacts related to soil erosion, unforeseen hazards, and exposure of people and property to earthquakes. The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources

206 4.6-5 In combination with existing and future developments, increased potential impacts related to geological impacts and hazards. Due to regional earthquake activity, the potential exists for earthquake-related ground shaking during the life of the proposed project. The proposed project would increase the number of people and structures that could be exposed to potential effects related to seismic hazards. Development of the proposed project would also increase the number of structures that could be subject to the effects of shallow depth to rock or expansive soils, and site preparation would result in temporary and permanent topographic changes. However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with seismic hazards, as well as those associated with geologic or soils constraints and topographic alteration, are usually site-specific and generally would not combine with similar effects that could occur with other projects in Manteca. Furthermore, all projects would be required to comply with the CBC and other applicable safety regulations. Consequently, the proposed project would generally not be affected by, nor would the project affect, other development approved by the City of Manteca. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required In combination with existing and future developments, increased potential impacts related to mineral resources. As discussed above, the sole known mineral resource recovery site in the vicinity of the City has ceased mining operations and the Oakwood Lake Resort has been built on the reclaimed mined lands. In addition, the Manteca General Plan notes that a residential project has been approved by San Joaquin County on the site of the former quarry. As a result, mineral resources were found not to be a significant issue for the City and further environmental analysis was not required in the Manteca General Plan EIR. For similar reasons, as mineral resources are not located in the vicinity of the proposed project or the City, development of the proposed project would not result in any impacts to mineral resources. Similarly, because a known mineral resource or a locally-important mineral resource recovery site does not exist within or in the vicinity of the City, the proposed project, in conjunction with other existing and future development in the City of Manteca, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact associated with mineral resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to mineral resources would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources

207 Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey for San Joaquin County. Accessed July 29, Chapter 4.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources

208 4.7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

209 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTRODUCTION The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter of the Draft EIR describes existing and potentially occurring hazards and hazardous materials within the proposed project area. This chapter discusses potential impacts posed by these hazards to the environment, as well as to workers, visitors, and residents within and adjacent to the project area. The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter utilized information from the Manteca General Plan 1 and the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 but is primarily based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) 3 and Addendum 4 for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site and a Phase I ESA 5 for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site prepared by Advanced GeoEnvironmental (see Appendix G), as well as pesticide screening conducted by Condor Earth Technologies, Inc. (see Appendix H) EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The term hazardous substance refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. A material is defined as hazardous if the material appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local regulatory agency or if the material has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (Cal- EPA, DTSC) defines hazardous waste, as found in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 25141(b), as follows: [ ] its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infections characteristics: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment, due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. Advanced GeoEnvironmental performed a site reconnaissance of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites to identify any recognized environmental conditions on April 1, According to the Phase I ESAs performed for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II, the following items were observed at the sites during the site reconnaissance. Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-1

210 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I The subject property is located approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of East Woodward Avenue and South Pillsbury Road and consists of a single rectangular shaped parcel encompassing approximately 54.2 acres of agricultural land. At the time of site reconnaissance, rows were evident; however the property was overgrown with weeds and was apparently fallow. A small wooden shed was noted along the northern property boundary, near the northwest corner of the property. The shed appeared to be used for storage of a possible water tank. Additionally, several abandoned or decommissioned irrigation valves were noted along the northern boundary. The valves appear to be part of a flood irrigation system, which included an irrigation pipe located beneath the levee road. Wells were not observed; however, a possible water storage tank was noted inside a shed near the northwest corner of the subject property. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II The subject property is located southeast of the intersection of East Woodward Avenue and South Pillsbury Road and utilized agriculturally, as part of a large almond orchard. The orchard area is separated into two areas, the northern area (Area A) and the southern area (Area B) by a narrow dirt road that bisects the property. At the time of the site reconnaissance, an Ag Solution Master injection machine was noted near the well. Several abandoned or decommissioned irrigation valves were noted along the southern boundary. The valves appear to be part of a flood irrigation system that was used to irrigate the field located south of the subject property. The flood irrigation system did not appear to be in use on the subject property. Miscellaneous debris (i.e., garbage) and dry branches were noted in a pile located near the center of the property. Ash appeared to be in the pile; however, an indication of past burn use in the immediate area was not prominent. Empty containers and bags for Solubor (sodium borate), Dyne-Amic, and Tilt (a group 3 fungicide) were noted in the debris pile. An irrigation well is located along the western property boundary of the site. Several empty plastic 55-gallon drums were located in the area of the irrigation well. As part of the preparation of the Phase I ESA, an interview with the current property owner was conducted. Bill DeJong, the property owner, was interviewed on August 1, The property owner states that the subject property was purchased in 1973 and has been an almond orchard since the time of purchase. Prior to 1973, the property was used as a vineyard. According to Mr. DeJong, buildings have never been located on the property. Water on the property is supplied by a private well located in the center of the property and currently supplies irrigation water via a drip system. Before the well was installed, water was obtained from the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). DeJong Property A site reconnaissance was not performed for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for the site. However, it should be noted that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II Phase I ESAs included surveys of adjoining properties, including the DeJong Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-2

211 property, and significant findings associated with hazards and hazardous materials were not identified REGULATORY SETTING Many agencies regulate hazardous substances. The following discussion contains a summary review of regulatory controls pertaining to hazardous substances, including federal, State, and local laws and ordinances. Federal Regulations Federal agencies that regulate hazardous materials include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Institute of Health (NIH). The following federal laws and guidelines govern hazardous materials: Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Clean Air Act; Occupational Safety and Health Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; Guidelines for Carcinogens and Biohazards; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Safe Drinking Water Act; and Toxic Substances Control Act. Prior to August 1992, the principal agency at the federal level regulating the generation, transport and disposal of hazardous waste was the USEPA under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As of August 1, 1992, however, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) was authorized to implement the State s hazardous waste management program for the USEPA. The USEPA continues to regulate hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). State Regulations The Cal-EPA and the California State Water Resources Control Board establish rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous waste. Applicable State laws include the following: Public Safety/Fire Regulations/Building Codes; Hazardous Waste Control Law; Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act; Air Toxics Hot Spots and Emissions Inventory Law; Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-3

212 Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act; and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Within Cal-EPA, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the State agency, for the management of hazardous materials and the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL). Local Regulations Manteca General Plan The following goals and policies regarding hazardous materials and hazards are included in the Manteca General Plan. Goal S-5 The City shall protect the health, safety, natural resources, and property through regulation of use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Policy S-P-15 Policy S-P-16 Policy S-P-17 The City shall maintain an awareness of hazardous materials throughout the Manteca region. City approvals of all new development shall consider the potential for the production, use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials and provide for reasonable controls on such hazardous materials. Within its authority, the City shall regulate the production, use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials to protect the health of Manteca residents IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-4

213 Method of Analysis Site conditions and impacts for this chapter are based on the Manteca General Plan, the Manteca General Plan EIR, and local, State, and federal database searches conducted during preparation of the Phase I ESAs. Phase I ESA Methodology Advanced GeoEnvironmental conducted site reconnaissance and prepared general descriptions of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites. Observations were made on the sites, along the periphery of the sites, and in areas common to the sites and adjacent properties to assess if conditions suggest that hazardous substances are present on, or might migrate to, the sites. Obvious terrain characteristics of concern, such as areas of distressed vegetation, ground stains, landfills, depressions, and/or evidence of any above-grade and below-grade tanks, were also noted. The properties were fully accessible during the site reconnaissance. An Advanced GeoEnvironmental representative was unaccompanied by a representative of property ownership during the site visit. Limiting conditions were not noted. Historical information pertaining to the sites were reviewed to learn about permits granted or citations issued (including well and/or underground storage tank permits), prior uses of the sites and properties immediately adjacent to the sites, and local geologic and hydrogeologic data, as appropriate. Topographic maps and reasonably obtainable historical aerial photos were reviewed to assess historical land uses on and near the sites. In addition, the non-confidential portions of reasonably obtainable and practically reviewable records retained by federal, State, and local agencies for properties in the vicinity of the sites within an approximate minimum search distance that have been investigated and/or inspected by such agencies were reviewed for potential environmental liability. It should be noted that a Phase I ESA, and associated site reconnaissance and historical research, has not been performed for the DeJong property. However, as stated above, the Phase I ESAs prepared for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites included surveys of adjoining properties, including the DeJong property. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of hazards and hazardous materials impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above. The following impacts and mitigation measures, where appropriate, are applicable to all three sites (Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II, and the DeJong property), unless otherwise noted. Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-5

214 4.7-1 Impacts related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. A significant hazard to the public or the environment could result from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Typically, projects that involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are industrial in nature. The proposed project consists of the construction of a residential development. Residential land uses are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Future residents may use common household cleaning products on-site, which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, due to the regulations of such products and the amount utilized on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment. Thus, project operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to on-site storage tanks and other substance containers. According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, storage tanks or other substance containers are not located on-site, and evidence of recognized environmental conditions was not observed on-site. The Phase I ESA prepared for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site identified several empty plastic 55-gallon drums located in the area of the irrigation well on-site, as well as empty containers and bags for Solubor (sodium borate), Dyne-Amic, and Tilt (a group 3 fungicide) that were noted in the debris pile found on-site. All of the containers were found to be empty and were determined not to pose any potential hazards to construction workers or future residents at the site. Accordingly, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with any on-site storage tanks or other substance containers. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites. However, because a Phase I ESA was not prepared for the DeJong property, the potential exists for storage tanks or other substance containers to be located on-site, which could potentially contain hazardous materials. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would result in association with the DeJong property only. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures for the DeJong property would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-6

215 4.7-2(a) 4.7-2(b) In conjunction with the submittal of a tentative map application and prior to the issuance of any building permits for development on the DeJong property, a Phase I ESA shall be prepared and submitted to the City Planning Division for review and approval. The Phase I ESA shall identify on-site hazards, such as soil contamination, potential hazards related to nearby properties, and the location of wells, aboveground storage tanks, stored items, and debris. The Phase I ESA shall identify and include mitigation measures necessary to reduce significant hazardous and hazardous materials impacts. All recommendations and mitigation measures included in the Phase I ESA shall be implemented by the project applicant, subject to review and approval by the City Planning Division. If the Phase I ESA prepared for the DeJong property pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(a) does not identify any on-site aboveground or underground storage tank(s), further mitigation is not required. However, if the Phase I ESA does identify any on-site aboveground or underground storage tank(s), prior to issuance of any grading permits for development on the DeJong property, the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Phase I ESA. Recommendations of the Phase I ESA would likely include, but would not be limited to, the following: Removal and proper abandonment of the storage tank(s) pursuant to review and approval by the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department; and Evaluation of the area surrounding the storage tank(s) for unusual odors, visible discoloration, or other indications of soil contamination. If soils suspected of being contaminated are encountered, they shall be stockpiled on plastic sheeting. Stockpiled soils shall be sampled in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) guidelines, and the findings forwarded to the RWQCB for review. Further remediation, if necessary, and disposal of the soils shall be conducted in accordance with State and federal guidelines Impacts related to on-site wells. The Phase I ESA prepared for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site did not identify any existing wells on the site. However, the Phase I ESA prepared for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site indicated that an irrigation well is located along the western property border of the site. The proposed project would be supplied water by the SSJID via new connections to the existing water infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site. Accordingly, development of the proposed project would not require use of the existing well, and the well would need to be abandoned. Because a Phase I ESA has not been performed for the DeJong property, the potential exists for an existing well to be located on-site that would need to be abandoned as well. Therefore, impacts Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-7

216 related to on-site wells associated with the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site and DeJong property would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level (a) 4.7-3(b) Prior to any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well abandonment permit from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, and properly abandon the on-site well, pursuant to review and approval by the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(a). If the Phase I ESA prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.7-2(a) does not identify any on-site well(s), further mitigation is not required. If the Phase I ESA does identify on-site well(s), the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Phase I ESA, which would likely include, but would not be limited to, obtaining a well abandonment permit from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department and properly abandoning the on-site well(s), pursuant to review and approval by the City Engineer and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department Impacts related to existing on-site structures, including exposure to asbestos and lead-based paint and presence of septic systems. Asbestos is a material that was commonly used in heating and electrical insulation because of the material s resistance to fire and heat. However, later discoveries found that, when inhaled, the material caused serious illness. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR ) states that all thermal system insulation (boiler insulation, pipe lagging, and related materials) and surface materials must be designated as presumed asbestos-containing material unless proven otherwise through sampling in accordance with the standards of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act. Lead is also a highly toxic material that may cause a range of serious illnesses, and in some cases death. Lead was most commonly used in paint. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead as an additive to paint. Currently, the USEPA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are proposing additional lead-based paint regulations. Lead-based paints could be present in structures built prior to Typically, exposure of construction workers to lead from older vintage paint could occur during renovation, maintenance, or demolition work. Septic systems have the potential to affect subsurface soils associated with the effluent from the systems and/or any potentially faulted septic tanks. Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-8

217 All three of the proposed project sites are currently utilized for agricultural purposes and do not contain any existing buildings or substantial structures. Thus, demolition would not be necessary, and exposure to any asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paints would not occur. Similarly, as residential uses are not currently on-site, associated septic systems are not located on-site. Although a small wooden shed was noted along the northern boundary of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, near the northwest corner of the property, the shed does not have any heating or electrical insulation that could have asbestos-containing materials, is not painted, and does not have an associated septic system. It should be noted that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site wraps around two non-participating properties, which each contain an existing rural residence. However, the two parcels with existing residences are included in the project for annexation purposes only, and would not be physically modified as part of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with asbestos, lead-based paint, or a septic system, and impacts would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to on-site soil contamination. The proposed project site is currently and has historically been used for agricultural operations. Agricultural operations generally involve the use of pesticides and/or herbicides, as well as diesel-fueled farming equipment. Significant pesticide contamination to cropland is commonly associated with inorganic pesticides, as well as large farm headquarter facilities or agricultural dusting airstrips where the storage and repeated mixing of chemicals and the rinsing of application equipment have occurred. The proposed project site and current operations would not be considered a large farming headquarter facility and is not an agricultural dusting airstrip. Recognized environmental conditions, including any indication of soil contamination such as soil staining, were not observed on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site. Although empty containers of pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer, and fungicide chemicals were found on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, staining was not noted on the soil in the immediate area or anywhere on the site. Nonetheless, pesticide screening of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites was conducted, which evaluated the potential presence of residual contaminants of concern resulting from past agricultural use of the sites. Contaminants of concern include organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic. Surface soil sampling was conducted on January 8, 2014 to investigate the presence of persistent agricultural chemicals. The pesticide screening determined that OCPs (specifically DDT and DDE) were detected in soil samples collected from the sites. Maximum concentrations of detected DDT and Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-9

218 DDE were mg/kg and mg/kg, respectively. The residential screening levels for DDT and DDE are 1.6 mg/kg for each constituent. Thus, the concentrations of the OCPs detected on the sites were well below the regulatory screening levels. Arsenic concentrations detected in samples were similarly well below the residential action level of 12 mg/kg, and are representative of background arsenic concentrations for the vicinity. Therefore, further evaluation of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites is not required, and a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with contaminated soils would not occur. Although concentrations of contaminants of concern would be expected to be similar on the DeJong property, because a Phase I ESA, nor soil sampling, has not been performed for the site, the potential exists for contaminated soil to be located on the DeJong property. As such, development of the DeJong site could result in the exposure of workers to elevated levels of soil contaminants during grading or other construction activities. Therefore, a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment associated with contaminated soils on the DeJong property could occur, and impacts would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure for the DeJong property would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level In conjunction with the submittal of a tentative map application and prior to the issuance of any building permits for development on the DeJong property, a soil assessment shall be prepared and submitted to the City Planning Division for review and approval. The soil assessment shall include surficial soil samples to determine the presence of pesticides. If pesticide concentrations higher than the allowable threshold are detected, the assessment shall include the appropriate mitigation including, but not limited to, soil remediation to an acceptable total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) level per applicable State and federal regulations. All recommended mitigation measures shall be implemented by the project applicant, subject to review and approval by the City Planning Division. Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

219 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Development of the proposed project, in combination with future buildout in the City of Manteca, would increase the number of people who could be exposed to potential hazards associated with potentially contaminated soil and groundwater and an increase in the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials. Impacts associated with hazardous materials are site-specific and generally do not affect, or are not affected by, cumulative development. Cumulative effects could be considered if the project was, for example, part of a larger development in which industrial processes that would use hazardous materials are proposed. However, this is not the case with this project, and project-specific impacts were found to be less-than-significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. In addition, surrounding development would be subject to the same federal, State, and local hazardous materials management requirements as would the proposed project, which would minimize potential risks associated with increased hazardous materials use in the community, including potential effects, if any, on the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with cumulative hazardous materials use. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I. April 9, Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Addendum Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I. April 22, Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II. April 5, Condor Earth Technologies, Inc. Pesticide Screening. January 16, Chapter 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

220 4.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

221 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY INTRODUCTION The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of the Draft EIR describes existing drainage and water quality setting for the project site, and evaluates potential impacts of the South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) project (proposed project) with respect to flooding, surface water resources, and groundwater resources. Information for this chapter was primarily drawn from the Manteca General Plan, 1 the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 the Manteca Municipal Services Review, 3 and the City s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The section below describes the existing hydrological features of the project site and the surrounding region, as well as the water quality of the existing resources in and around the project site. Regional Drainage The San Joaquin River is the major drainage feature in the area. The City of Manteca is located on the relatively higher ground between Lone Tree Creek to the north and the Stanislaus River to the south, with the San Joaquin River approximately four miles to the southwest and west. French Camp Slough is a tributary to the San Joaquin River and is the southwestern boundary for the City. The South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) owns a complex network of irrigation laterals and drains that run throughout the City s limits. The laterals and drains deliver irrigation water to various farming operations, and convey excess irrigation water and field runoff to downstream drains. Eventually, the water is conveyed to a large central drain called the French Camp Outlet Canal, which drains to the French Camp Slough and eventually the San Joaquin River. The backbone of the City s storm drains is a long-standing relationship with the SSJID, who permits the City to use the SSJID drains and laterals. The SSJID owns the drains and laterals and the City s Public Works Department operates and maintains the storm drainage system. The relationship was formalized in a 2006 agreement that allows the City to use the SSJID facilities through the year 2026, limited to the availability of SSJID capacity. Use of the SSJID laterals for City drainage is limited because capacity must be maintained for irrigation flows, and hydraulic grade lines are maintained higher for water deliveries. The City relies on the SSJID facilities to convey stormwater runoff to the San Joaquin River, and would continue to do so through buildout of the Manteca General Plan. A master plan of the City s storm drain system was adopted in 2006 in order to forecast needs of the system as established in the 2003 General Plan for Manteca. However, an updated master plan, the City s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan, has been prepared and adopted. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-1

222 Meteorological events, such as intense precipitation, may adversely affect the natural drainage of the region. In addition, seasonal snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east contributes to the volume of water in the local hydrologic system. Urbanization contributes to an increased volume in the hydrologic system by increasing impervious surfaces, which do not allow for infiltration of water into the soil, and, thereby, result in increased velocities and volumes of runoff. Local Drainage To avoid exceeding the capacity of SSJID facilities, drainage basins are located throughout the City to help provide storage and attenuation for storm drainage flows prior to being pumped into the SSJID s facilities. Some of the basins also delay releasing water for a longer period to further reduce the potential of downstream flooding. Most detention basins are joint-use facilities such as parks that provide recreation and other uses when not being used for stormwater detention. The pump stations are sized according to City design criteria and their operation controlled by water levels in downstream drains. A total of 10 water level monitoring stations currently exist throughout the City s storm drainage system, which are used to obtain real-time water level measurements at critical flow points in the system in order to prevent flooding. A Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system is used by the City to remotely monitor and control the storm drainage pump stations and water level monitoring stations. Figure illustrates the City s existing storm drainage system, including the locations of existing detention basins (the areas indicated in turquoise), pump stations, and water level monitoring stations. The proposed project is located within Drainage Zone 36, in the South Drain storm drain subshed, as shown in Figure The South Drain subshed is bound by the City limits on the west and south, State Route (SR) 120 on the north and extends past SR 99 on the east. As shown in the figure, the laterals surrounding and within the project site include Laterals X, XAA, and D.D. The South Drain subshed is partially developed and is rapidly growing. Runoff from the developments in the South Drain area currently drains to Lateral Ya, which then flows into Drain 7 via Lateral Yb; however, this arrangement is for the interim and all Lateral Ya flows would ultimately be redirected to the new South Drain pipeline in Woodward Avenue in the future. The South Drain pipeline would serve as the main stormwater conveyance facility for Drainage Zone 36. Portions of the South Drain pipeline in Woodward Avenue have been constructed or are currently under construction, including the South Drain pipeline from Atherton Drive to Main Street. For the South Drain pipeline, a 140 cubic foot per second (cfs) pump station and 54-inch diameter pipe would be required, as well as two 36-inch diameter force mains to convey flows from the pump station under SR 120 to the French Camp Outlet Canal. The City plans to phase construction of the South Drain pump station to provide pumping capacity on an as-needed basis. Future drainage improvements, including new laterals and pump stations in the project area, are illustrated in Figure Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-2

223 Figure City of Manteca Storm Drain Pump and Monitoring Stations Project Site Source: City of Manteca, Storm Drain Master Plan, March Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-3

224 Figure City of Manteca Storm Drain Sheds Project Site Source: City of Manteca, Storm Drain Master Plan, March Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-4

225 Figure Future Drainage Improvements Project Site Source: City of Manteca, Storm Drain Master Plan, March Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-5

226 Drain 8 would continue to serve the existing developed areas in Drainage Zone 36, and would continue to flow by gravity directly to the French Camp Outlet Canal. For the remaining currently undeveloped areas in Drainage Zone 36, the City proposes to use several existing laterals as collector facilities for the South Drain pipeline. Laterals Dd and Tbb are proposed as dual-use collector facilities for the areas east of SR 99, and Laterals W and X, as well as their sub-branches, are proposed as the dual-use collector facilities for the areas south of SR 120 and west of SR 99. Lateral X would run through the proposed project site, along the northern border of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I development area. A fundamental goal of the City s previous storm drain master plans was to minimize the use of SSJID s laterals for conveyance of stormwater runoff to SSJID s drains. Accordingly, previous master plans specified the construction of a separate stormwater conveyance network that by passed the laterals and transported storm drainage directly to the drains. Once the City s stormwater reached the drains, the drains would continue to provide conveyance to the French Camp Outlet Canal and to the San Joaquin River. In the 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan, however, the City recognizes the opportunity to minimize infrastructure costs for all parties by abandoning the concept of separate conveyance systems and instead expanding the use of SSJID s laterals. Laterals that are targeted to convey both stormwater and irrigation water to drains are called dual use facilities. In order for Laterals X and Y to function as dual-use collector pipes, two new junction structures would be required to divert stormwater from the laterals to the South Drain pipeline. In addition, four water level monitoring stations would be required throughout Drainage Zone 36 to prevent flooding during operation of the South Drain system. According to the City s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan, the expanded use of SSJID laterals to convey City stormwater to SSJID drains is viable. Water Quality Water is essential to drinking, recreation, the viability of agriculture, and the development of housing, commerce, and industry, as well as the maintenance of high-quality fish and wildlife habitats. Land uses and activities that the City must consider in protecting the quality of the City s water include construction activities, agricultural land uses, dairies, and urban runoff. The City is classified as a Phase II city by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Accordingly, the City and any new development within is required to comply with the water quality limitations specified in the SWRCB s State-wide General Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Phase II cities. The City also requires developers to use water quality treatment principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the design of stormwater facilities, including Low Impact Development (LID) principles and techniques in compliance with the City s NPDES permit. Use of LID principles and techniques would help to improve water quality, reduce peak discharges to SSJID laterals, help meet the requirements of the City s Stormwater NPDES Permit, and is recommended in the Manteca General Plan. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-6

227 Construction Activities Construction grading, which exposes bare soil, could impact water quality. Rainfall on bare soil could cause erosion and sedimentation into nearby water bodies. Unstable soil could be washed or wind-blown into nearby surface water. Construction activities could also result in petroleum products and other pollutants from construction equipment entering nearby drainages. Agricultural Land Uses Water running off of irrigated agricultural fields may contain nutrients, sediments, fertilizers, and pesticides. Improper use and disposal of farm chemicals could contaminate surface and groundwater resources. Agricultural procedures could also result in erosion of unstabilized soil, especially during conversion of vegetation. Aerial spraying could also drift into nearby water bodies. Dairies Wastes from confined animals, including nitrate, ammonia, bacteria, total dissolved solids (TDS), and oxygen demanding constituents, could cause problems in nearby surface and groundwater. The nearest dairy is located nearly four miles northwest of the project site along Airport Way, north of Yosemite Avenue. Urban Runoff Urban runoff includes household chemicals (including pesticides, herbicides, and paints), as well as petroleum products from automobiles and landscaping equipment. Municipal sources of pollution include government yards where transportation, fueling, and maintenance activities take place. Groundwater Groundwater supply for the City of Manteca consists of 38 square miles of the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin, a sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin is bounded by the Mokelumne River to the north, the Stanislaus River to the south, the San Joaquin River to the west, and bedrock to the east. The City operates and maintains its own groundwater system of wells interconnected with a transmission/distribution pipe system. The groundwater supply is indirectly affected by annual rainfall, and a multiple-year drought could decrease groundwater supplies. According to the Manteca Municipal Services Review, despite the possibility, groundwater supplies have been available at a consistent level. Water levels in the area are maintained by the proximity of the Delta channels to the west of the City limits. Groundwater recharge comes from irrigation of agricultural lands surrounding the City and infiltration from streams flowing west out of the Sierra Nevada. Such groundwater recharge occurs in areas with permeable materials that allow the infiltration of water along streams, alluvial fans, and foothill areas. The Manteca General Plan area includes a variety of Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-7

228 soil types that provide percolation to groundwater; however, streams or alluvial fan conditions do not exist within the Manteca General Plan area. Thus, notable groundwater recharge areas are not identified within the General Plan area. Groundwater levels are relatively high throughout the City, and according to the Manteca General Plan EIR, most municipal domestic wells produce groundwater that meets or exceeds the State of California drinking water quality standards. As the groundwater quality in the City is very good, minimal treatment is required. It should be noted that groundwater supply and quality are further addressed in Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of this Draft EIR. Flooding The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) categorizes flood prone areas based on the frequency of occurrence. The primary flood hazard in the area is the San Joaquin River, located west of the City limits, nearly six miles west of the project site, and its tributaries including Walthall Slough along the southwestern border of the City s study area. A levee under the jurisdiction of Reclamation District 17 running from Williamson Road east to Airport Way provides flood protection for the land north and east of Walthall Slough. The project site is located approximately three miles northeast of the levee. Areas subject to inundation in the event of dam failure would generally coincide with the 100- year floodplain area. As shown in Figure 4.8-4, the project site is within Flood Hazard Zone X (unshaded), which is described by FEMA as an area of minimal flood hazard, usually above the 500-year flood level REGULATORY SETTING The following is a description of federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the review of hydrology and water quality under CEQA. Federal Federal Clean Water Act The Federal Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into surface waters of the U.S., and sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. Water quality standards are intended to protect public health, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. The Act defines water quality standards as federal or state provisions or laws that designate the beneficial uses of water and establish water quality criteria to protect those designated uses. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-8

229 Figure FEMA Map for Project Vicinity Project Site Source: FEMA, November Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-9

230 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) DRAFT EIR The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system was established in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the U.S. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants. Nonpoint sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point. Nonpoint pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff, but is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. As defined in the federal regulations, such nonpoint sources are generally exempt from federal NPDES permit program requirements. However, two types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program nonpoint source discharge caused by general construction activities, and the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. The 1987 amendments to the CWA directed the federal EPA to implement the stormwater program in two phases. Phase I addresses discharges from large (population 250,000 or above) and medium (population 100,000 to 250,000) municipalities and certain industrial activities. Phase II addresses all other discharges defined by EPA that are not included in Phase I. Section 402 of the CWA mandates that certain types of construction activities comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program. The Phase II Rule, issued in 1999, requires that construction activities that disturb land equal to or greater than one acre require permitting under the NPDES program. In California, permitting occurs under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, issued to the SWRCB, implemented and enforced by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). As of July 1, 2010, all dischargers with projects that include clearing, grading or stockpiling activities expected to disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain compliance under the NPDES Construction General Permit Order DWQ. This General Permit requires all dischargers, where construction activity disturbs one or more acres, to take the following measures: 1. Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include a site map(s) of existing and proposed building and roadway footprints, drainage patterns and storm water collection and discharge points, and pre- and post- project topography; 2. Describe types and placement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the SWPPP that will be used to protect storm water quality; 3. Provide a visual and chemical (if non-visible pollutants are expected) monitoring program for implementation upon BMP failure; and 4. Provide a sediment monitoring plan if the area discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

231 To obtain coverage, a SWPPP must be submitted to the RWQCB electronically and a copy of the SWPPP must be submitted to the City of Manteca. When project construction is completed, the landowner must file a Notice of Termination (NOT). Construction Site Runoff Management In accordance with NPDES regulations, in order to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality, the State requires that any construction activity affecting one (1) acre or more must obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. Permit applicants are required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality by implementing erosion and sediment control measures. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) studies. The boundaries of the 100-year floodplain are delineated by FEMA on the basis of hydrology, topography and modeling during predicted rainstorms. Areas designated as flood zones are shown on published Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which FEMA is also responsible for distributing, that are used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). These maps identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplains. The NFIP requires owners of property within designated flood zones to purchase flood insurance. FEMA allows non-residential development in the floodplain; however, construction activities are restricted within the flood hazard areas, depending upon the potential for flooding within each area. Federal regulations governing development in a floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These standards are implemented at the State level through construction codes and local ordinances; however, these regulations only apply to residential and non-residential structure improvements. Although roadway construction or modification is not explicitly addressed in the FEMA regulations, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has also adopted criteria and standards for roadway drainage systems and projects situated within designated floodplains. Standards that apply to floodplain issues are based on federal regulations (Title 23, Part 650 of the CFR). At the State level, roadway design must comply with drainage standards included in Chapters of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. CFR Section 60.3(c)(10) restricts cumulative development from increasing the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot within the floodplain. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

232 State State Water Resources Control Board The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB are responsible for ensuring implementation and compliance with the provisions of the federal CWA and California s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The project site is situated within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Region of the RWQCB (Region 5). The CVRWQCB has the authority to implement water quality protection standards through the issuance of permits for discharges to waters at locations within the CVRWQCB s jurisdiction. Water quality objectives for the waterways within the CVRWQCB are specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan), which was prepared in compliance with the federal CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act. The Basin Plan establishes water quality objectives, and implementation programs to meet stated objectives and to protect the beneficial uses of water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin. Because the project site is located within the CVRWQCB s jurisdiction, all discharges to surface water or groundwater are subject to the Basin Plan requirements. Local The following are the local government environmental goals and policies relevant to the CEQA review process pertaining to the hydrology and water quality aspects of the proposed project. City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP) The City of Manteca PFIP (1993) identifies a series of specific improvements required to accommodate drainage of the existing urban areas of the City. In addition, the plan identified other measures that apply to future development. The PFIP requires the following: Wherever possible, the land ultimately required for each improvement (included in the Drainage Master Plan) will be preserved before development occurs in an area; and Storm drainage and flood protection facilities should be constructed when each new development begins. Manteca has predominantly relied upon the lateral and drain facilities of SSJID for terminal drainage. In concert with development, the SSJID facilities have been realigned into rights-ofway and/or structurally upgraded to be compatible with the land conversion from agricultural to urban use. As in the past, drainage improvements would be constructed in a timely manner in order to maintain the level of service standard. This is accomplished by constructing the storm drainage and flood protection facilities for each new project, and by having the necessary facilities in place at time of occupancy. Manteca presently administers a variety of regulations designed to prevent flooding and address stormwater management. These include a flood ordinance, various provisions of the zoning Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

233 ordinance and subdivision ordinance, and construction codes for residential and non-residential developments. City of Manteca 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan The City s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan provides guidance for the planning and design of all site-specific drainage projects within the City. As part of the requirements of the agreement that authorizes the City to discharge stormwater runoff into SSJID facilities for ultimate disposal to the San Joaquin River, the City requires all new development to attenuate its runoff in a storage facility before pumping into SSJID s facilities. In addition, the City and all new development are required to comply with the State s NPDES permit. City of Manteca Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) The purpose of the City Manteca s SWMP (2003) is to limit to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States, as required by the EPA, as part of the NPDES. The SWMP includes BMPs intended to reduce to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), the quantity of storm water and the discharge of pollutants to the storm water system. The SWMP would be reviewed on an annual basis and any changes or modifications would be described and submitted to CVRWQCB. Manteca General Plan The following goals and policies of the Manteca General Plan are applicable to the hydrology and water quality aspects of the proposed project. Water Quality Policy RC-P-11 Policy RC-I-22 Policy RC-I-23 Minimize pollution of waterways and other surface water bodies from urban runoff. Maintain a buffer area between waterways and urban development to protect water quality and riparian areas. Utilize cost-effective urban runoff controls, including Best Management Practices (BMPs), to limit urban pollutants from entering the water courses. Groundwater Resources Goal RC-1 Goal RC-2 Minimize the consumption of water to reasonable levels consistent with a high level of amenities and quality of life for City residents and visitors. Maximize the beneficial uses of water by recycling water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

234 Goal RC-7 To protect water quality in the San Joaquin River and in the area s groundwater basin. Policy RC-P-1 Policy RC-P-2 Policy RC-P-4 The City shall continue to implement water conservation standards for all commercial and industrial development, and for all existing and new residential development. The City shall explore potential uses of treated wastewater when such opportunities become available. The City shall require water conservation in both City operations and private development to minimize the need for the development of new water sources. Development of private water wells within the city limits shall be allowed only where the City makes a finding that municipal water service is not readily and feasibly available, and such private well systems shall only be allowed to be used until such time as City water service becomes available. Flooding Goal S-3 Goal S-4 Prevent loss of lives, injury, and property damage due to flooding. Pursue flood control solutions that minimize environmental impacts. Policy S-P-7 Policy S-P-8 Policy S-P-9 Policy S-P-10 Policy S-P-11 Policy S-P-12 Regulate all uses and development in areas subject to potential flooding through zoning and other land use regulations. Cooperate with other agencies in the pursuit of a regional approach to flood issues. Combine flood control, recreation, water quality, and open space functions where feasible. Ensure that any existing structures subject to the 100-year flood provide adequate protection from flood hazards. Ensure that the impacts of potential flooding are adequately analyzed when considering areas for future urban expansion. New residential development, including mobile homes, shall be constructed so that the lowest floor is at least one foot above the 100-year flood level. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

235 Policy S-P-13 Non-residential development shall be anchored and floodproofed in accord with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards to prevent damage or causing damage due to a 100-year flood or, alternatively, elevated to at least one foot above the 100-year flood level. When improvements to existing development are made costing at least 50 percent of the current market value of the structure before improvements, the structure shall be brought into compliance with FEMA standards IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Standards of Significance An impact is considered significant, consistent with Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines, if the proposed project would result in any of the following: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area; Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality; Interfere substantially with groundwater recharge; Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. It should be noted that the proposed project s impacts associated with groundwater supply is further addressed in Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of this Draft EIR. Method of Analysis The information contained in the Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of this Draft EIR was derived primarily from the Manteca General Plan and associated EIR, the Manteca Municipal Services Review, and the City s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan. Determinations of significance were made based on the project s modifications to existing or planned conditions, and the existing infrastructure s ability to accommodate the proposed project. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

236 Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above Impacts related to the drainage pattern of the site and surface runoff. Development of the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces that currently do not exist on the site. As a result, additional runoff would be generated during storm events, which would contribute to the flood potential of receiving drainage facilities if adequate capacity does not exist within the facilities. However, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites include detention basins that would detain stormwater accumulated on the sites during major storm events. The detention basins are required to be designed in accordance with the City s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan, particularly Section 3.7, including, but not limited to, the following: Sized adequate to hold a 10 year, 48 hour duration storm runoff volume resulting from 3.56 inches of rainfall occurring over the entire contributing area; Include a positive shut-off control; Include water quality treatment sufficient to meet stormwater NPDES permit requirements; Be multi-purpose facilities when practical; and Provide volume without allowance for percolation or outlet facilities. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of storm drain lines in the proposed streets, which could collect and convey stormwater runoff to the detention basins for temporary storage as well as water quality treatment. From the detention basins, stormwater runoff would be conveyed via a new on-site pump station to SSJID s Lateral X. According to the City s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan, the developer would be required to expand the existing Lateral X from 36 inches to 42 inches along the northern boundary of Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site in order to be a dual-use lateral, as identified in Figure It should be noted that the DeJong Property portion of the proposed project is being considered at a program-level. As such, the stormwater drainage system for the DeJong Property has not yet been designed. As discussed above, the proposed project would implement the requirements of the City s SWMP, including BMPs to maximize stormwater quality, and would be consistent with the City s NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit. However, because the stormwater drainage system has not yet been designed for the DeJong Property, and the design of the required stormwater facilities on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites have yet to be determined at a subdivision-level basis, runoff from the project site could potentially contribute to an exceedance of the capacity of the City s stormwater facilities. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

237 Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level Prior to the recording of any Final Map, the applicant shall submit a master drainage plan, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. This plan shall address the following requirements: Calculations of pre-development runoff conditions and postdevelopment runoff scenarios, using appropriate engineering methods, to evaluate potential changes to runoff through specific design criteria and account for increased surface runoff; Assessment of existing drainage facilities within the project area and an inventory of necessary upgrades, replacements, redesigns, and rehabilitation; A proposed maintenance program for the on-site drainage system; Phasing standards for drainage systems to be installed on a project- /parcel-specific basis; and Improvement of Lateral X to a dual-use lateral consistent with the City s Storm Drain Master Plan. Drainage systems, including any detention basin(s), shall be designed to be implemented from the master drainage plan shall provide for no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions, ensure that 100-year flooding and its potential impacts are maintained at or below current levels, and ensure that people and structures are not exposed to additional flood risk. Prior to issuing a grading permit, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate that the portion of the project subject to the grading permit is consistent with the recommendations and conclusions of the master drainage plan and shall implement the measures identified in the plan. If the plan does not adequately address the drainage impacts of the specific development, the City shall require the applicant to prepare additional analysis and incorporate measures consistent with the scope and performance standards associated with the plan to ensure that drainage and flooding impacts are avoided Short-term construction-related impacts related to water quality. Project development would involve the construction of approximately 706 single-family units, which would require grading, excavation, and other construction-related activities that could cause soil erosion at an accelerated rate during storm events. All of these activities have the potential to affect water quality and contribute to localized violations Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

238 of water quality standards if stormwater runoff from construction activities enters receiving waters. Construction activities such as grading, excavation, and trenching for site improvements would result in the disturbance of on-site soils. The exposed soils have the potential to affect water quality in two ways: 1) suspended soil particles and sediments transported through runoff; or 2) sediments transported as dust that eventually reach local water bodies. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, staging areas, or building sites also have the potential to enter runoff. Typical pollutants include, but are not limited to, petroleum and heavy metals from equipment and products such as paints, solvents, and cleaning agents, which could contain hazardous constituents. Sediment from erosion of graded or excavated surface materials, leaks or spills from equipment, or inadvertent releases of building products could result in water quality degradation if runoff containing the sediment or contaminants should enter receiving waters in sufficient quantities. Impacts from construction-related activities would generally be short-term and of limited duration. Because the proposed project would require construction activities that would result in a land disturbance greater than one acre, the applicant would be required by the State to obtain a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), which pertains to pollution from grading and project construction. Compliance with the Permit requires the project applicant to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction. The SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to prevent, or reduce to the greatest extent feasible, adverse impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. However, as the proposed project could potentially result in short-term impacts to surface water quality related to construction, impacts would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level To reduce or eliminate construction-related turbidity or sediment water quality effects, the City shall require the project contractors to comply with the requirements of the City s SWMP. In addition, the City shall require the project contractors to obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit before the onset of any construction activities, where the disturbed area is one acre or greater in size. A SWPPP shall be developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) in accordance with the CVRWQCB requirements for NPDES compliance and implemented prior to the issuance of any grading permit before construction. The SWPPP shall be kept on-site during construction activity and shall be made available upon request to representatives of the CVRWQCB. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

239 Compliance and coverage with the SWMP and General Construction Permit shall require controls of pollutant discharges that use BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. BMPs may consist of a wide variety of measures taken to reduce pollutants in stormwater and other non-point-source runoff. Measures range from source control, such as reduced surface disturbance, to the treatment of polluted runoff, such as detention basins. BMPs to be implemented as part of the SWMP and General Construction Permit (and SWPPP) may include the following practices, or other BMPs identified in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Construction BMP Handbook. 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) will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas. Use a dry detention basin (which is typically dry except after a major rainstorm, when it will temporarily fill with stormwater), designed to decrease runoff during storm events, prevent flooding, and allow for off-peak discharge. Basin features will include maintenance schedules for the periodic removal of sediments, excessive vegetation, and debris that may clog basin inlets and outlets. Cover, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to, inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more) that could contribute sediment to waterways. Enclose and cover exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular construction materials that could contribute sediment to waterways. Ensure that no earth or organic material will be deposited or placed where it may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water. Prohibit the following types of materials from being rinsed or washed into the streets, shoulder areas, or gutters: concrete, solvents and adhesives, thinners, paints, fuels, sawdust, dirt, gasoline, asphalt and concrete saw slurry, and heavily chlorinated water. Ensure that grass or other vegetative cover will be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance. The City, its contractors, or the project applicant shall select a combination of BMPs that is expected to minimize runoff flows and remove contaminants from stormwater discharges. The final selection of Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

240 BMPs will be subject to approval by the CVRWQCB. The City shall verify that an NOI has been filed with the SWRCB and that a SWPPP has been developed before allowing construction to begin. The City shall perform inspections of the construction area, to verify that the BMPs specified in the SWPPP are properly implemented and maintained. The City shall notify contractors immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and shall require compliance. If necessary, the City shall require that additional BMPs be designed and implemented if those originally constructed do not achieve the identified performance standard Long-term operational impacts related to water quality. The project facilities (e.g., homes, paved driveways, and roads) would involve a substantial amount of new impervious surface, which could increase the amount of surface runoff, as well as convey non-point-source contaminants to surface waters via SSJID facilities during storm events. Additional runoff could result in an increase in the amount of pollutants entering waterways. Contaminated runoff waters could flow into French Camp Slough or ultimately to the San Joaquin River and could degrade the water quality of those water bodies. During the dry season, vehicles and other urban activities release contaminants onto the impervious surfaces, where they would accumulate until the first storm event. During the initial storm event, or first flush, the concentrated pollutants would be transported via runoff to stormwater drainage systems. Anticipated runoff contaminants associated with the proposed project could include sediment, pesticides, oil and grease, nutrients, metals, bacteria, and trash. It should be noted that such contaminants may already be in runoff from the existing project site. As shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the project includes two detention basins an approximately 3.53-acre basin in Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, and an approximately 4.3-acre basin in Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II - to detain stormwater during major storm events, and in part to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. In addition, the proposed project would implement the requirements of the City s SWMP, which would include BMPs to maximize stormwater quality and be consistent with the City s NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit. The BMPs would include a combination of source control, structural improvements, and treatment systems to the extent required in order to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Because the proposed project has the potential to release urban pollutants in runoff that could enter and potentially pollute the local water systems, a potentially significant impact would occur. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

241 4.8-3 Prior to approval of any improvement plans, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Quality Plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Plan shall identify multiple BMPs to reduce or eliminate water quality effects from polluted runoff from the project in areas with a potential to drain into storm drainage systems or surface waters. The BMPs may include a combination of source control, structural elements, and treatment systems to include, but would not be necessarily limited to, the practices below. Grass buffer strips, high infiltration substrates, and grassy swales will be used where feasible throughout the project site to reduce runoff, serve as biofilters, and provide initial stormwater treatment. This type of treatment will apply particularly to parking lots. Physical devices will be placed at outlets of pipes and channels to reduce the velocity or the energy of exiting water. Outlet protection helps to prevent scour and minimize the potential for downstream erosion by reducing the velocity or energy of concentrated stormwater flows. Dry detention basins which are typically dry except after a major rainstorm, when they temporarily fill with stormwater will be created and designed to decrease runoff during storm events, prevent flooding, and allow for off-peak discharge. Basin features will include maintenance schedules for the periodic removal of sedimentation, excessive vegetation, and debris that may clog basin inlets and outlets. The City, contractors, or the project applicant shall select a combination of BMPs that is expected to remove contaminants from stormwater discharges. The final selection and design of BMPs shall provide maximum contaminant removal, represent the best available technology that is economically achievable, and explicitly identify the expected level of effectiveness at contaminant removal. The City shall conduct inspections following the construction to ensure that all identified BMPs have been properly installed. The project shall adopt a regular maintenance and monitoring schedule to ensure that these BMPs function properly during project operations. If necessary, the City shall require that additional BMPs be designed and implemented if those originally constructed do not achieve the identified performance standard Impacts related to groundwater recharge. Development of the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces that currently do not exist on the site. Thus, an incremental reduction in the amount of natural Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

242 soil surfaces available for the infiltration of rainfall and runoff to the underlying aquifer would occur. In addition, the project site is only a small percentage of the total 38 square miles of the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin utilized by the City, and would not be expected to substantially interfere with the overall recharge of the subbasin. The majority of runoff from the project site would drain to the local storm drainage system and eventually to the San Joaquin River. It should be noted that the proposed project would include landscaping, as well as park sites, that would simultaneously provide stormwater detention basins, which would continue to provide areas for potential groundwater recharge. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not be expected to substantially interfere with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to flooding. As discussed previously and shown in Figure 4.8-4, the project site is within Flood Hazard Zone X (unshaded), which is described by FEMA as an area of minimal flood hazard, usually above the 500-year flood level. Thus, development of the proposed project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year floodplain or expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Accordingly, restrictions on development or special requirements associated with flooding are not required for the project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to flooding. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality within the City of Manteca. While cumulative development within the City of Manteca would result in additional stormwater runoff and entry of pollutants into receiving waters via construction and operation of future projects, each project is required to comply with the City s regulatory stormwater documents, standards, and requirements (including the City s NPDES permit). Compliance with such would ensure that each project provides adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated, as well as incorporates sufficient BMPs to successfully remove pollutants from site runoff during the construction and operational phases. As demonstrated above, the proposed project, with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in this chapter, would not result in any significant impacts to hydrology (drainage and flooding) or water quality. As a result, the proposed project s incremental contribution to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant. Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

243 Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Services Review. June 16, City of Manteca. Storm Drain Master Plan. March Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06077C0640F. October 16, Available at: Accessed November 25, Chapter 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

244 4.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

245 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING Introduction The Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing chapter of the Draft EIR is intended to provide the reader with information regarding current General Plan land use designations and zoning designations for the project site and surrounding areas, as well as information in regard to the effect of the project on the City s population and available housing. Section 15125(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states [ ] the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. The South of Woodward Avenue Project (proposed project) is analyzed in this chapter for compatibility with the Manteca General Plan, 1 the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 the City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance, 3 the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Change of Organization Policies and Procedures, 4 and the City of Manteca Housing Element Existing Environmental Setting The Existing Environmental Setting section describes the existing physical land uses on the project site, as well as the site s land use and zoning designations. In addition, the City of Manteca s current population and housing statistics are discussed. It should be noted that the proposed project includes a request for annexation of the overall acre site from San Joaquin County to the City of Manteca. In order to avoid the creation of a County island area, two 1.06-acre parcels (Assessor s Parcel Numbers [APNs] and -02) located immediately west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, along Pillsbury Road, have been included in the proposed annexation area. The two parcels are considered non-participating properties for the purposes of this Draft EIR. Existing Land Uses The project site is bounded by the following: East Woodward Avenue to the north; agricultural land to the south, which is the site of the proposed Hat Ranch age-restricted project; agricultural land, approved residential development, and the future Atherton Drive extension to the east; and Pillsbury Estates to the west, which is currently under construction. The proposed project consists of six parcels totaling approximately acres (including the two 1.06-acre parcels discussed above). The project site is located at an elevation of 47 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in an area of low topographic relief. The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as: 1) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I; 2) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and 3) DeJong Property. The existing conditions on the three sites are discussed in further detail below. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-1

246 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site encompasses the southern portion of the overall project site and consists of approximately 54.2 acres of agricultural land, formerly utilized for the cultivation of row crops and an almond orchard. The western boundary of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site wraps around the two 1.06-acre parcels, which each contain an existing rural residence. It should be noted that the two parcels with existing residences are included in the project description for annexation purposes only and are not included as part of the proposed project improvements. To the west of the site, beyond South Pillsbury Road, is the Pillsbury Estates development, which is currently under construction. To the north of the site is the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site and the DeJong property, which are currently in agricultural use. To the east of the site is an approved residential development currently under agricultural use and to the south of the site is the proposed Hat Ranch project site. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site encompasses the northwestern portion of the overall project site and is comprised of approximately 57.3 acres of agricultural land. To the west of the site, beyond South Pillsbury Road, is a single-family residential neighborhood. To the south of the site is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, with agricultural and residential uses located further south. To the east of the site is the DeJong property. DeJong Property The DeJong property consists of approximately 80 acres and makes up the northeastern portion of the overall project site. To the west of the DeJong property is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, and to the south is the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site. To the north of the DeJong property is a residential development, and land east of the property is approved for residential development but is currently in agricultural use. General Plan Land Use Designations As mentioned above, the proposed project includes a request for annexation of the project site from San Joaquin County to the City of Manteca. The site s land use designations according to the County and City General Plans are discussed in further detail below. San Joaquin County General Plan The project site is currently located within San Joaquin County and has a San Joaquin County General Plan land use designation of General Agriculture (A/G). The definition for the A/G designation is as follows: General Agriculture (A/G) This designation applies to areas suitable for agriculture outside areas planned for urban development where the soils are capable of producing a wide variety of crops and/or CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-2

247 supporting grazing; parcel sizes are generally large enough to support commercial agricultural activities; and there exists a commitment to commercial agriculture in the form of Williamson Act contracts and/or capital investments. Typical uses include crop production, feed and grain storage and sales, crop spraying, and animal raising and sales. The density is a maximum of one primary residence per 20 acres. Manteca General Plan The Manteca General Plan provides land use designations for all land uses within the City of Manteca. The entirety of the proposed project site is designated Low Density Residential (LDR) within the Manteca General Plan (see Figure 4.9-1). The land use designation is defined in the Manteca General Plan as follows: Low Density Residential (LDR) The LDR land use (2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per gross acre) will establish a mix of dwelling unit types and character determined by the individual site and market conditions. The density range of 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per gross acre allows substantial flexibility in selecting dwelling unit types and parcel configurations to suit particular site conditions and housing needs. The type of dwelling units anticipated in this density range include small lots and clustered lots as well as conventional large lot detached residences. The LDR designation for the project site allows for 2.1 to 8.0 residential units per gross acre, which is consistent with the residential densities proposed for the overall project site. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment is not needed and the land use designation for the site would remain LDR. Zoning Designations The site is currently located within the San Joaquin County and only has a County zoning designation. Upon annexation, the site would be prezoned with a City zoning designation. San Joaquin County Zoning The project site has a County zoning designation of General Agriculture (AG-40), which is defined as follows: General Agriculture, with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres (AG-40) This zone is established to preserve agricultural lands for the continuation of commercial agriculture enterprises. Minimum parcel sizes within the AG Zone are 20, 40, 80 or 160 acres, as specified by the precise zoning. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-3

248 Figure Manteca General Plan Land Use Diagram Project Site CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-4

249 Manteca Zoning Consistent with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, prezoning would be required to be applied to the annexation areas (see Gov. Code Section 56375). To ensure compatibility with the Manteca General Plan LDR designation for the project site, each of the three sites, as well as the two parcels along Pillsbury Road on the western end of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, would be prezoned to the City s One-Family Dwelling (R-1) zoning district. The R-1 designation is defined in the Manteca Zoning Ordinance as follows: One-Family Dwelling District (R-1) The primary purpose of the R-1 district is to provide for the development, protection and stability of single-family detached housing and compatible uses within the low-density residential neighborhoods of the city. Attention shall be given to development in the R-1 district to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for individual housing, and to provide space for community facilities and institutions which are complementary with a low-density residential environment. Adjacent Land Use Designations San Joaquin County and the City of Manteca have adopted the following land use designations for the areas surrounding the project site. The City s land use designations for the surrounding areas can be seen in Figure North South East West City: LDR (Low Density Residential) and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) County: A/G; City: LDR and Urban Reserve Low Density Residential (UR-LDR) City: LDR, Medium Density Residential (MDR), and High Density Residential (HDR) City: LDR As noted, only the area to the south is within the County and has the same land use designation as the project site of A/G, which has been defined above. The Manteca General Plan s definition for the LDR designation is presented above. The Manteca General Plan defines the remaining adjacent land use designations as follows: Commercial Mixed-Use The CMU designation will accommodate a variety of purposes including high density residential, employment centers, retail commercial, and professional offices. The mixed use concept would integrate a mix of compatible uses on a single site that include sales, services and activities which residents may need on a daily basis. With pedestrian access, these sites will enable residents to walk or bike for many local trips, instead of driving for convenience trips. The sites may be integrated vertically with mixed uses above one another, such as residential or office uses over a commercial use. Sites may also be mixed horizontally with the uses side-by-side, but linked together through common walkways, plazas and CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-5

250 parking areas. In-fill sites in the existing urban area, particularly along the Main Street, Airport Way and Yosemite Avenue corridors may be developed entirely as multi-family residential projects. Sites developed primarily as residential may also include office and retail components. The Commercial Mixed-Use designation may also be applied to smaller parcels within neighborhoods. These small parcels accommodate a variety of uses, but on a smaller, less intense scale that is compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The residential component of any Commercial Mixed-Use development shall provide dwellings at densities of 15.1 to 25 units per acre. The residential component shall be considered to be that portion of a site or plan area allocated exclusively to residential use, net of any commercial or office use. Urban Reserve Low Density Residential (UR-LDR) Urban Reserve is applied to many properties around the perimeter of the City. In most instances the Urban Reserve category overlies another land use category. In these instances the underlying land use is the intended use when the land is ultimately annexed to the City. Urban Reserve with no underlying land use indicates that the City intends to expand in the time horizon beyond the current General Plan and that it is premature to indicate a specific future land use in this area. Urban Reserve is shown on the General Plan land use map to the north and east of the proposed growth areas. Medium Density Residential (MDR) The MDR use (8.1 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre) includes single family homes, smaller scale multi-family developments, including garden apartments, townhouses, and cluster housing. The density range will accommodate small-lot single family homes that will typically be smaller in size and more affordable to residents. High Density Residential (HDR) The HDR use (15.1 to 25 dwelling units per acre) includes multi-family apartment style housing. The multi-family dwelling sites are typically located with direct access to arterial streets. The sites have access to the pedestrian and bikeway network along the street corridor and are located along the conceptual route of a public transportation shuttle route. Most sites are near a neighborhood park and a neighborhood commercial center or larger commercial facility. Adjacent Zoning Designations San Joaquin County and the City of Manteca have adopted the following zoning designations for the areas surrounding the project site. North City: R-1, Planned Development Overlay (PD), and Mixed-Use Commercial (CMU) South County: AG-40 East City: Master Plan (MP) (designated for Austin Road Master Plan) West City: R-1 CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-6

251 The property to the south of the project site is within San Joaquin County and has a zoning designation of AG-40, which has been defined above. As noted, the current City zoning designations surrounding the project site include R-1, Master Plan (MP), Planned Development (PD) Overlay, and Mixed-Use Commercial (CMU). The R-1 definition is provided above. The City s Zoning Ordinance defines the remaining adjacent zoning designations as follows: Master Planned District (MP) The MP designation provides a process for the consideration and regulation of areas suitable for proposed comprehensive development with detailed development plans and those areas that require special planning to provide appropriate planned development. Planned Development Combining District (PD) The primary purpose of the PD overlay district is to encourage and facilitate the creative and innovative use of land which may otherwise be limited or prohibited by the standard provisions of this title. The PD combining district is designed to allow diversity in the relationship between buildings and open spaces to create interesting physical environments and to maximize the development potential of underutilized or problematic land areas. The PD combining district may be combined with any base district. Development within the PD combining district shall conform to the standards specified for the base district with which the PD is combined except to the extent that deviations from such base district standards promote the creative and innovative use of land and remain sensitive to surrounding land uses. The PD combining district shall be applied to areas that are two acres or larger, although projects of less than two acres may be considered when it is determined that the development area is underutilized or problematic (i.e., infill, re-use, redevelopment), and that the surrounding area will be better served by the project. Mixed Use Commercial (CMU) The CMU designation accommodates a variety of uses including high-density residential, employment centers, retail commercial, and professional offices. Population and Housing The City of Manteca s historical, current, and projected population and housing, as well as a discussion on employment and the jobs-to-housing ratio are provided below. Historical and Current Population Between 2001 and 2010, Manteca s population grew from 49,255 to 67,096. Then, between 2012 and 2013, Manteca s population grew approximately 2.3 percent, resulting in a total household population of 71, CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-7

252 Growth Rates The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) produces projections of population and employment for the cities in San Joaquin County, including the City of Manteca. Table shows the population, household, and employment estimates in 2014 and the projected estimates through 2025, for years available in SJCOG s projections database. Table Population, Housing, and Employment Projections ( ) Year Population Households Employment ,267 23,444 15, ,277 24,723 16, ,686 25,794 16, ,931 27,157 17,577 Source: SJCOG, personal communication with Michael A. Swearinger, Senior Regional Planner, January As shown in the table, Manteca s population is projected to increase from 72,267 to 76,277, approximately five percent, over the next three years. By 2025, the City s population is projected to be 83,931. To meet the increase in population, the number of households is projected to increase by approximately five percent as well over the next three years. Employment growth in Manteca is projected at a slightly lower rate, with the number of people employed projected to increase just under approximately five percent, from 15,402 to 16,127, over the next three years. With population and housing projected to grow faster than employment, the Manteca jobs-tohousing ratio would likely continue to decrease, furthering the City s role as a bedroom community. However, according to the Manteca General Plan EIR, full buildout of the Manteca General Plan has been designed to sustain a jobs-to-housing ratio that would be balanced. Single-family detached housing units account for the overwhelming majority of housing in Manteca. At 76.6 percent of the total housing stock in 2013, single-family detached units in Manteca made up a much larger share of the total than in the State overall, where only 58.1 percent of all units were single-family detached. 8 From 2010 to 2012, 949 single-family detached units were built in Manteca, making up 86 percent of all new units constructed. 9 Multi-family housing with five or more units made up the next largest segment of Manteca s housing stock, comprising 11.0 percent of the total in 2013; however, between 2010 and 2012, only 152 units were built in multi-family complexes with five or more units. Projected Housing Needs The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the housing element s statutory planning period. Each locality s RHNA is distributed among four income categories to address the required provision for planning for all income levels. The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) adopted its RHNA Plan on August 28, According to the plan, SJCOG allocated 4,054 new housing units to the City of Manteca for the January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014 planning period. The allocation is equivalent to a yearly need CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-8

253 of approximately 541 housing units for the 7.5-year time period. Of the 4,054 housing units, 2,292 units are to be affordable to moderate-income households and below, including 425 extremely low-income units, 425 very low-income units, 633 low-income units, and 808 moderate-income units. Jobs-to-Housing Ratio The City of Manteca is a housing-rich community, indicating more housing opportunities than jobs available. Many residents have moved to Manteca, searching for a lower-cost housing alternative to the Bay Area. Many of these residents have maintained their jobs in the Bay Area, choosing to commute from Manteca. The commute pattern directly affects Manteca s economy. The City s current jobs-to-housing ratio, based on information presented in Table 4.9-1, is approximately Although a jobs-to-housing imbalance currently occurs due to the job market not expanding as quickly as the housing market, if the City attracts new businesses, as described in the General Plan, the jobs/housing balance should improve. As stated above, full buildout of the Manteca General Plan would result in an overall balanced jobs-to-housing ratio REGULATORY SETTING The following is a description of environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the CEQA review process concerning land use and planning, as well as population and housing matters. Manteca General Plan The Manteca General Plan goals and policies relating to the physical environment that are applicable to the proposed project are presented below. Land Use Element Goal LU-1 To provide for orderly, well-planned, and balanced growth consistent with the limits imposed by the city s infrastructure and the city s ability to assimilate new development. Policy LU-P-1 Policy LU-P-3 Policy LU-P-4 Policy LU-P-5 Growth shall mitigate its own impacts and shall provide a positive benefit to the City of Manteca. The City shall encourage a pattern of development that promotes the efficient and timely development of public services and facilities. The City shall encourage a development pattern that is contiguous with the boundary of the City. The City shall establish and maintain a Primary Urban Service Boundary line designating lands eligible for annexation and urban development prior to the year CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.9-9

254 Policy LU-P-6 The City shall establish and maintain a Secondary Urban Service Boundary line designating lands eligible for annexation and urban development beyond the year 2013 (see Figure 2-3 of the Manteca General Plan). Lands outside the Primary Urban Service Boundary line, but within the Secondary Urban Service Boundary line, shall not be annexed to the City of Manteca prior to their inclusion within the Primary Urban Service Boundary line. Prior to 2013, the Primary Urban Service Boundary line may be amended through adoption of a specific plan, an area plan, or comparable planning process, or an amendment to the General Plan. Goal LU-2 To provide adequate land in a range of densities to meet the housing needs of all income groups expected to reside in Manteca, and to regulate residential growth consistent with the capacities of City facilities and services and the ability of the community to assimilate new development. Policy LU-P-14 The City shall promote the development of a variety of housing types and prices to meet the needs of all households, including very low-, low-, and moderateincome households. Community Design Element Policy CD-P-16 Policy CD-P-21 Policy CD-P-25 The City shall develop special design standards for the perimeter road system comprising Lathrop Road, Austin Road, Woodward Avenue, and Airport Way to ensure their development as divided roadways. Provide parks and schools as distinct centers for neighborhoods. The City shall encourage mixed land uses but provide physical separation or design buffers between incompatible land uses. Resource Conservation Element Goal RC-8 To provide adequate land for open space as a framework for urban development, to meet the passive recreation needs of the community, and to set aside wildlife habitat. Policy RC-P-16 Provide public and private open space within urbanized parts of Manteca, in order to provide visual contrast with CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

255 the built environment and to provide for the recreational needs of residents. Policy RC-P-17 Policy RC-P-19 Policy RC-P-20 Policy RC-P-21 Policy RC-P-24 Policy RC-P-25 Provide access to public open space areas. The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban use, until urban development is imminent. The City shall provide an orderly and phased development pattern so that farmland is not subjected to premature development pressure. In approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, the City shall take actions so that such development will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the viability of nearby agricultural operations. Provide buffers at the interface of urban development and farmland; in order to minimize conflicts between these uses. The City shall ensure, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, that such development will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations. Housing Element Policy H-P-19 Policy H-P-20 The City shall maintain an adequate supply of land in appropriate land use designations and zoning categories to achieve a mix of single-family and multi-family development that will provide adequate housing opportunities for households of all income levels and will accommodate the housing needs established in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City shall regulate the number of housing units approved each year according to a growth management system that reflects the availability of infrastructure, the City s ability to provide public services, housing needs, and employment growth. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

256 Policy H-P-22 The City shall seek the annexation of lands within the City s adopted Sphere of Influence and identified 10- and 20-year Planning Horizons at a rate that ensures an adequate supply of appropriately zoned residential land. City of Manteca Right-to-Farm Ordinance Chapter 8.24 of the Manteca Municipal Code is a right-to-farm ordinance intended to protect agricultural productivity in the City. The ordinance includes the following statement: It is the policy of this City to preserve, protect and encourage the use of viable agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products. When nonagricultural land-uses extend into or approach agricultural areas, conflicts often arise between such land-uses and agricultural operations. Such conflicts often result in the involuntary curtailment or cessation of agricultural operations, and discourage investment in such operations. This chapter is intended to reduce the occurrence of conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses within the city. San Joaquin County LAFCO The San Joaquin County LAFCO Change of Organization Policies and Procedures includes General Standards for Annexation and Detachment that govern San Joaquin County LAFCO determinations regarding annexations and detachments. The following are the policies included in the General Standards for Annexation and Detachment that are applicable to the proposed project with respect to land use and planning: 2. Plan for Services Every proposal must include a Plan for Services that addresses the items identified in Section of the Government Code. The Plan for Services must be consistent with the Municipal Service Review of the Agency. Proponents must demonstrate that the city or special district is capable of meeting the need for services. 3. Contiguity Territory proposed to be annexed to a city must be contiguous to the annexing city or district unless specifically allowed by statute. Territory is not contiguous if the only connection is a strip of land more than 300 feet long and less than 200 wide, that width to be exclusive of highways. The boundaries of a proposed annexation or reorganization must not create or result in areas that are difficult to serve. 5. Progressive Urban Pattern Annexations to agencies providing urban services shall be progressive steps toward filling in the territory designated by the affected agency s adopted sphere of influence. Proposed growth shall be from inner toward outer areas. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

257 7. Annexations to Eliminate Islands Proposals to annex islands or to otherwise correct illogical distortion of boundaries will normally be approved unless they would violate another provision of these standards. In order to avoid the creation of an island or to encourage the elimination an existing island, detailed development plans may not be required for the remnant areas. 8. Annexations that Create Islands An annexation will not be approved if it will result in the creation of an island of unincorporated territory or otherwise cause or further the distortion of existing boundaries. The Commission may nevertheless approve such an annexation where it finds that the application of this policy would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that a reasonable effort has been made to include the island in the annexation but that inclusion is not feasible at this time. 14. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) are those territories shown in Exhibit A or as may be shown in a city municipal service review and sphere of influence plan. The Commission shall not approve an annexation to a city or any territory greater than 10 acres where there exists a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) that is contiguous to the area of proposed annexation, unless a concurrent application to annex all or a portion of the DUC to the subject city has been filed. An application to annex a DUC shall not be required if either of the following applies: 1. A prior application for annexation of the territory has been made in the preceding five years. 2. The Commission finds, based upon written evidence, that a majority of the registered voters within the DUC are opposed to annexation. Written evidence can be a scientific survey conducted by an academic institution or professional polling company Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance A land use and planning or population and housing impact may be considered to be significant if any potential effects of the following conditions, or potential thereof, would result with the proposed project s implementation: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; Result in the development of incompatible uses and/or the creation of land use conflicts; CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

258 Induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. It should be noted that the proposed project s impacts associated with a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan are addressed in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR. In addition, as the proposed project is currently vacant agricultural land, displacement of housing or people would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, would not occur and are not addressed further in this Draft EIR. Method of Analysis The following section analyzes the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding land uses and compliance of the proposed project with adopted plans and policies, pursuant to Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The evaluation considers the existing and planned type and intensity of uses in the project vicinity and those proposed for the project site. The analysis assumes the construction and implementation of the proposed project within the existing and planned environment to determine if the project is compatible with those existing and planned uses surrounding the project site. In addition, the proposed project is examined for consistency between the proposed project and the Manteca General Plan based on the relevant goals and policies of the Manteca General Plan. The project s consistency with the City s Zoning Ordinance and the San Joaquin County LAFCO policies are also discussed. The ultimate determination of consistency rests with the City of Manteca City Council. The level of significance of the impacts of the proposed project on population and housing is determined by evaluating whether the increased population resultant from the proposed project would be considered substantial. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of land use, planning, population, and housing impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above Compatibility with the Manteca General Plan. Table lists the applicable Manteca General Plan policies related to land use and includes a discussion of the project s compliance with the policies. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

259 LU-P-3 LU-P-4 LU-P-5 LU-P-6 Table Discussion of Relevant Manteca General Plan Policies General Plan Policy Discussion Land Use Element The City shall encourage a pattern of development that Public services are discussed in Chapter 4.11 of this Draft EIR. The promotes the efficient and timely development of proposed project would connect to utilities such as water and sewer public services and facilities. via existing lines in adjacent roadways (i.e., Pillsbury Road and/or Woodward Avenue). Existing and/or proposed residential development are located to the north, west, and south of the project site. Access to the project would be provided by Pillsbury Road via Woodward Avenue, with connections between the existing residential developments through Mono Drive, Heartland Drive, and Tannehill Drive. In addition, the future extension of Atherton Drive along the The City shall encourage a development pattern that is contiguous with the boundary of the City. The City shall establish and maintain a Primary Urban Service Boundary line designating lands eligible for annexation and urban development prior to the year The City shall establish and maintain a Secondary Urban Service Boundary line designating lands eligible for annexation and urban development beyond the year 2013 (see Figure 2-3 of the Manteca General Plan). Lands outside the Primary Urban Service Boundary line, but within the Secondary Urban Service Boundary line, shall not be annexed to the City of Manteca prior to their inclusion within the Primary Urban Service Boundary line. Prior to 2013, the Primary Urban Service Boundary line may be amended through adoption of a specific plan, an area plan, or comparable planning process, or an amendment to the General Plan. (Continued on next page) eastern boundary would provide project access. The project site is within the City of Manteca Sphere of Influence and the site s northern boundary is contiguous with the existing Manteca City limit line. Therefore, the project would be contiguous with existing and proposed residential development. The project site is within the Primary Urban Service Boundary line. The project site is within the Primary Urban Service Boundary line. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

260 LU-P-14 CD-P-16 CD-P-21 CD-P-25 RC-P-16 DRAFT EIR Table Discussion of Relevant Manteca General Plan Policies General Plan Policy Discussion The City shall promote the development of a variety of The project includes the development of 706 single-family units that housing types and prices to meet the needs of all would meet the needs of moderate-income households. households, including very low-, low-, and moderateincome households. The City shall develop special design standards for the perimeter road system comprising Lathrop Road, Austin Road, Woodward Avenue, and Airport Way to ensure their development as divided roadways. Provide parks and schools as distinct centers for neighborhoods. The City shall encourage mixed land uses but provide physical separation or design buffers between incompatible land uses. Provide public and private open space within urbanized parts of Manteca, in order to provide visual contrast with the built environment and to provide for the recreational needs of residents. Community Design Element The project is located along Woodward Avenue and would not conflict with the special design standards. The project includes a 3.53-acre park and associated greenbelt in the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I portion of the site and a 4.3- acre park in the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II portion of the site. In addition, per Mitigation Measure of this Draft EIR, at the time of tentative map submittal, the DeJong property would include an additional park on the property that would be dedicated sufficient to achieve the City s requirement of five acres of park land per 1,000 residents. The project would be consistent with the existing residential to the north and west of the site and proposed residential (Hat Ranch project) to the south. It should be noted that 56 feet along the eastern edge of the project site is being dedicated as right-of-way for the future Atherton Drive extension, which would provide a buffer between existing agricultural lands to the east until such time as the area is developed with residential uses. Resource Conservation Element Please see above discussion for CD-P-21. RC-P-17 Provide access to public open space areas. Please see above discussion for CD-P-21. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site would include a Class I bike path with associated greenbelt that would connect the park to the future (Continued on next page) CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

261 RC-P-19 Table Discussion of Relevant Manteca General Plan Policies General Plan Policy Discussion extension of Atherton Drive. The right-of-way that is being reserved for the future Atherton Drive extension would include a 20-foot landscape frontage with meandering walk. In addition, the proposed project would include sidewalks along project roadways, and roadway connections are proposed within the three project sites as well as to existing adjacent developments. The City shall support the continuation of agricultural The project site is currently agricultural land. It should be noted, uses on lands designated for urban use, until urban however, that the project site is surrounded by existing, under development is imminent. construction, proposed, and/or planned residential development. The Pillsbury Estates to the west of the site are currently under construction, an approved residential development currently under agricultural use is to the east, south of the site is the proposed hat Ranch project site, and north of the site is an existing residential development. RC-P-20 RC-P-24 The City shall provide an orderly and phased development pattern so that farmland is not subjected to premature development pressure. Provide buffers at the interface of urban development and farmland; in order to minimize conflicts between these uses. RC-P-25 The City shall ensure, in approving urban development near existing agricultural lands, that such development will not unnecessarily constrain (Continued on next page) The DeJong property would likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes for a longer duration than the other properties of the proposed project, because the tentative map has not yet been submitted. In addition, Impact below includes mitigation requiring deed notification for future property owners, disclosing the project s proximity to existing and ongoing agricultural activities and potential issues associated with such, consistent with the City s Rightto-Farm Ordinance. Please see above discussion for LU-P-4 and RC-P-19. Please see above discussion for CD-P-25. Please see above discussion for CD-P-25. In addition, Impact below includes mitigation requiring deed notification for future property owners, consistent with the City s Right-to-Farm Ordinance. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

262 RC-I-30 H-P-19 H-P-20 Table Discussion of Relevant Manteca General Plan Policies General Plan Policy Discussion agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations. The deed notification would include a disclosure statement of the project s proximity to existing and ongoing agricultural activities and potential issues associated with such, including potential inconvenience or discomfort from typical agricultural operations on Apply the following conditions of approval where urban development occurs next to farmland. Require notifications in urban property deeds that agricultural operations are in the vicinity, in keeping with the City s right-to-farm ordinance. Require adequate and secure fencing at the interface of urban and agricultural use. Require phasing of new residential subdivisions; so as to include an interim buffer between residential and agricultural use. The City shall maintain an adequate supply of land in appropriate land use designations and zoning categories to achieve a mix of single-family and multifamily development that will provide adequate housing opportunities for households of all income levels and will accommodate the housing needs established in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City shall regulate the number of housing units approved each year according to a growth management system that reflects the availability of infrastructure, the City s ability to provide public services, housing needs, and employment growth. Housing Element the nearby site. Please see above discussion for RC-P-25. These will be included as conditions of approval for project. The proposed project would be consistent with the City s land use designation for the site, and would provide single-family residential housing opportunities to the community. Please see above discussion for CD-P-25. The number of households in the City is projected to increase with the projected increase in population and employment. The proposed project s increase in population would be within the anticipated projected increase for the City. In addition, per the City s Growth Management Ordinance, the project would be required to obtain project allocations prior to (Continued on next page) CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

263 H-P-22 Table Discussion of Relevant Manteca General Plan Policies General Plan Policy Discussion issuance of any building permits, which would ensure that the City has adequate sewer infrastructure to serve the project. The proposed project s impacts related to sewer services, as well as other public services and utilities, are discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of this Draft EIR. The City shall seek the annexation of lands within the The project site is located adjacent to currently developed areas to the City s adopted Sphere of Influence and identified 10- north and west. In addition, currently approved and proposed and 20-year Planning Horizons at a rate that ensures developments are located adjacent to the site. The project is consistent an adequate supply of appropriately zoned residential with the land use and zoning designations for the site, and would land. supply single-family residential housing opportunities. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

264 The project site is currently designated LDR in the Manteca General Plan, which allows a density of 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed project would consist of 706 single-family dwelling units on approximately acres (not including the nonparticipating properties), which results in an overall density of 3.7 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the proposed project density would be consistent with the Manteca General Plan land use designation for the site of LDR. In addition, as demonstrated in Table 4.9-2, the project would comply with the policies included within the Manteca General Plan regarding land use. The conclusion is made that although some of the project s environmental impacts remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan for the purposes of this analysis. The City of Manteca City Council will make the ultimate determination in regard to the proposed project s consistency with the City s plans and policies. Therefore, the project s impacts related to compliance with the Manteca General Plan would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Compliance with the City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project site is currently located within San Joaquin County and has a County zoning designation of General Agriculture (AG-40). Upon annexation to the City, to ensure compatibility with the Manteca General Plan LDR designation for the site, each of the three sites, as well as the two non-participating parcels along Pillsbury Road on the western end of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, would require a prezone to the City s R-1 zoning district. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all requirements in the zoning ordinance including, but not limited to, parking, setbacks, and landscaping. As a result, the project s impact related to compliance with the Manteca Zoning Ordinance would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Compatibility with existing adjacent land uses. The determination of compatibility of land uses typically relies on a general discussion of the types of adjacent land uses to a proposed project and whether any sensitive receptors exist on the adjacent properties or are associated with the proposed project. Incompatibilities typically exist when uses such as residences, parks, churches, and schools are located adjacent to more disruptive uses such as heavy industrial, major transportation corridors, and regional commercial centers where traffic levels and attendant noise may be high. The identification of incompatible uses occurs if one land use is anticipated to be disruptive of the existing or planned use of an adjacent property. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

265 Approval of the proposed project would result in the development of 706 single-family units (with 171 units proposed for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, 185 units proposed for the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site, and 350 units proposed for the DeJong site), 7.83 total acres of parkland (on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park sites I and II), and a bike path with a greenbelt (on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park site I). It should be noted that the parkland on both sites would include surface storage basins to detain stormwater during major storm events. The site is predominantly surrounded by residential and agricultural uses. Residential uses adjacent to other residential uses do not pose incompatibility issues. However, the proposed residential uses could be considered incompatible with the agricultural land uses adjacent to the site, due to noise, dust, and/or odor generation associated with typical agricultural operations. Existing agricultural land uses are located to the south and the east of the project site. However, the agricultural land to the south of the proposed project site is currently proposed for residential development (i.e., the proposed Hat Ranch age-restricted project). In addition, a 56-foot right-of-way dedication for the future Atherton Drive extension would be provided along the eastern border of the project site. The right-of-way would serve as a buffer between the proposed project and the ongoing agricultural operations to the east until such time as the planned residential development occurs to the east, consistent with the Manteca General Plan. The City has adopted a Right-to-Farm Ordinance, which allows existing and future agricultural operations to continue in a manner consistent with the underlying zoning. For properties adjacent to agricultural land, the Right-to-Farm Ordinance requires issuance of a notice informing future residents that small-scale agricultural and farming operations may take place on nearby/surrounding parcels, and that the approval of the proposed project shall not impact the ability of existing/future small-scale agricultural and/or farming operations to continue in a manner consistent with the underlying zoning regulations. Physical environmental impacts related to areas such as noise, air quality, and traffic that would arise from development of the proposed project are assessed in other chapters of this Draft EIR (see Chapter 4.3, Air Quality and Climate Change; Chapter 4.10, Noise; and Chapter 4.12, Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation for further analysis of these issues). Because development of the project would occur adjacent to existing agricultural uses and short-term incompatibilities could occur, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure, consistent with Manteca General Plan Policy RC-I-30 and the City s Right-to-Farm Ordinance, would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level The applicant/developer shall inform and provide recorded notice to prospective buyers within 1,000 feet of agricultural land in writing and prior to purchase, as prescribed by the City s Right-to-Farm Ordinance, CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

266 about existing and ongoing agricultural activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement. The notifications shall disclose that Manteca and San Joaquin County are agricultural areas and residents of the property may be subject to inconvenience or discomfort arising from the use of agricultural chemicals, and from pursuit of agricultural operations, including, but not limited to cultivation, irrigation, plowing, spraying, aerial application, pruning, harvesting, crop protection, and agricultural burning which occasionally generate dust, smoke, noise, and odor. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner Impacts related to the direct or indirect inducement of substantial population growth. Based on 706 single-family dwelling units and the City s 3.07 persons per household statistic, the proposed project could generate an additional 2,168 new residents for the City of Manteca. Per SJCOG population projections, as presented in Table 4.9-1, the population is anticipated to increase from 2014 to 2020 by 7,419. Assuming that the proposed project would be fully built out and operating at full capacity by 2020, the project s contribution to the overall population increase by 2020 would be approximately 29 percent, and would not contribute to an increase above the anticipated population levels. Even if the project is fully built out and operating at full capacity by 2017, when the population is projected to increase from 2014 by 4,010, the project s contribution would be approximately 54 percent, which would still be within the anticipated population projections per Table In order to ensure that population growth does not outpace availability of adequate infrastructure, the City has adopted a Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter of City Municipal Code) that states that any project seeking sewer capacity shall first obtain project allocations prior to issuance of building permits. Compliance with the City s Growth Management Ordinance would ensure that the City has adequate sewer infrastructure available and the ability to provide adequate sewer services to the proposed project. The proposed project s impacts related to sewer services, as well as other public services and utilities, are discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of this Draft EIR. As determined in Chapter 4.11, the proposed project s impacts related to public services and utilities would be less than significant with implementation of the required mitigation measures where appropriate. Overall, the proposed project s increase in population would not be considered substantial, and impacts would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

267 4.9-5 Impacts related to the City of Manteca s jobs-to-housing ratio. DRAFT EIR Due to employment growth being slower than population and housing growth within the City of Manteca, a jobs-to-housing imbalance currently occurs. The jobs-to-housing ratio within the City of Manteca is currently approximately However, according to the Manteca General Plan EIR, full buildout of the Manteca General Plan has been designed to sustain a jobs-to-housing ratio that would be balanced. The proposed project is consistent with the City s General Plan including the land use designation for the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have been factored into and would be within the assumptions made in the General Plan analysis for the overall jobs-to-housing balance upon buildout of the Manteca General Plan. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would help to balance the overall jobs-to-housing ratio at buildout of the Manteca General Plan. Overall, although the proposed project alone would further imbalance the current jobs-tohousing ratio in the City, the proposed project would contribute toward the overall balance of the jobs-to-housing ratio anticipated for buildout of the Manteca General Plan. As a result, the proposed project s impacts related to the City s jobs-to-housing ratio would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Compatibility with San Joaquin County LAFCO goals and policies as related to annexation. As previously discussed, the proposed project site is currently located within San Joaquin County and has a San Joaquin County General Plan land use designation of A/G, and a County zoning designation of AG-40. The proposed project includes annexation from the County to the City of Manteca and detachment from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District, which ultimately requires approval by the San Joaquin County LAFCO. A discussion regarding fire protection services and whether detachment from the Lathrop- Manteca Fire Protection District would cause any impacts associated with such services is provided in Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of this Draft EIR. As stated in LAFCO s Policy 8, [a]n annexation will not be approved if it will result in the creation of an island of unincorporated territory or otherwise cause or further the distortion of existing boundaries. In order to avoid a County island, which would conflict with LAFCO s adopted policies and be difficult for public service agencies to provide services, the two non-participating properties (APNs and -02) located immediately west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, along Pillsbury Road, have been included in the proposed annexation area. Inclusion of the properties in the annexation area would be consistent with LAFCO Policy 8 and the County s comments submitted on the project to date. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

268 Per LAFCO Policy 2, project proponents are required to demonstrate that the need for services would be adequately met by the City or special districts. According to the project objectives, the project would provide the infrastructure necessary for the delivery of safe and reliable public services including water, sewer, drainage, and roadway improvements that would enhance the City of Manteca s infrastructure systems. The infrastructure systems installed as part of the proposed project would be sized to meet demands created by the proposed project. A more detailed discussion regarding public services and utilities for the project can be found in Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of this Draft EIR. As determined in Chapter 4.11, the proposed project s impacts related to public services and utilities would be less than significant with implementation of the required mitigation measures where appropriate. The LAFCO s Policy 14 prohibits annexation of any disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) that is contiguous to the area of proposed annexation. The proposed project site is not considered or located adjacent to any DUC. Because the proposed project would not create an island via annexation of the project site, adequate public services and utilities are available to serve the proposed project, and the project does not involve a DUC, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact with regard to compatibility with San Joaquin County LAFCO goals and policies. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Cumulative land use and planning impacts. The proposed project, along with reasonably foreseeable projects within the City of Manteca, would change the intensity of land uses within the geographic area that would be affected by the proposed project. The cumulative land use impacts of the project, together with the related impacts of other foreseeable projects would be considered significant. The increased development associated with these projects would result in environmental impacts, such as impacts related to traffic, air, and noise, which are analyzed in other sections of this Draft EIR. However, it should be noted that the project site is currently designated for LDR development in the Manteca General Plan, and, therefore, the project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan. Furthermore, the final authority for determination of consistency with the Manteca General Plan rests with the Manteca City Council. Given the land use controls, Manteca General Plan goals and policies, and development standards presently in use within Manteca, the project s incremental contribution to CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

269 cumulative land use impacts would be minimized to a level that is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Cumulative population and housing impacts. The Manteca General Plan enables residential growth, and identifies the necessary infrastructure improvements, including roads, utilities, and government services that would support future growth. Specifically, the Manteca General Plan planned for LDR development at the project site. The new residences provided by the proposed project would fall within SJCOG s growth estimates for the City of Manteca and for the region as indicated in Table The direct and indirect impacts of population and housing growth on the project site are considered throughout this Draft EIR and include potential impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, the provision of public services and utilities, and other resource areas. To the extent that the projected population would result in significant adverse effects to such resources, the impacts have been identified and considered within relevant sections of this Draft EIR. Because the population from the proposed project, plus similar projects within the City, is within SJCOG s projections, the increase in population has been anticipated by the various utilities and public service providers and other agencies that rely on SJCOG s population projections for anticipating future impacts on various services. As a result, the increase in housing and population facilitated by the proposed project would not be considered to result in a significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on population, housing, or employment growth, and the proposed project s cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

270 Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca 2023 General Plan Policy Document. October City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Code, Chapter 17, Zoning (amended through June 2010). 4 San Joaquin County LAFCO. Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). Amended December 14, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan Housing Element. Adopted June 15, California Department of Finance. E-1: Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2012 and January 1, SJCOG. Personal communication with Michael A. Swearinger, Senior Regional Planner. January California Department of Finance. E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January , with 2010 Benchmark. January 1, State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS). Building Permits Database. Available at: Accessed January CHAPTER 4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING / POPULATION AND HOUSING

271 4.10. NOISE

272 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project 4.10 NOISE Introduction The Noise chapter of the Draft EIR discusses the existing noise environment in the immediate project vicinity and identifies potential noise-related impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Specifically, this chapter analyzes potential noise impacts due to and upon development within the project site relative to applicable noise criteria and to the existing ambient noise environment. Information presented in this chapter is primarily drawn from the Environmental Noise Assessment 1 prepared specifically for the proposed project by j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. (see Appendix I), as well as the Manteca General Plan 2 and the Manteca General Plan EIR Existing Environmental Setting The Existing Environmental Setting section provides background information on noise and vibration, a discussion of acoustical terminology and the effects of noise on people, existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, existing sources and noise levels in the project vicinity, and groundborne vibration. Acoustical Terminology Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound is a mechanical energy of vibrating transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough, 20 times per second, they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person. Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 db. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 db, and changes in levels (db) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, Chapter 4.10 Noise

273 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. A strong correlation exists between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dba) and the way the human ear perceives sound. Accordingly, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this chapter are in terms of A-weighted levels, but are expressed as db, unless otherwise noted. The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10 db apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10 dba is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70 dba sound is half as loud as an 80 dba sound, and twice as loud as a 60 dba sound. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (L eq ), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The L eq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, L dn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. The day/night average noise level (L dn ) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because L dn represents a 24- hour average, L dn tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Table provides a list of several examples of the noise levels associated with common activities. Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories: Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; or Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. A completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction does not exist. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual s past experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way the new noise environment compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted (i.e., the ambient noise level). In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise would be judged by those hearing the noise. Chapter 4.10 Noise

274 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dba) Common Indoor Activities Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft) Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft) Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft), Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft) at 80 km/hr (50 mph) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft) Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft) Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft) Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft) Quiet Urban Daytime Large Business Office Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Nighttime Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library Quiet Rural Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast/Recording Studio Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. November, With regard to increases in A-weighted noise levels, the following relationships occur: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 db cannot be perceived; Outside of the laboratory, a 3 db change is considered a barely perceivable difference; A change in level of at least 5 db is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and A 10 db change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would typically cause an adverse response. Stationary point sources of noise including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately six db per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate. Existing Sensitive Receptors Certain land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure time and shielding from noise sources) and the type of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, parks, and outdoor recreation areas are generally more Chapter 4.10 Noise

275 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. Accordingly, such land uses are referred to as sensitive receptors. The proposed project site is surrounded by existing single-family residential uses to the north and west, and agricultural uses to the south and east. Thus, the existing nearby residences would be the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site. Existing Ambient Noise Levels To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, short-term ambient noise level measurements and continuous (24-hour) noise level measurements were conducted at six overall locations on the project site and vicinity on October 24, 2013 (see Figure ). The ambient noise levels measured are presented in Table Noise levels were collected at each site at hourly intervals. The maximum value (L max ) represents the highest noise level measured during an interval. The average value (L eq ) represents the energy average of all of the noise measured during an interval. The median value (L 50 ) represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during an interval. Table Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data Average Measured Hourly Noise Levels, db Daytime (7am-10pm) Nighttime (10pm-7am) Site Location L dn L eq L 50 L max L eq L 50 L max Continuous (24-hour) Noise Level Measurements LT-1 Northwest corner of site, 500 feet to Woodward Avenue centerline LT-2 North corner of site, 50 feet to Woodward Avenue centerline LT-3 Northeast of project site, 240 feet to UPRR centerline Short-term Noise Level Measurements ST-1 North side of site. NA :40 PM ST-2 Southwest corner of site NA :25 PM ST-3 Southeast corner of site NA :08 PM Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Existing Roadway Noise Levels To predict existing noise levels due to traffic, the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA) was used. Traffic volumes for existing conditions were obtained from the traffic study prepared for the project (Fehr & Peers). Truck percentages and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations. Chapter 4.10 Noise

276 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Figure Noise Measurement Locations Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Chapter 4.10 Noise

277 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. Where traffic noise barriers are predominately along a roadway segment, a -5 db offset was added to the noise prediction model. In some locations sensitive receptors may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance and may experience shielding from intervening barriers or sound walls. However, the traffic noise analysis is believed to be representative of the majority of sensitive receptors located closest to the project-area roadway segments analyzed. The actual distances to noise level contours may vary from the distances predicted by the FHWA model due to roadway curvature, grade, shielding from local topography or structures, elevated roadways, or elevated receivers. However, the distances reported are generally considered to be conservative estimates of noise exposure along the project-area roadways. It should be noted that the contour distances include a -5 db offset for roadway segments that predominately include noise barriers at residential areas. Table presents the existing traffic noise levels in terms of L dn at closest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment, as well as the distances to existing traffic noise contours. Appendices to the Environmental Noise Analysis provide details regarding the FHWA modeling, including the complete inputs and results (see Appendix I). Railroad Noise Levels Railroad activity in the project vicinity occurs on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line, which is located approximately 900 feet, or further, from the project site. In order to quantify noise exposure from existing train operations, a continuous (24-hour) noise level measurement survey was conducted adjacent the UPRR line. The purpose of the noise level measurements was to determine the typical Sound Exposure Level (SEL) for railroad line operations, while accounting for the effects of travel speed, warning horns, and other factors that may affect noise generation. In addition, the noise level measurement equipment was programmed to identify individual train events, so that the typical number of train operations could be determined. Locations of continuous noise monitoring sites are shown on Figure Table presents a summary of the continuous noise measurement results. The L dn value for railroad line operations were calculated, and the distances to the L dn noise level contours are shown in Table Vibration While vibration is like noise in that vibration involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver, vibration differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person s perception to the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating. Chapter 4.10 Noise

278 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Distances to Contours Exterior Traffic Distance to Traffic Noise Contours, L dn Roadway Segment Noise Level, db L dn 70 db 65 db 60 db Atherton Dr West of Main St Atherton Dr Main St to Van Ryn Ave Atherton Dr North of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A Austin Dr North of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A Austin Dr South of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A Austin Rd North of SR 99 Ramp Austin Rd SR 99 Ramp to Moffat Blvd Austin Rd South of Moffat Blvd Main St North of Mission Ridge Dr Mission Ridge Dr to SR 120 WB Main St Ramp Main St SR 120 EB Ramp to Atherton Dr Main St Atherton Dr to Woodward Ave S. Manteca Road South of Woodward Ave S. Manteca Road North of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A Mission Ridge Dr West of Main St Moffat Blvd North of Spreckels Ave Woodward Ave to SR 99 SB Moffat Blvd Ramp Moffat Blvd SR 99 SB Ramp to Austin Rd Moffat Blvd East of Austin Rd Pillsbury Rd South of Woodward Ave Raymus Expy West of Main St N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy Main St to Pillsbury Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy Pillsbury to Atherton Dr N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy Atherton Dr to Austin Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy East of Austin Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy East of Austin Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A Spreckels Ave East of Spreckels Ave Industrial Park Dr to Woodward Van Ryn Ave Ave Woodward Ave West of Main St Woodward Ave Main St to Buena Vista Dr Woodward Ave Buena Vista Dr to Van Ryn Ave Woodward Ave Van Ryn Dr to Pillsbury Rd Woodward Ave Pillsbury Dr to Atherton Dr Woodward Ave Atherton Dr to Moffat Blvd Note: Distances to traffic noise contours are measured in feet from the centerlines of the roadways. Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Chapter 4.10 Noise

279 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Railroad Noise Measurement Results Grade Measurement Location Railroad Track Crossing/ Warning Horn Train Events Per 24-hr period Distance to CL SEL LT-3 UPRR Yes db Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Table Approximate Distances to the UPRR Line Noise Contours Exterior Railroad Distance to L dn Contour Noise Level at Measurement Site, L dn 60 db 65 db 70 db feet With Warning Horns 1,241 feet 576 feet 267 feet Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events. Table indicates that the threshold for damage to structures ranges from 2 to 6 peak particle velocity in inches per second (in/sec p.p.v). One-half this minimum threshold or 1 in/sec p.p.v. is considered a safe criterion that would protect against architectural or structural damage. The general threshold at which human annoyance could occur is noted as 0.1 in/sec p.p.v Regulatory Setting In order to limit exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging noise levels, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the State have established standards and ordinances to control noise. The following provides a general overview of the existing regulations established regarding noise that are relevant to the proposed project. State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Chapter 4.10 Noise

280 Table Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Peak Particle Velocity inches/second mm/second Human Reaction Effect on Buildings Threshold of perception; Vibrations unlikely to cause possibility of intrusion damage of any type Recommended upper level of the Vibrations readily perceptible vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected Level at which continuous Virtually no risk of architectural vibrations begin to annoy people damage to normal buildings Threshold at which there is a risk Vibrations annoying to people in buildings (this agrees with the of architectural damage to normal dwelling - houses with levels established for people plastered walls and ceilings. standing on bridges and Special types of finish such as subjected to relative short periods of vibrations) lining of walls, flexible ceiling treatment, etc., would minimize architectural damage Vibrations considered unpleasant by people subjected to continuous vibrations and unacceptable to some people walking on bridges Vibrations at a greater level than normally expected from traffic, but would cause architectural damage and possibly minor structural damage Source: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV R9601. February 20, California State Building Codes The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 db L dn or CNEL in any habitable room. Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noise-sensitive uses to be located where the L dn or CNEL exceeds 60 db, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment Local Regulations Manteca General Plan The Manteca General Plan Noise Element contains goals, policies, and implementation measures for assessing noise impacts within the City. The following noise goals, policies, and implementation measures are applicable to the proposed project. It should be noted that the City Chapter 4.10 Noise

281 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project of Manteca does not have specific policies pertaining to vibration levels; however, vibration levels associated with construction activities and railroad operations are addressed as potential noise impacts associated with project implementation. Goal N-1. Goal N-3. Goal N-4. Goal N-5. Protect the residents of Manteca from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise. Ensure that the downtown core noise levels remain acceptable and compatible with commercial and higher density residential land uses. Protect public health and welfare by eliminating existing noise problems where feasible, by establishing standards for acceptable indoor and outdoor noise, and by preventing significant increases in noise levels. Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions, and guide the location and design of transportation facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses. Policy N-P-2: New development of residential or other noise-sensitive land uses will not be permitted in noise-impacted areas unless effective mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design to satisfy the performance standards in Table 9-1 (see Table ). Table Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Mobile Noise Sources Outdoor Activity Areas 1 Land Use 4 L dn /CNEL, db Interior Spaces L dn /CNEL, db L eq, db 3 Residential Transient Lodging Hospitals, Nursing Homes Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls Churches, Meeting Halls Office Buildings Schools, Libraries, Museums Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Outdoor activity areas for residential development are considered to be backyard patios or decks of single family dwellings, and the common areas where people generally congregate for multi-family developments. Outdoor activity areas for non-residential developments are considered to be those common areas where people generally congregate, including pedestrian plazas, seating areas, and outside lunch facilities. Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 In areas where it is not possible to reduce exterior noise levels to 60 db L dn or below using a practical application of the best noise-reduction technology, an exterior noise level of up to 65 L dn will be allowed. 3 Determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 4 Where a proposed use is not specifically listed on the table, the use shall comply with the noise exposure standards for the nearest similar use as determined by the City. Chapter 4.10 Noise

282 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Policy N-P-3: The City may permit the development of new noise-sensitive uses only where the noise level due to fixed (non-transportation) noise sources satisfies the noise level standards of Table 9-2 (see Table ). Noise mitigation may be required to meet Table 9-2 (see Table ) performance standards. Table Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources Or Projects Affected By Stationary Noise Sources 1,2 Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7 AM to 10 PM) Nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) Hourly L eq, db Maximum Level, db Each of the noise levels specified above should be lowered by five (5) db for simple noise tones, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or recurring impulsive noises. Such noises are generally considered by residents to be particularly annoying and are a primary source of noise complaints. 2 No standards have been included for interior noise levels. Standard construction practices should, with the exterior noise levels identified, result in acceptable interior noise levels. Policy N-P-5: In accord with the Table 9-2 (see Table ) standards, the City shall regulate construction-related noise impacts on adjacent uses. Implementation N-I-1. Implementation N-I-3. New development in residential areas with an actual or projected exterior noise level of greater than 60 db L dn will be conditioned to use mitigation measures to reduce exterior noise levels to less than or equal to 60 db L dn. In making a determination of impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a substantial increase will occur if ambient noise levels are increased by 10 db or more. An increase from 5-10 db may be substantial. Factors to be considered in determining the significance of increases from 5-10 db include: the resulting noise levels the duration and frequency of the noise the number of people affected the land use designation of the affected receptor sites public reactions or controversy as demonstrated at workshops or hearings, or by correspondence prior CEQA determinations by other agencies specific to the project Implementation N-I-4. Control noise at the source through use of insulation, berms, building design and orientation, buffer space, staggered operating hours and other techniques. Use noise barriers to attenuate noise to acceptable levels. Chapter 4.10 Noise

283 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project City of Manteca Municipal Code Noise Ordinance Section of the City of Manteca Municipal Code prohibits excessive or annoying noise or vibration to residential and commercial properties in the City. The following general rules are outlined in the ordinance: Prohibited noises - General standard. No person shall make, or cause to suffer, or permit to be made upon any public property, public right-of-way or private property, any unnecessary and unreasonable noises, sounds or vibrations which are physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity or which are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to cause or contribute to the unnecessary and unreasonable discomfort of any persons within the neighborhood from which said noises emanate or which interfere with the peace and comfort of residents or their guests, or the operators or customers in places of business in the vicinity, or which may detrimentally or adversely affect such residences or places of business. (Ord (part), 2007) D. Exempt Activities 8. Construction activities when conducted as part of an approved Building Permit, except as prohibited in Subsection (E)(1) (Prohibited Activities) below E. Prohibited Activities 1. Construction Noise. Operating or causing the operation of tools or equipment on private property used in alteration, construction, demolition, drilling, or repair work daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, so that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Manteca has determined that implementation of the project would result in significant noise and vibration impacts if the project would result in any of the following: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Manteca General Plan. Specifically, exterior and interior noise levels of 60 db L dn and 45 db L dn, respectively, for residential uses exposed to transportation noise sources. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, defined as an increase of 10 db by the City of Manteca. An increase of 5 to 10 db may be considered substantial according the guidelines outlined in noise Implementation Measure N-I-3 outlined above. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project, defined as an increase of 10 db by the City of Manteca. An increase of 5 to 10 db may be considered substantial according the Chapter 4.10 Noise

284 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project guidelines outlined in noise Implementation Measure N-I-3 outlined above. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Specifically, a threshold of 0.1 in/sec p.p.v. is considered a safe criterion that would protect against architectural or structural damage and human annoyance. Per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, projects within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip could expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise and vibration levels. The proposed project is not located within two miles of an airport. Therefore, aircraft noise or vibration would not impact the proposed project and such impacts are not examined further in this Draft EIR. Method of Analysis Below are descriptions of the methodologies utilized to determine traffic noise, as well as construction noise and vibration impacts. Further modeling details and calculations are provided in the Environmental Noise Assessment (see Appendix I). The results of the noise impact analyses were compared to the standards of significance discussed above in order to determine the associated level of impact. Traffic Noise Impact Assessment Methodology To describe future noise levels due to traffic, the FHWA RD 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 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 L eq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict L dn /CNEL values, determination of the day/night distribution of traffic and adjustment of the traffic volume input data is necessary to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume. It should be noted that the Existing Plus Project conditions, as well as the Cumulative Plus Project conditions were utilized to determine the project-level impacts associated with trafficrelated noise levels. The Cumulative Plus Project condition assumes development of reasonably foreseeable land uses in the City and in adjacent jurisdictions, including pending projects, the proposed project, and buildout of the Manteca and Ripon General Plans. In addition, the Cumulative Plus Project condition assumes various planned roadway improvements in the area. As such, the Cumulative Plus Project condition would represent the maximum increases in traffic and subsequently traffic-related noise. Any noise attenuation features would need to be designed sufficient to reduce the maximum noise levels anticipated to reasonable levels. Because the maximum noise levels would occur during the Cumulative Plus Project condition, noise attenuation features would need to be designed sufficient to reduce unacceptable noise levels under Cumulative Plus Project conditions as well as Existing Plus Project conditions. Chapter 4.10 Noise

285 Construction Noise and Vibration Impact Methodology Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Construction noise and vibration was analyzed using data compiled for various pieces of construction equipment at a representative distance of 50 feet. Construction activities are discussed relative to the applicable City of Manteca noise policies. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above Transportation noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Development of the project includes the construction of approximately 706 residential units. Vehicles trips associated with operation of the project would result in changes to traffic on the existing roadway network within the project vicinity. As a result, project buildout would cause an increase in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network. To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the existing local roadway network, traffic noise levels are predicted at a representative distance for both existing and cumulative without and with project conditions. Table shows the predicted traffic noise level increases on the local roadway network for Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. Table shows the predicted traffic noise level increases on the local roadway network for Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. As shown in the tables, some noise sensitive receptors located along the project-area roadways are currently exposed to exterior traffic noise levels exceeding the City of Manteca 60 db L dn exterior noise level standard for residential uses. The receptors would continue to experience elevated exterior noise levels with implementation of the proposed project; however, the proposed project s contribution to traffic noise increases is predicted to 5.8 dba L dn, or less, which is less than the City s substantial increase criteria of 10 db. Nonetheless, the City s substantial increase criterion indicates that an increase of 5 dba or more could be considered substantial, and the following factors should be considered: the resulting noise levels; the duration and frequency of the noise; the number of people affected; the land use designation of the affected receptor sites; public reactions or controversy as demonstrated at workshops or hearings, or by correspondence; and prior CEQA determinations by other agencies specific to the project. The 5.8 db increase in noise levels is predicted on Pillsbury Road, south of Woodward Avenue. The resulting noise levels under the Existing Plus Project traffic conditions are predicted to be 55.9 dba L dn. Under the Cumulative Plus Project conditions, traffic noise levels are predicted to be 58.3 db L dn at existing receptors along the roadway segment. Chapter 4.10 Noise

286 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Noise Levels (L dn, db) at Nearest Sensitive Receptors Distance to Existing + Project Traffic Noise Contours (feet) 1 Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project Change 70 db L dn 65 db L dn 60 db L dn Atherton Dr West of Main St Atherton Dr Main St to Van Ryn Ave Atherton Dr North of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Austin Dr North of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Austin Dr South of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Austin Rd North of SR 99 Ramp Austin Rd SR 99 Ramp to Moffat Blvd Austin Rd South of Moffat Blvd Main St North of Mission Ridge Dr Main St Mission Ridge Dr to SR 120 WB Ramp Main St SR 120 EB Ramp to Atherton Dr Main St Atherton Dr to Woodward Ave S. Manteca Road South of Woodward Ave S. Manteca Road North of Raymus Expy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mission Ridge Dr West of Main St Moffat Blvd North of Spreckels Ave Moffat Blvd Woodward Ave to SR 99 SB Ramp Moffat Blvd SR 99 SB Ramp to Austin Rd Moffat Blvd East of Austin Rd Pillsbury Rd South of Woodward Ave Raymus Expy West of Main St N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy Main St to Pillsbury Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (Continued on next page) Chapter 4.10 Noise

287 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Noise Levels (L dn, db) at Nearest Sensitive Receptors Distance to Existing + Project Traffic Noise Contours (feet) 1 Roadway Segment Existing Existing + Project Change 70 db L dn 65 db L dn 60 db L dn Raymus Expy Pillsbury to Atherton Dr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy Atherton Dr to Austin Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy East of Austin Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Raymus Expy East of Austin Rd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Spreckels Ave East of Spreckels Ave Van Ryn Ave Industrial Park Dr to Woodward Ave Woodward Ave West of Main St Woodward Ave Main St to Buena Vista Dr Woodward Ave Buena Vista Dr to Van Ryn Ave Woodward Ave Van Ryn Dr to Pillsbury Rd Woodward Ave Pillsbury Dr to Atherton Dr Woodward Ave Atherton Dr to Moffat Blvd Distances to traffic noise contours are measured in feet from the centerlines of the roadways. 2 Traffic noise levels do not account for shielding from existing noise barriers or intervening structures. Traffic noise levels may vary depending on actual setback distances and localized shielding. Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Chapter 4.10 Noise

288 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Noise Levels (L dn, db) at Nearest Sensitive Receptors Distance to Cumulative + Project Cumulat Cumulative + Traffic Noise Contours (feet) 1 Roadway Segment ive Project Change 70 db L dn 65 db L dn 60 db L dn Atherton Dr West of Main St Atherton Dr Main St to Van Ryn Ave Atherton Dr North of Raymus Expy Austin Dr North of Raymus Expy Austin Dr South of Raymus Expy Austin Rd North of SR 99 Ramp Austin Rd SR 99 Ramp to Moffat Blvd Austin Rd South of Moffat Blvd Main St North of Mission Ridge Dr Main St Mission Ridge Dr to SR 120 WB Ramp Main St SR 120 EB Ramp to Atherton Dr Main St Atherton Dr to Woodward Ave S. Manteca Road South of Woodward Ave S. Manteca Road North of Raymus Expy Mission Ridge Dr West of Main St Moffat Blvd North of Spreckels Ave Moffat Blvd Woodward Ave to SR 99 SB Ramp N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Moffat Blvd SR 99 SB Ramp to Austin Rd Moffat Blvd East of Austin Rd Pillsbury Rd North of Raymus Expy Raymus Expy West of Main St Raymus Expy Main St to Pillsbury Rd (Continued on next page) Chapter 4.10 Noise

289 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Noise Levels (L dn, db) at Nearest Sensitive Receptors Distance to Cumulative + Project Cumulat Cumulative + Traffic Noise Contours (feet) 1 Roadway Segment ive Project Change 70 db L dn 65 db L dn 60 db L dn Raymus Expy Pillsbury to Atherton Dr Raymus Expy Atherton Dr to Austin Rd Raymus Expy East of Austin Rd Raymus Expy East of Austin Rd Spreckels Ave East of Spreckels Ave Van Ryn Ave Industrial Park Dr to Woodward Ave Woodward Ave West of Main St Woodward Ave Main St to Buena Vista Dr Woodward Ave Buena Vista Dr to Van Ryn Ave Woodward Ave Van Ryn Dr to Pillsbury Rd Woodward Ave Pillsbury Dr to Atherton Dr Woodward Ave Atherton Dr to Moffat Blvd Distances to traffic noise contours are measured in feet from the centerlines of the roadways. 2 Traffic noise levels do not account for shielding from existing noise barriers or intervening structures. Traffic noise levels may vary depending on actual setback distances and localized shielding. Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Chapter 4.10 Noise

290 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project The resulting traffic noise levels are not predicted to exceed 60 dba L dn at existing sensitive receptors. Therefore, the increase of 5.8 db L dn would still be considered less than significant relative to the City s substantial increase threshold. Because the proposed project would not result in exterior noise levels at existing noisesensitive residential receptors in excess of the City s 60 db L dn or a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing levels, traffic-related noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Transportation noise impacts to new sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Development of the proposed 706 residential units would introduce new sensitive receptors to the area. The new sensitive receptors could be exposed to potentially substantial exterior or interior noise levels associated with nearby transportation noise, including traffic and UPRR activity. Exterior Noise Levels The proposed project includes residential development adjacent to Woodward Avenue to the north, Atherton Drive to the east, and Pillsbury Road to the west. Cumulative Plus Project traffic noise levels were predicted at the proposed residential land uses associated with the project. Table shows the predicted traffic noise levels at the proposed residential uses adjacent to the major project-area arterial roadways. Table also indicates the property line noise barrier heights required to achieve compliance with the exterior noise level standard of 60 db L dn. The modeled noise barriers assume flat site conditions where roadway elevations, base of wall elevations, and building pad elevations are approximately equivalent. As shown in the table, a noise barrier of 6 feet in height would be required along Woodward Avenue in order to achieve compliance with the City s 60 db L dn exterior noise level standard for the proposed residential uses. In addition, a 7-foot-tall barrier would be required for the residential uses located along Atherton Drive. The proposed project site is located approximately 900 feet, or further, from the UPRR line. Based on data in Table , the UPRR line was measured to generate an exterior noise level of 71 dba L dn at a distance of 240 feet. Accordingly, railroad noise levels at the project site were predicted as presented in Table As shown in the table, railroad noise levels are predicted to exceed the City of Manteca 60 db L dn exterior noise level standards, and use of a noise barrier is warranted in order to achieve compliance with the City s standard. A 6-foot-tall noise barrier would be sufficient to reduce noise levels from railroad activity to less than 60 db L dn. Chapter 4.10 Noise

291 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Table Cumulative Plus Project Transportation Noise Levels at Proposed Residential Uses Approximate Residential 2 Predicted Noise Levels, db L dn Roadway Receptor Description Setback, feet 1 ADT No Wall 6 Wall 7 Wall 8 Wall Traffic Noise Woodward Woodword Park II - Avenue Backyards , Woodward DeJong Property - Avenue Backyards 75 11, Atherton Drive DeJong/Woodward I - Backyards 75 15, Woodward Park - Pillsbury Road Backyards 75 7, Rail Noise DeJong Backyards / First Floor Property Façade 900 Rail Setback distances are measured in feet from the centerlines of the roadways to the center of residential backyards. 2 The modeled noise barriers assume flat site conditions where roadway elevations, base of wall elevations, and building pad elevations are approximately equivalent. -- Meets the City of Manteca exterior noise standard without mitigation. Standard does not apply to second floor facades. Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, Interior Noise Levels Modern construction typically provides a 25 db exterior-to-interior noise level reduction with windows closed. Accordingly, sensitive receptors exposed to exterior noise levels of 70 db L dn or less would typically comply with the City of Manteca 45 db L dn interior noise level standard. Additional noise reduction measures, such as acoustically rated windows are generally required for exterior noise levels exceeding 70 db L dn. It should be noted that exterior noise levels are typically 2 to 3 db higher at second floor locations, and noise barriers do not reduce exterior noise levels at second floor locations. The proposed residential uses are predicted to be exposed to exterior transportation noise levels ranging between 52 to 66 db L dn on the first floor. Thus, second floor facades are predicted to be exposed to exterior noise levels of up to 55 to 69 db L dn. Based on a 25 db exterior-to-interior noise level reduction, interior noise levels are predicted to range between 30 to 44 db L dn, which would comply with the City of Manteca 45 db L dn interior noise level standard. Accordingly, interior noise mitigation would not be required for the proposed project, assuming that mechanical ventilation is provided to allow residents to keep doors and windows closed, as desired for acoustical isolation. Chapter 4.10 Noise

292 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Conclusion As discussed above, the interior noise levels expected at the proposed project site would comply with the City s interior noise level standard of 45 db L dn, provided mechanical ventilation is available to allow future residents to keep doors and windows closed. However, noise barriers would be required along Woodward Avenue and Atherton Drive in order to achieve compliance with the City s 60 db L dn exterior noise level standard for the proposed residential uses. In addition, a 6-foot-tall noise barrier would be required to reduce noise levels from railroad activity to less than the 60 db L dn standard (see Figure Noise Barrier Location). Therefore, without mechanical ventilation and implementation of noise barriers, the new sensitive receptors of the proposed project may be exposed to noise levels in excess of established standards, and impacts would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level (a) (b) (c) In conjunction with submittal of Improvement Plans, the applicant shall show on the Improvement Plans that minimum 6-foot-tall sound walls and/or landscaped berms shall be constructed along Woodward Avenue, adjacent to proposed residential uses. Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of decorative concrete masonry unit (CMU) block walls, landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The Improvement Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. In conjunction with submittal of Improvement Plans, the applicant shall show on the Improvement Plans that minimum 7-foot-tall sound walls and/or landscaped berms shall be constructed along Atherton Drive, adjacent to proposed residential uses. Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of decorative concrete masonry unit (CMU) block walls, landscaped berms, or any combination of these materials. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance. The Improvement Plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall show on the plans that mechanical ventilation shall be installed in all residential uses to allow residents to keep doors and windows closed, as desired for acoustical isolation. The plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Building Official. Chapter 4.10 Noise

293 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Figure Noise Barrier Location Source: j.c. brennan & associates, Inc., Environmental Noise Assessment, January 9, 2014 Chapter 4.10 Noise

294 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Construction noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. During the construction of the proposed project, including roads, water and sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As shown in Table , 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, as regulated by the City of Manteca. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways, such as truck traffic associated with the transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. The noise increase would be of short duration, and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours, as regulated by the City of Manteca. Table Construction Equipment Noise Type of Equipment Maximum Level, db at 50 feet Backhoe 78 Compactor 83 Compressor (air) 78 Concrete Saw 90 Dozer 82 Dump Truck 76 Excavator 81 Generator 81 Jackhammer 89 Pneumatic Tools 85 Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP January According to the City s Municipal Code, construction activities are exempt from noise regulation during the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Nonetheless, the proposed project is located adjacent to existing residences to the north and west, and activities associated with project construction could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, with maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 db at 50 feet. Therefore, construction activities would result in periods of elevated noise levels that could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level (a) Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site associated with the proposed project in any way shall adhere to the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code with Chapter 4.10 Noise

295 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project respect to hours of operations (i.e., be restricted to the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM), subject to review and approval by the City Building Official (b) Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project contractor shall ensure that all equipment to be used in the construction of the project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers and in good working order, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer Construction vibration impacts to existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading and utility placement are taking place. Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage could take the form of cosmetic or structural. Table shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment. Table Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Peak Particle 25 feet (inches/second) Peak Particle 50 feet (inches/second) Peak Particle 100 feet (inches/second) Large Bulldozer Loaded Trucks Small Bulldozer Auger/drill Rigs Jackhammer Vibratory Hammer Vibratory Compactor/roller Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May Nearby existing sensitive receptors could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers. The nearest receptors are located approximately 50 feet or further from any areas of the project site that might require grading or paving. As shown in the table, construction vibration levels anticipated for the proposed project would be less than 0.1 in/sec at 50 feet. Accordingly, construction vibration resultant of development of the proposed project would not be expected to cause architectural damage, structural damage, or human annoyance. In addition, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours, as regulated by the City of Manteca. Chapter 4.10 Noise

296 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Because construction vibrations are not predicted to cause damage to existing buildings or cause annoyance to sensitive receptors, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. Therefore, impacts related to ground borne vibration would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Cumulative noise impacts. The cumulative context for noise impacts associated with the proposed project would consist of the existing and future noise sources that could affect the project or surrounding uses. Noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and on-site activities resulting from operation of the proposed project. Table shows cumulative traffic noise levels with and without the proposed project. Traffic noise from the proposed project is not expected to increase traffic noise levels in excess of the City s 10 db increase criteria at existing sensitive receptors. Thus, as discussed above, the proposed project would not result in significant increases in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors. In addition, the new residential uses proposed for the project would be constructed to comply with the applicable City of Manteca exterior and interior noise level standards. Because the increase in noise levels associated with implementation of the proposed project would be below the normally perceptible range and below the City s applicable thresholds of significance, the total noise increase associated with the proposed project would be considered small incremental increases to the existing and future noise environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to have a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the surrounding noise environment, and the cumulative noise impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.10 Noise

297 Draft EIR South of Woodward Avenue Project Endnotes 1 j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Environmental Noise Assessment South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) Project. January 9, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, Chapter 4.10 Noise

298 4.11. PUBLIC SERVICES and UTILITIES

299 4.11 PUBLIC SERVICES and UTILITIES Introduction The Public Services and Utilities chapter of the Draft EIR describes the public service systems and facilities within the project area and the potential impacts to these service and utilities resulting from the South of Woodward Avenue project (proposed project). Information for this chapter is based upon the Manteca General Plan, 1 the Manteca General Plan EIR, 2 the Manteca Municipal Services Review, 3 the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations), 4 the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the proposed project by West Yost Associates (see Appendix J), 5 the Manteca Wastewater Collection System Master Plan 2013, 6 as well as other agency documents and information from local service providers Existing Environmental Setting The environmental setting section describes the existing public services and utilities serving the project area, including the water system, wastewater conveyance and treatment, solid waste, fire protection facilities, law enforcement services, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and gas and electricity/telephone/cable. Water System It should be noted that the City of Manteca is currently in the process of preparing an update to the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). As part of the UWMP update, the City is evaluating the per capita water demand as required by SB X7-7, the Water Conservation Act of 2009, and the anticipated lower future growth rate. The City of Manteca currently has two water sources - surface water and groundwater. The City participates in the South County Surface Water Supply project for surface water, and operates and maintains a system of groundwater wells. In 2007, the City s total water demand was 15,880 acre-feet (AF) for a service area population of approximately 65,076, which equates to an average consumption of 218 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). In 2007 the groundwater system supplied the City with approximately 59 percent of the total water supply needs; surface water supplied the remaining 41 percent. The ultimate conjunctive use goal for the City is for surface water to provide 53 percent of the water demand and groundwater to provide 47 percent of the water demand. Groundwater According to the Manteca Municipal Services Review, the City operates a system of wells interconnected with a transmission/distribution pipe system. Manteca s groundwater supply is pumped from groundwater resources, which consist of 38 square miles of the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin, a sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

300 Sixteen (16) operating wells exist within the City with a peak pumping capacity of 25,010 gallons per minute. The maximum annual groundwater extraction capacity is 13,790 acre-feet for the 10-Year Planning Horizon. Well depths range from 155 feet to 400 feet, and individual capacities of the operating wells range from 380 gpm to 2,500 gpm. The City has abandoned nine wells over time due to age and water quality problems, but has added new wells to maintain the supply. The groundwater supply is indirectly affected by annual rainfall, and a multiple-year drought could decrease groundwater supplies. Despite this possibility, groundwater supplies have been available at a consistent level. The long-term objectives of the City are to reduce groundwater use to the safe aquifer yield of 1 acre-foot per acre per year or 13,790 acre-feet per year for the 10-Year Planning Horizon. Quality In general, groundwater quality throughout the region is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses with only local impairments. The primary constituents of concern are Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), nitrate, boron, chloride, arsenic, and organic compounds. 7 According to the 2006 Update, the majority of the groundwater in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is characterized by calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate- or calcium-sodiumbicarbonate-type water. Large areas of chloride-type water are located along the western portion of the subbasin. Water quality samples were taken from 174 wells in the subbasin. The results showed that the TDS ranged from 30 to 1,632 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and averaged about 310 mg/l. Specific conductance or electromagnetic conductivity (EC) in the groundwater ranged from 78 to 5,390 micromhos per centimeter (μmhos/cm). Some of the highest EC values were found along the western part of the subbasin along the San Joaquin River alignment. Areas of high TDS content are primarily along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in the trough of the valley. The high TDS content of west-side groundwater is due to recharge of streamflow originating from marine sediments in the Coast Range. High TDS content in the trough of the valley is the result of concentration of salts due to evaporation and poor drainage. Nitrates may occur naturally or as a result of disposal of human and animal waste products and fertilizer. Boron and chloride are likely a result of concentration from evaporation near the valley trough. Organic contaminants could be broken into two categories, agricultural and industrial. Agricultural pesticides and herbicides have been detected in groundwater throughout the region, but primarily along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley where soil permeability is higher and depth-to-groundwater is shallower. The most notable agricultural contaminant is dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a now-banned soil fumigant and known carcinogen once used extensively on grapes and cotton. Industrial organic contaminants include trichloroethylene (TCE), dichloroethylene (DCE), and other solvents; they are found in groundwater near airports, industrial areas, and landfills. It should be noted that changes in water quality standards have the potential to reduce groundwater available to the City. The Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic was lowered from 50 ug/l to 10 ug/l in The State of California is also evaluating the arsenic MCL, which could be lower than the Federal MCL. The revised arsenic MCL became effective in Eleven (11) of the City wells exceed the revised Federal arsenic MCL, with Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

301 concentrations ranging from 12 to 19 ug/l. Manteca has installed arsenic treatment at five wells and plans to install arsenic treatment at the remaining six wells by Nitrate in local groundwater also has the potential to reduce the amount of groundwater available to the City. Three (3) City wells exceeded the nitrate MCL in The affected wells were shut down until the elevated nitrate problem was resolved. Well modifications were completed at two (2) wells in 2008 and restored 3,500 gpm of the lost production capacity. A water blending project would be completed in 2010 that would restore an additional 1,100 gpm of lost production capacity. Water Conservation The San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District adopted a groundwater management plan for San Joaquin County in 2004, which includes much of the East San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin (ESJCGB). The City of Manteca participated in the development of the groundwater management plan. A major objective of the groundwater management plan is to stabilize the groundwater level in the central and eastern portions of the basin. The City of Manteca plans to manage groundwater use to meet the safe aquifer yield for the area, which has been estimated at one acre-ft/acre/year. Historically, Manteca has been extracting groundwater at a rate of 2.4 acre-ft/acre/year. Both the Water Master Plan and the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) recognize the overdraft in the basin. To reduce Manteca s overdraft, the City obtained surface water from the South County Water Supply Project in the The City began reducing groundwater extraction to the safe aquifer yield when the surface water became available. Surface Water Manteca has a long-term contract with the South San Joaquin Irrigation District for the South County Surface Water Supply Project. The contract, which commenced on October 1, 1995, continues to December 31, The South County Surface Water Supply turnouts are located in the northern and western parts of the community. Turnouts are structures that bring treated surface waters through the South San Joaquin Irrigation District lines into the City s water distribution system. The two Manteca turnouts each have a 1 million gallon (MG) storage tank, with a booster pump station capable of pumping up to 4,270 gpm. The City is contracted to receive up to 11,500 acre-feet of water under Phase 1 of the SSJID project. Phase 2 is planned to provide up to 18,500 acre-feet to the City, but the timing of Phase 2 has not been defined. 8 Quality Generally, surface water quality in Manteca s boundaries is considered sufficient for municipal and agricultural activities, wildlife, and recreation; however, the San Joaquin and Stanislaus Rivers that surround Manteca are listed as impaired according to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA Section 303(d) establishes the total maximum daily load (TMDL) Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

302 process to assist in guiding the application of state water quality standards, requiring states to identify streams with impaired water quality (those affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and establish the TMDL or the maximum quantity of a particular constituent that a water body could assimilate without experiencing adverse effects. The San Joaquin River from the Merced River to the south Delta boundary (the reach that passes to the west of Manteca) is 303(d) listed for boron, DDT, electrical conductivity, Group A pesticides, mercury, and unknown toxicity. Total Water Supply For water supply planning purposes, the quantity of water that could be reliably obtained from both the groundwater and surface water sources is necessary to be identified. The quantity of water available from an individual water supply would vary over a given period depending on numerous factors, such as rainfall, regulatory limitations and contractual agreements with water contractors. According to the WSA prepared for the proposed project, the future projected water supply for the City of Manteca is presented in Table The 2005 UWMP showed a slight water supply deficit by the year However, it should be noted that water demand projection included in the City s 2005 UWMP did not include the impacts of the implementation of the City s water conservation plan or compliance with SB X7-7, as the law was promulgated after adoption of the 2005 UWMP. In addition, the rate of future growth used for the projection was likely overestimated. The proposed project s potable water demand is not specifically named in the 2005 UWMP. Based on updated information, including revised population projections, the City s estimated water demand projections included in the WSA are presented in Table below. Existing Transmission and Distribution System The City s existing water distribution system consists of a buried network of pipelines ranging from 1- to 6 -inch pipelines in the older parts of the City to 8- to 12-inch and 16-inch diameter pipes in the newer areas. The distribution system conveys water from the sources to customers and must provide capacity to meet all domestic, industrial, irrigation, and fire suppression demands. Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment The Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF) is a 9.87 million gallons per day (mgd) rated, combined biofilter-activated sludge plant. Secondary effluent is land-applied during the spring and summer period and tertiary treated effluent is discharged to the San Joaquin River during the winter (October March). Dried sludge is sent to a landfill. The WQCF serves commercial, industrial, and residential properties in Manteca (8.42 mgd) and the City of Lathrop (1.45 mgd), as well as Raymus Village (302 units) in San Joaquin County. The existing WQCF could ultimately be expanded to treat 23 mgd. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

303 Table City of Manteca Projected Water Supply Available Water Supply Normal Year, ac-ft/yr Single-Dry Year Drought, ac-ft/yr Multiple-Dry Year Drought, ac-ft/yr Year Surface Surface Surface Groundwater Groundwater Groundwater Water Total Water Total Water Pumping Deliveries 1 Pumping Deliveries 1 Pumping Deliveries 1 Total ,790 9,155 22,945 13,790 9,054 22,844 13,790 7,837 21, ,790 9,637 23,427 13,790 9,444 23,234 13,790 8,172 21, ,790 11,391 25,181 13,790 11,391 21,815 13,790 9,990 23, ,790 11,500 25,290 13,790 11,500 25,290 13,790 10,523 24, ,790 11,500 25,290 13,790 11,500 25,290 13,790 10,523 24,313 Note: 1. SCWSP deliveries to the City of Manteca. Source: West Yost Associates, Table City of Manteca Projected Water Demand Based on Per Capita Water Demand Year Projected Populations Projected Water Demand (AFY) ,284 16, ,471 16, ,410 18, ,766 20, ,010 22,430 Source: West Yost Associates, Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

304 The overall collection sewer strategy consists of a combination trunk sewer gravity collection system with pump or lift stations located along the alignment to convey wastewater to an influent pump station located at the City WQCF. Per the City s 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, the City of Manteca and overall General Plan Study Area are divided into three sewer sheds, referred to as collection strategies. The North Manteca Collection Strategy (NMCS) and South Manteca Collection Strategy (SMCS) collect flow from areas where future growth is expected. The Central Manteca Collection Strategy (CMCS) connects the existing collection system to the NMCS. The proposed project site is located in the SMCS as seen in Figure South Manteca Collection Strategy The backbone of the SMCS is the South Manteca Trunk Sewer (SMTS) along Woodward Avenue. A Woodward Avenue alignment accommodates near-term growth in South Manteca and does not require obtaining additional right-of way. The construction of a deep sewer along Woodward Avenue allows for future abandonment of Woodward Park Pump Station and would accommodate development while minimizing construction of infrastructure in South Manteca. Several sections of the SMCS have been constructed or designed in preparation for construction. Phasing of SMCS Improvements Phased construction of the SMCS network would occur as development in the SMCS progresses. The 2012 Collection System Master Plan identifies phased improvements based on trigger flows (i.e, point at which flows require improvements to the SMCS system). The phased improvements are as follows (see Figure ): Phase 1 Upgrade Woodward Park Pump Station Upgrade Tarra Park Pump Station (Stage 1) Phase 2 Upgrade Tarra Park Pump Station (Stage 2) Phase 3 Construct Links 1-5; Existing 12-inch Woodward Force Main (pressure) limiting component Construct Links 1-5; Existing 18-inch Woodward Force Main (velocity) limiting component Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

305 Figure Proposed South Manteca Trunk Sewer Alignment DRAFT EIR Project Site N Source: City of Manteca. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. January Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

306 Figure Proposed South Manteca Collection Strategy Phasing Project Site N Source: City of Manteca. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. January 2013 Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

307 Phase 4 Construct Link 27S (force main) Construct South Main Lift Station, Link 22S1, Link 22S2, and Link 22S Most SMCS components (links, force mains, pump stations, and lift stations) would be constructed as needed to serve their respective service areas. However, construction of certain components of the SMCS would be required as development progresses and increases wastewater flow in the collection system. 9 Wastewater Treatment Plant Permitting and Capacity The original facility was built in 1959 and consisted solely of an oxidation pond. The facility has undergone three expansions. In 1970 the facility was expanded to include the construction of preliminary and primary treatment facilities and aerobic sludge digestion and in the facility was expanded to a capacity of 5.45 mgd. In the facility added a primary sedimentation basin, secondary clarifier, and four sludge drying beds, increasing the facility capacity to 6.95 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF). In 2001, work began on the Phase III expansion project which has increased the facility to the current design capacity of 9.87 mgd (ADWF). The plant currently treats approximately 6.5 mgd from the City of Manteca, City of Lathrop, and Raymus Village. It should be noted that the plant s capacity is expected to increase from 9.87 mgd to approximately 17.5 mgd with completion of Phase IV of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade process. The increase would serve a population of approximately 130,000, as well as commercial and industrial users, which would be well within the capacity needed for the projected 2018 population (approximately 99,000). The CEQA review of the Master Plan for Phase IV of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade process has been completed and the City has received approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to discharge up to 17.5 mgd, but Phase IV has been postponed indefinitely, as the current capacity of the plant is expected to adequately serve the City for many years. Phase III could serve the City up to a population level of 82,000. Finally, Phase V would serve a population of 145,000 in 2028 and beyond. Funding for the project would be a combination of User Service Charges, Development Impact Mitigation Fees, Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANS), a Low Interest State Revolving Loan, or some other form of public debt instrument. Wastewater Disposal and Reuse Undisinfected secondary effluent is used to irrigate approximately 160 acres of City-owned land surrounding the plant. Flows in excess of crop demands are tertiary-treated, disinfected, and discharged to the San Joaquin River. Anaerobically digested sludge is dewatered, dried, stored on-site, and then transported to a local landfill. Recycled water is an important factor for the City of Manteca meeting water demands in the future. The City has evaluated treating and distributing recycled water for irrigation of City parks and other open spaces to offset current use of potable water supplies. The City of Manteca anticipates delivery of up to 2,500 acre-feet a year of recycled water to offset the demand by year Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

308 Solid Waste The City s Solid Waste Division collects solid and green waste throughout Manteca and deposits the waste at the Forward Landfill on South Austin Road. The landfill has a closure date of 2053 and a remaining capacity of 1,000,000 cubic yards. 11 Recyclables are taken to a mini transfer station adjacent to the Forward Landfill, where they are put into transfer trucks and hauled to Sacramento Recycling in Sacramento. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The South of Woodward Avenue Project area is currently served by the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District. Upon annexation of the proposed project area into the City of Manteca, the Manteca Fire Department would take responsibility for providing fire service and emergency medical response for the proposed project area. As a result, the project includes detachment from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District, which requires San Joaquin County LAFCO approval. The Manteca Fire Department (MFD) is responsible for the provision of fire service and emergency medical response for the City of Manteca. The MFD serves approximately 71,000 residents throughout approximately 17.7 square miles within the City limits, as well as an additional 9.4 square mile area outside the City limits within the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Manteca s 10-Year Planning Horizon. The MFD operates out of four fire stations within the City limits. The MFD does have a fifth fire station planned for the vacant parcel located northwest of the intersection of Atherton Drive and Woodward Avenue. When completed, this new MFD station would serve the proposed project. The MFD s response time objective is to be on-scene within five minutes of dispatch. As shown in Table , the two existing MFD stations that would serve the project site are Station 241, located at 290 S. Powers Avenue, and Station 242, which is located at 1154 S. Union Road. Fire training and emergency medical services are managed out of Station 241. Station 242 serves as the Fire Department headquarters and the Fire Prevention Bureau. Station 242 is also an operating fire house with first line fire suppression equipment. Table MFD Facilities That Would Serve the Project Site No. Location Apparatus Distance to Proposed Project Site S. Powers Avenue Engine 241 and Rescue miles S. Union Road (Headquarters) Engine 242 and Truck miles Source: City of Manteca Fire Department website. January 2014 Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

309 Organization and Staffing The MFD is organized into the following three divisions: Administration, Operations, and the Fire Prevention Bureau. MFD is staffed by 36 fire fighters, 3 battalion chiefs and 1 fire chief. Each engine company and truck company is staffed with a minimum of three firefighters, which helps provide for an effective workforce of 15 firefighters responding for all structure fires. 12 Administration Division The Administration Division provides for and manages several important functions of the MFD including personnel, communications/dispatch, policies and procedures, recruitment and emergency planning. Operations Division The Operations Division is responsible for responding to emergencies including fires, hazardous materials releases, and treating the sick and injured. All Operations Division Personnel, including the Shift Commanders work a 56-hour workweek and 48 hour shifts. Through an agreement with the City of Stockton Fire Dispatch Center, the MFD receives 911 requests for service from Stockton Fire. Comprehensive mutual and automatic aid agreements with the Lathrop-Manteca Fire District and other surrounding fire agencies, as well as the State of California, allows the MFD to receive and provide emergency response resources to surrounding jurisdictions and throughout the State. Fire Prevention Bureau The Fire Prevention Bureau administers and enforces local, State and national fire and life safety codes. The bureau s responsibilities include a wide range of activities and programs including fire inspections, re-inspections, land development project reviews, fire code developments, fire sprinkler and alarm system plan reviews, new business license inspections, fire code permit inspections, vegetation management and weed abatement programs, public education, hazardous materials inspections providing awareness and identification for businesses. Insurance Services Office Rating The Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification Program currently rates the Manteca Fire Department as a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the highest possible protection rating and 10 being the lowest. The ISO rating measures individual fire protection agencies against a Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, which includes such criteria as facilities and support for handling and dispatching fire alarms, first-alarm response and initial attack, and adequacy of local water supply for fire-suppression purposes. The ISO ratings are used to establish fire insurance premiums. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

310 Manteca Ambulance Service The Manteca District Ambulance Service (MDAS) covers a 100 square mile area and has two stations. One of the stations is located in the City of Lathrop and the other station is located within the City of Manteca. The MDAS has 36 employees and eight ambulances. Two 24-hour ambulances and one 12-hour ambulance respond out of the Manteca station 24/7. One 24-hour ambulance responds out of the Lathrop station 24/7. The MDAS has mutual aid agreements with the cities of Ripon, Tracy, and Escalon. The MDAS has 20 paramedics and 16 emergency medical technicians (EMTs). The MDAS is the exclusive ambulance service within the City of Manteca. Law Enforcement The South of Woodward Avenue Project area is currently served by the San Joaquin County Sheriff s Department, which is located in French Camp, approximately 8 miles northwest of Manteca. Upon annexation of the proposed project area into the City of Manteca, the Manteca Police Department (MPD), would take responsibility for providing law enforcement services for the proposed project area. The MPD operates out of the headquarters located at 1001 W. Center Street. The MPD currently has 94 sworn and non-sworn personnel, 63 sworn officers including command staff and 31 non-sworn including both full time and part time administrators, public safety dispatchers, community services officers, animal services, records clerks, custody officers, and a records supervisor. 13 The Department divides calls for service into three categories: Priority 1 calls are defined as life threatening situations. Priority 2 calls are not life threatening, but require immediate response. Priority 3 calls cover all other calls received by the police. Currently the average response times for the MPD during 2013 (January through November) are 4:46 minutes for Priority 1 calls (an increase of 0:35 seconds from 2012), 18:06 minutes for Priority 2 calls (a decrease of 1:03 minutes from 2012), and 37:30 minutes for Priority 3 calls (an increase of 0:20 seconds from 2012). Schools The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as: 1.) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I; 2.) Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and 3.) DeJong Property (see Figure 3-2, Project Location Map). Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I is currently located within the Ripon Unified School District boundary and both the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and the DeJong Property are currently located within the Manteca Unified School District boundary. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

311 Ripon Unified School District The Ripon Unified School District (RUSD) serves 3,238 students in grades K-12 and contains one high school (9-12), and five elementary schools (K-8). 14 Ripon High School is located 9 miles southeast of the proposed project site. The closest elementary school to the project area is Weston Elementary, located 8.4 miles southeast of the proposed project site. The RUSD currently exceeds the State Standard Enrollment Capacity; however, current enrollment within the District does not exceed the Local Standard Capacity set by the District for its school, as shown in Table A shown in Table , the RUSD has available capacity for 781 K-8 students and students, if compared to local standard capacity. 15 RUSD currently has school impact fees for residential units of $3.20 per square foot. 16 Table Ripon Unified School District Enrollment & Capacity by Facility School Facility Current Enrollment Local Standard Capacity K-8 School 2,161 2, School 920 1,150 Source: RUSD. Local and State Loading Standard, by School Site. January 17, The RUSD student generation rates per household are shown in Table Table Ripon Unified School District Student Generation Rates School Levels Student Generation Factor per Household K Source: RUSD. Developer Fee Justification Document for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development Projects. May Manteca Unified School District The Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) serves 23,235 students in grades K-12 and contains three high schools, twenty elementary schools, one adult education school, and two continuation high schools. 17 The closest high school to the project area is Manteca High, located approximately 2.5 miles north of the proposed project site. The closest elementary school to the project area is Woodward Elementary, located approximately 0.75 miles west of the proposed project site. All of the schools within the MUSD are illustrated in Figure As shown in Table , the MUSD school facilities are operating under capacity by 3,780 students, the MUSD has available capacity for 18,904 K-8 students and 8, students as seen in Table MUSD currently has school impact fees for residential units of $3.20 per square foot. 18 Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

312 Figure Existing Schools and Parks within Manteca DRAFT EIR Proposed Project Site Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

313 Table Manteca Unified School District Enrollment & Capacity by Facility School Facility Current Enrollment Facility Capacity K-8 School 15,945 18, School 7,290 8,111 Source: MUSD. Draft Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. February The MUSD student generation rates per household are shown in Table Table Manteca Unified School District Student Generation Rates School Levels Student Generation Factor per Household K-8 School School Source: MUSD. Draft Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. February Parks and Recreation Facilities Twenty eight (28) neighborhood parks and five community parks are distributed throughout the City, consisting of 275 acres of parkland, the Tidewater Bikeway, a skate park, and a senior center. The Manteca Parks and Recreation Department also supervises the operation of an 18- hole municipal golf course as well as library services. Many parks are co-located with a small detention basin that serves a particular neighborhood. Consequently, the parks typically are located within easy walking distance for local residents. The City has a service standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In addition, the Big League Dreams (BLD) Sports Park project is a City-owned recreational sports complex that includes six softball/baseball fields, one covered sports pavilion, two Stadium Club restaurants, one snack bar, one maintenance building and yard, an eight-station batting cage, two playgrounds, and 600 vehicle parking spaces. The BLD project is located north of SR 120, approximately 0.25 mile west of Airport Way. The closest existing neighborhood park facility to the proposed project area is Tesoro Park, located at 1399 Tesoro Drive, just north of the project site in the Tesoro Estates residential subdivision. Tesoro Park is 9.5 acres in size and has picnic tables, barbeques, play equipment, and a tot lot. Woodward Park is a community/specialty park located at 710 E. Woodward Avenue, just 0.50 miles west of the project site. Woodward Park is over 50 acres in size and has picnic tables, barbecues, play equipment, tot lot, basketball courts, restrooms, and sports fields. 19 The Manteca Parks and Recreation Department also supervises the operation of library services for the City. The Manteca Public Library is integrated in the Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library System. The Manteca Branch Library is located at 320 W. Center Street in downtown Manteca and operates 6 days a week (Monday through Saturday). The library was constructed in 1961 and is a 14,396-square-foot facility. The Library is the information and learning center for the City of Manteca, and a service area that includes outlying unincorporated County areas. Part of the Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library, the Manteca Branch is Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

314 one of the libraries serving the southern end of San Joaquin County. The Library is a current depository for local government documents and ordinances. Gas and Electricity/Telephone/Cable Electricity and natural gas in Manteca are supplied by PG&E, a private corporation. PG&E is a San Francisco based, private company, publicly regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and provides electricity and natural gas to the majority of Northern California. PG&E has ample resources to meet a wide range of projected growth; however, when the time comes, additional improvements to the facilities may be required to meet future growth demands. PG&E currently owns and operates electricity and natural-gas infrastructure within Manteca. Infrastructure generally is located in roadway rights-of-way. The Manteca General Plan stipulates that utility lines be undergrounded in new development and redeveloped areas. Telephone services in Manteca are provided by Verizon. The existing community is equipped with fiber optic lines. Cable television services, as well as broadband Internet services, are provided by AT&T Broadband. Internet services are provided through dial-up connections, ISDN, cable, and satellite services via a number of providers. Infrastructure is located generally in roadway rights-of-way. The Manteca General Plan stipulates that utility lines be undergrounded in new development and redeveloped areas REGULATORY SETTING Existing public services and utilities policies, laws, and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below. Federal Regulations Clean Water Act (CWA) / National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits (NPDES) The CWA is the cornerstone of water quality protection in the United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and nonregulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutants discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation s waters so that they could support the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. The CWA regulates discharges from non-point source and traditional point source facilities, such as municipal sewage plants and industrial facilities. The CWA makes it illegal to discharge pollutants from a point source to the waters of the United States. Section 402 of the Act creates the NPDES regulatory program. Point sources must obtain a discharge permit from the proper authority. NPDES permits cover industrial and municipal discharges, discharges from storm sewer systems in larger cities, storm water associated with numerous kinds of industrial activity, runoff from construction sites disturbing more than one acre, mining operations, and animal feedlots and aquaculture facilities above certain thresholds. All so-called "indirect" dischargers are not required to obtain NPDES permits. An indirect discharger is one that sends wastewater Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

315 into a city sewer system, and eventually goes to a sewage treatment plant. Though not regulated under NPDES, "indirect" discharges are covered by another CWA program, called pretreatment. "Indirect" dischargers send their wastewater into a city sewer system, which carries the wastewater to the municipal sewage treatment plant, through which the wastewater passes before entering surface water. Permit requirements for treatment are expressed as end-of-pipe conditions. The set of numbers reflects levels of three key parameters: (1) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), (2) total suspended solids (TSS), and (3) ph acid/base balance. The levels could be achieved by well-operated sewage plants employing "secondary" treatment. Primary treatment involves screening and settling, while secondary treatment uses biological treatment in the form of "activated sludge." National Pretreatment Program The National Pretreatment Program is a cooperative effort of federal, State, and local regulatory environmental agencies established to protect water quality. The program is designed to reduce the level of pollutants discharged by industry and other non-domestic wastewater sources into municipal sewer systems and thereby reduce the amount of pollutants released into the environment through wastewater. The objectives of the program are to protect the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) from pollutants that may interfere with plant operation, to prevent pollutants that may pass through untreated from being introduced into the POTW, and to improve opportunities for the POTW to reuse wastewater and sludges that are generated. The term "pretreatment" refers to the requirement that non-domestic sources discharging wastewater to POTWs control their discharges, and meet limits established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state or local authority on the amount of pollutants allowed to be discharged. The control of the pollutants may necessitate treatment prior to discharge to the POTW (therefore the term "pretreatment"). Limits may be met by the nondomestic source through pollution prevention techniques (product substitution recycle and reuse of materials) or treatment of the wastewater. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) The Federal SDWA, which was enacted in 1974, gives the EPA the authority to set standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. The SDWA was amended in 1986 and amended and reauthorized in For each of the 83 contaminants listed in the SDWA, the EPA sets a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique for contaminants in drinking water. State Regulations Water Urban Water Management Planning Act In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code Sections ). The Act requires that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually shall prepare and adopt an UWMP. The Act states that urban water suppliers shall make every effort Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

316 to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in their water service sufficient to meet the needs of the various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Act also states that the management of urban water demands and the efficient use of water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the State and their water resources. The latest UWMP prepared for the City of Manteca was in The South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) completed an UWMP in August of State Water Resources Control Board The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) manages all water rights and water quality issues in California under the terms of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (1969). The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has been granted primary enforcement responsibility for the SDWA (see above). Title 22 of the California Administrative Code establishes DHS authority and stipulates drinking water quality and monitoring standards. The standards are equal to or more stringent than the federal standards. Senate Bill X7-7 Senate Bill X7-7 was enacted on November 9, 2009 mandating water conservation targets and efficiency improvements for urban and agricultural water suppliers. The bill also requires, among other things, that the Department of Water Resources (DWR), in consultation with other State agencies, develop a single standardized water use reporting form, which would be used by both urban and agricultural water agencies. The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20 percent by December 31, The State shall make incremental progress towards this goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10 percent by December 31, Senate Bill 610 The California Water Code requires coordination between land use lead agencies and public water purveyors. The purpose of this coordination is to ensure that prudent water supply planning has been conducted and that planned water supplies are adequate to meet both existing demands and the demands of planned development. Water Code Sections (inclusive), sometimes referred to as SB 610, require land use lead agencies: 1) to identify the responsible public water purveyor for a proposed development project, and 2) to request from the responsible purveyor, a WSA. The purposes of the WSA are (a) to describe the sufficiency of the purveyors water supplies to satisfy the water demands of the proposed development project, while still meeting the current and projected water demands of customers, and, (b) in the absence of a currently sufficient supply to describe the purveyor s plans for acquiring additional water. Water Code Sections delineate the specific information that must be included in the WSA. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

317 According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15155, a water-demand project means: (A) A residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (B) A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. (C) A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. (D) A hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (E) An industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. (F) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in subdivisions (a)(1)(a), (a)(1)(b), (a)(1)(c), (a)(1)(d), (a)(1)(e), and (a)(1)(g) of this section. (G) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. (H) For public water systems with fewer than 5,000 service connections, a project that meets the following criteria: 1. A proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of a public water system's existing service connections; or 2. A mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. The South of Woodward Avenue Project meets criterion (A). California Integrated Waste Management Act To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995 and 50 percent by January 1, Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city s AB 939 plan would be integrated with the County plan. In order of priority, the plans must promote source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal. Fire Services Uniform Fire Code The Uniform Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

318 and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety. California Health and Safety Code State fire regulations are set forth in Sections et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, including regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training. Schools Proposition 1A/Senate Bill 50 Proposition 1A/Senate Bill (SB) 50 (Chapter 407, Statutes of 1998) is a school construction measure authorizing the expenditure of State bonds totaling $9.2 billion through 2002, primarily for modernization and rehabilitation of older school facilities and construction of new school facilities. $2.5 billion is for higher education facilities and $6.7 billion is for K-12 facilities. Proposition 1A/SB 50 implemented significant fee reforms by amending the laws governing developer fees and school mitigation: Establishes the base (statutory) amount (indexed for inflation) of allowable developer fees at $1.93 per square foot for residential construction and $0.31 per square foot for commercial construction. Prohibits school districts, cities, and counties from imposing school impact mitigation fees or other requirements in excess of or in addition to those provided in the statute. Suspends for a period of at least eight years (2006) a series of court decisions allowing cities and counties to deny or condition development approvals on grounds of inadequate school facilities when acting on certain types of entitlements. Proposition 1A/SB 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any [ ] legislative or adjudicative act [ ] involving [ ] the planning, use, or development of real property. (Government Code 65996[b]) Additionally, a local agency cannot require participation in a Mello-Roos for school facilities; however, the statutory fee is reduced by the amount of any voluntary participation in a Mello- Roos. Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be full and complete mitigation. The law identifies certain circumstances under which the statutory fee can be exceeded, including preparation and adoption of a needs analysis, eligibility for State funding, and satisfaction of two of four requirements (post-january 1, 2000) identified in the law including year-round enrollment, general obligation bond measure on the ballot over the last four years that received 50 percent plus one of the votes cast, 20 percent of the classes in portable classrooms, or specified outstanding debt. Assuming a district qualifies for exceeding the statutory fee, the law establishes ultimate fee caps of 50 percent of costs where the State makes a 50 percent match, or 100 percent of costs where the State match is unavailable. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

319 District certification of payment of the applicable fee is required before the City or County can issue the building permit. Proposition 55 Proposition 55 is a school construction measure passed in 2004 authorizing the sale of approximately $12.3 billion in bonds to fund qualified K-12 education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older schools. Funds target areas of the greatest need and must be spent according to strict accountability measures. These bonds would be used only for eligible projects. Approximately ten billion dollars would be allocated to K-12 schools, with the remaining 2.3 billion allocated to higher education facilities. Local Regulations Manteca General Plan The following policies in the Manteca General Plan are applicable to the public services and utilities of the proposed project. Water Supply Goal PF-7 Maintain an adequate level of service in the City s water system to meet the needs of existing and projected development. Policy PF-P-4 Policy PF-P-5 Policy PF-P-6 Policy PF-P-7 Policy PF-P-11 Policy PF-P-12 Secure sufficient sources of water to meet the needs of the existing community and planned residential and commercial growth. City will continue to rely principally on groundwater resources for its municipal water in the near term, will participate in the regional improvements to deliver surface water to augment the City's groundwater supply. The City shall develop new water sources as necessary to serve new development. The City shall develop new water storage facilities and major distribution lines as necessary to serve new development. The City will develop and implement water conservation measures as necessary elements of the water system. The City shall continue to assess a water development fee on all new commercial, industrial, and residential development sufficient to fund systemwide capacity Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

320 improvements. The water development fee schedule shall be periodically reviewed and revised as necessary. Policy PF-P-13 Policy PF-P-14 Policy PF-P-15 Policy PF-P-17 Ensure that all new development provides for and funds a fair share of the costs for adequate water distribution, including line extensions, easements, and plant expansions. The City shall continuously monitor water flows through the City s water system to identify areas of potential water loss and cases of under billing for water service and shall make improvements in the systems as necessary. The City shall monitor water quality regularly and take necessary measures to prevent contamination. The City of Manteca shall consider incremental increases in the demands on groundwater supply and water quality when reviewing development applications. Wastewater Goal PF-8 Maintain an adequate level of service in the City s sewage collection and disposal system to meet the needs of existing and projected development. Policy PF-P-18 Policy PF-P-19 Policy PF-P-20 Policy PF-P-24 Policy PF-P-25 Ensure wastewater collection and treatment for all development in the City and the safe disposal of wastes. The City will maintain capacity to process combined residential, commercial, and industrial flow. The City shall develop new sewage treatment and trunk line capacity as necessary to serve new development. Ensure that all new development provides for and funds a fair share of the costs for adequate sewer distribution, including line extensions, easements, and plant expansions. The City will maintain the ability to handle peak discharge flow while meeting State Regional Water Quality Control Board standards as established in the current NPDES Permit. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

321 Solid Waste Goal PF-12 Maintain efficient, effective and economical solid waste services for the residents, businesses and visitors to Manteca. Policy PF-P-31 Policy PF-P-32 The City will implement and enforce the provisions of its Source Reduction and Recycling Element. The City shall support the continued use of the Lovelace Transfer Station on Lovelace Road, between Union Road and Airport Way, for the processing and shipping of solid waste materials. Fire Protection Policy PF-P-42 Policy PF-P-43 The City shall endeavor to maintain an overall fire insurance (ISO) rating of 4 or better. The City shall endeavor through adequate staffing and station locations to maintain the minimum feasible response time for fire and emergency calls. Law Enforcement Policy PF-P-39 The City shall endeavor through adequate staffing and patrol arrangements to maintain the minimum feasible police response times for police calls. Education Goal PF-13 Maintain sufficient land inventory so that the Manteca Unified School District can provide for the educational needs of Manteca residents. Policy PF-P-33 Policy PF-P-34 The City shall cooperate with the Manteca Unified School District and others in locating and reserving appropriate sites for new neighborhood walking distance schools. Adequate facilities shall be planned to accommodate new residential development and endeavor to create neighborhood schools. The City shall cooperate with the Manteca Unified School District in their collection of school facility development fees from new development. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

322 Parks and Recreation Goal PF-14 Establish and maintain a park system and recreation facilities that support economic development and residential growth in the City. Policy PF-P-49 Policy PF-P-53 Policy PF-P-54 City park acquisition and development efforts shall be based on a goal of 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents within the city limits. The distribution of land between neighborhood and community parks shall be determined within the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. All new residential development will be required to pay a park acquisition and improvement fee, based on providing 5 acres per 1,000 residents, to fund system-wide improvements. The City shall require the provision of private open space and recreational facilities as part of new residential developments. Library Services Policy ED-I-27 Encourage efforts to provide learning opportunities for all residents by providing modern library resources and programs. Electricity Goal PF-10 The City shall ensure adequate, reliable electric service is available to all users in the City. Policy PF-P-29 Ensure that reliable, adequate electric service is available to all users in the City. Manteca Municipal Code The following Growth Management Ordinance in the Manteca Municipal Code is applicable to the utilities of the proposed project Except as otherwise provided herein, all proposed residential, commercial, industrial and other development projects in the city shall first secure a project allocation before a building permit for such development can be issued. Such project allocation shall not be granted until a development project has received approval by the city council of a tentative map, parcel map, site plan, or a development agreement. The project allocation process shall involve both: Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

323 San Joaquin County LAFCO A. The sewer allocation system (as set forth in this chapter and in subsequent city council action) which shall determine the amount of phase three sewage capacity available to each type of development; and B. The point rating system, to be established by subsequent city council action, which shall establish a mechanism by which to evaluate specific development project proposals competing for such available sewage capacity. (Ord , 2007; Ord , 2004) The following are applicable policies from San Joaquin LAFCO s Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). General Standards for Annexation and Detachment The General Standards for Annexation and Detachment govern LAFCO determinations regarding annexations and detachments to and from all agencies. The policy included below specifically relates to public services. It should be noted that other policies and procedures from the General Standards are included in the following chapters of this Draft EIR, where applicable: Chapter 4.2, Agricultural Resources and Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning. 12. Adverse Impact of Annexation on the Other Agencies LAFCO will consider any significant adverse effects upon other service recipients or other agencies serving the area and may condition any approval to mitigate such impacts. Significant adverse effects shall include the effect of proposals that negatively impact special districts budgets or services or require the continuation of services without the provision of adequate funding. LAFCO will not approve detachments from special districts or annexations that fail to provide adequate mitigation of the adverse impact on the district. LAFCO may determine an appropriate temporary mitigation, if any, and impose that temporary mitigation to the extent it is within its powers. If the needed mitigation is not within LAFCO s authority and approval would, in the opinion of the Commission, seriously impair the District s operation, the Commission may choose to deny the application IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The methods used to analyze the impacts of the project on the water system, wastewater conveyance and treatment, solid waste, fire protection facilities, law enforcement services, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and gas and electricity/telephone/cable are provided in this section. The standards of significance to be used in identifying project-specific and cumulative impacts are first presented. The standards are based on policies of the City of Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

324 Manteca and other responsible agencies as well as previous environmental documents prepared by the City. Standards of Significance In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater delivery, collection or treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; Require or result in the construction of new on-site sewage systems; Result in insufficient water supply available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or new or expanded entitlements needed; Require sewer service that may not be available by the area s waste water treatment provider; Be served by a landfill exceeding the permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs in compliance with all applicable laws; Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment; Increase the demand for additional law enforcement or fire protection services beyond the ability of the existing departments to provide adequate service; Increase the total number of students beyond the capacity of local school districts; Increase the demand for maintenance of public facilities; or Increase the demand for additional governmental services. Method of Analysis The Public Services and Utilities chapter identifies any impacts of the proposed project on the existing public services and utilities that could occur if the project as currently proposed is approved and implemented. The standards of significance listed above were used to delineate the significance of any potential impacts associated with the public services and utilities of the proposed project. The WSA prepared for the proposed project by West Yost Associates, documents the projected water demands associated with the proposed project s development and the existing and projected water demands within the City boundaries. It should be noted that the WSA was based on the proposed land uses and acreages provided within the tentative maps submitted for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II. A tentative map is not proposed for the DeJong Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

325 Property; therefore, for CEQA analysis assumes, 350 single-family units for the site based on the Prezoning designations, as well as discussions with the applicant. Water Code Sections delineate the specific requirements of a WSA. The WSA for the proposed project is structured according to those requirements. The purpose of this WSA is to provide an analysis of whether the City of Manteca s Primary Urban Service Area (PUSA), of which the project site is within, has sufficient projected water supplies to meet the anticipated demands of the proposed development and other future development. The WSA prepared for the proposed project evaluates whether the total projected water supply estimated to be available for the project would meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future water uses. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Manteca General Plan requires new development to pay their fair share of the costs of public facilities and utilities needed to support additional growth. New development is also required to provide the individual connections from private uses to the City s utility system, including water, wastewater, and storm drainage. The City currently manages a "Public Facilities Implementation Plan" (PFIP) that provides a method to assure that needed infrastructure is in place to serve new development. The PFIP generates revenue for infrastructure and allows developers to obtain cost re-imbursements for "out of pocket" expenses they incur while constructing facilities that serve more than just their projects. Development impact fees are charged to fund improvements to the City s government facilities (such as facilities for police and fire protection), storm drainage, sewer, water supply and distribution system, and roadway network. In addition to impact fees and property taxes, the costs of Capital Improvements that add capacity to the sewer or water system are recovered through a structure of "connection fees" that are usually paid when a building permit is obtained. The City has access to low interest State loans and the occasional infusion of Federal funds to help construct needed improvements. The amount of connection fees is adjusted as needed to make sure that the required public infrastructure is in place when needed Impacts related to adequate water supply and delivery for the proposed project. The project would connect to the City s existing water system, which consists of surface and groundwater supplies and the associated water distribution system. As the proposed project consists of residential and park uses, the project would increase the demand for water in the area. Supply The project would receive water from the City, which participates in a conjunctive use program, using groundwater and surface water from the SSJID, through the South County Water Supply Program (SCWSP), as sources. The proposed project is Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

326 consistent with the Manteca General Plan land uses. In order to determine whether the City s water supply is sufficient to accommodate the water demands of the proposed project, a WSA was prepared. According to the WSA, the proposed project s total projected annual potable water demand could range between 438 AFY and 493 AFY, depending on the method used to project the water demand (see Table ). The first method assumes that the City would achieve a 20 percent demand reduction from the historical ( ) water use per single-family dwelling unit as documented in the City s 2005 UWMP. The second method assumes the City s meets their overall per capita water demand goal of 171 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The second method represents an upper bound to the demand projection because the per capita water demand for residential dwelling units must be less than the overall City-wide per capita water demand if the City is to achieve the target per capita water demand by 2020, as required by SB X7-7. It should be noted that the water demand projection includes a 10.3 percent factor for unaccounted-for water to match the value in the 2005 UWMP. The proposed project intends to use low water use fixtures and may also use recycled water for irrigation of the proposed parks, which would reduce the project s potable water demand. Component Table Projected Water Demand for Proposed Project Annual Water Water Demand Quanity Duty Units (20% Demand Factor Reduction) (AFY) 1,2 Annual Water Demand (171 gpcd) (AFY) 1,3 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I 171 DUs AFY/DU Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II 185 DUs AFY/DU DeJong Property 350 DUs AFY/DU Parks acres 5.1 AFY/acre Unaccounted-for Water TOTAL AFY = Acre-Feet per Year 2 Based on a 20 percent reduction from historical demand of 0.63 AFY/DU as documented in the City s 2005 UWMP. 3 Based on the City s overall per capita water demand goal of 171 gpcd. 4 Parks may be irrigated with recycled water. Calculation assumes entire park would be turf and, therefore, represents an upper bound of the projected water use. Source: West Yost Associates, Based on the analysis within the WSA, even when adding the project s estimated maximum total projected annual potable water demand of 493 AFY to the City s water demand shown in Table , in comparison with the City s water supply presented in Table , the City s existing and projected future potable water supplies are Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

327 sufficient to meet the City s existing and projected future potable water demands, including those associated with the proposed project, to the year 2035 (see Table ). Table City of Manteca Water Supply Versus Demand Including the Proposed Project Water Demand Water Supply Including Single-Dry Multiple-Dry Year Normal Year Proposed Year Total Year Total Total (AFY) Project (AFY) (AFY) ,127 22, , ,260 23,427 23,234 21, ,166 25,181 25,181 23, ,151 25,290 25,290 24, ,923 25,290 25,290 24,313 Source: West Yost Associates, Conveyance Water would be provided to the project site via new connections to the existing water infrastructure surrounding the project site. Pipes would range in diameter from eight to 12 inches, and would be arrayed in a typical grid pattern to ensure adequate flow to all portions of the project for both domestic use and fire protection. The project water lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Woodward Avenue. Conclusion As described above, the City would have sufficient water supply to the year 2035 to meet the City s existing and projected water demand, including the proposed project s water demand. In addition, the existing water infrastructure surrounding the project site is sufficient to accommodate the project s water needs, and implementation of the proposed project would include connection to the existing surrounding infrastructure. Because sufficient water supply and conveyance infrastructure exists to accommodate the proposed project s needs, a less-than-significant water supply impact would result from the proposed project. It should also be noted that the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees related to water supply, which would represent the project s fair share towards the city-wide water supply system as part of the Public Facilities Improvements Plan (PFIP) of the City. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

328 Impacts related to increased demand for wastewater disposal. Treatment Capacity DRAFT EIR The project site would be served by City wastewater facilities upon annexation and subsequent project development. The WQCF has capacity for 9.87 mgd and is operating at approximately 70 percent of design capacity. According to the Manteca Municipal Services Review, Phase III of the WQCF expansion process, which increased the capacity to 9.87 mgd, could serve the City up to a population level of 82,000. SJCOG estimates the 2013 City of Manteca s population is 72, Therefore, adequate sewer treatment capacity exists at the current treatment facility to accommodate the sewage generated by the project s additional population of 2,168 (706 dus x 3.07 persons per household = 2,168), which would bring the total Manteca population to 74,435, an amount well under the estimated ability of the WQCF to serve 82,000 people. In addition, the City of Manteca has adopted a Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter of the City Municipal Code) that states any project seeking sewer capacity shall first obtain project allocations prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that new development does not exceed the amount of available sewer capacity. The environmental review of the Master Plan for Phase IV of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade process has been completed, as well as the process of seeking an amended National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES). The plant s expected capacity would increase from 9.87 mgd to approximately 17.5 mgd in Phase IV. The increase would accommodate a population of approximately 130,000, as well as commercial and industrial users, which would be well within the capacity needed for the projected 2018 population (approximately 99,000). Phase V would serve a population of 145,000 in 2028 and beyond. Funding for the project would be a combination of User Service Charges, Development Impact Mitigation Fees, Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANS), a Low Interest State Revolving Loan, or some other form of public debt instrument. Collection The project site is located in the South Manteca Trunk Sewer shed (SMTS). Wastewater from the proposed project would be conveyed via a system of eight-inch pipelines. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project sewer system would include the construction of 2,670+/- lineal feet of sewer line in the Pillsbury Road rightof-way, from the northwest corner of the site, north to Woodward Avenue. This offsite sewer line would connect to the 30-inch sewer trunk in Woodward Avenue. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II wastewater would also be transported to the sewer line in the Pillsbury Road right-of-way, which would be built as part of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

329 Infrastructure details have not been submitted for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for this site, but it is anticipated that on-site sewer lines would connect to the lines in Pillsbury Road or Woodward Avenue. The project sewer system would connect to the existing 30-inch sewer trunk in Woodward Avenue. Conclusion Because sufficient collection, conveyance, and treatment exist or would be built for the proposed project, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on the City s sewer system. It should also be noted that the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees and connection fees related to sewer infrastructure, which would represent the project s fair share towards city-wide sewer system improvements. Sewer system improvements are part of the PFIP of the City. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to increased demand for solid waste disposal. The proposed project consists of residential and park uses only; therefore, solid waste generated by the project would be limited to construction waste and household wastes. Solid waste is collected by the City and deposited at the Forward Landfill. Recyclables are taken to a mini transfer station adjacent to the Forward Landfill where they are subsequently put into transfer trucks and hauled to Sacramento Recycling in Sacramento. The Forward Landfill has a closure date of 2053 and a remaining capacity of 1,000,000 cubic yards, which, as identified in the Manteca General Plan EIR, is adequate to serve the solid waste removal needs of Manteca General Plan buildout, which includes the construction and operation of the proposed project. Because the Forward Landfill has adequate capacity for the construction and operation of the proposed project, a less-than-significant solid waste impact would occur as a result of the project. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to the provision of adequate fire protection and emergency medical services for the proposed project. Fire Service The project site is currently within the service boundaries of the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District. Upon approval of the annexation of the proposed project area, the project site would be detached from the Lathrop-Manteca Fire Protection District as all services, including fire protection, would be provided by the City of Manteca. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

330 The project includes the construction of up to 706 single-family dwelling units, which could introduce approximately 2,168 new residents to the City of Manteca. The increase in population would increase the demand for fire protection services. The MFD has indicated that two fire stations would serve the project site, station 241, located at 290 S. Powers Avenue, 2.14 miles away from the proposed project and Station 242, located at 1154 South Union Road, 2.83 miles away from the proposed project. The emergency response time service standard as established in the Manteca General Plan is an average five-minute response time for all emergencies. According to the Manteca Fire Marshal, the City would not be able to service the proposed project within the five-minute emergency response time standard. The MFD has a fifth fire station planned for the City of Manteca on a vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Atherton Drive and Woodward Avenue, adjacent to the project site. The construction of the fifth fire station staffed with firefighters and apparatus would be needed to achieve the MFD s five-minute response standard for the proposed South of Woodward Avenue Project. The construction of this new fire station would not cause significant environmental impacts due to the planned location on a small, currently vacant, site that is zoned to accommodate such a use. Fire-Flow Fire protection also requires adequate water pressure and supply. The City s 2005 Water Master Plan includes the Manteca General Plan Study Area, which includes the project site. Because the Water Master Plan anticipates serving the Manteca General Plan Study Area, water supply for fire suppression purposes is anticipated to be adequate. In addition, Impact PFS-6 in Chapter 14 of the Manteca General Plan EIR finds that implementation of Manteca General Plan Policies PF-P-42 through PF-P-45, PF-I-24, and PF-I-25 along with the Water Master Plan, the PFIP, and participation in the SSJID Surface Water Supply Project would not result in substantial impacts related to water supply. Conclusion Upon annexation of the project site to the City of Manteca, the MFD would provide fire protection services to the project site. While the increased demand for fire protection services generated by the project would contribute toward the need for a fifth Fire Station, the project would be required to pay the City s Fire Facility Fee in accordance with Ordinance Current Fire Facility fees for single-family residential is $0.26 per square foot of building. With payment of development impact fees related to fire protection, the project would have a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

331 Impacts related to the provision of adequate law enforcement services for the proposed project. The proposed project would result in the introduction of an additional 2,168 persons to the City of Manteca, which would increase the demand for law enforcement services provided by the Manteca Police Department, the station for which is located approximately 3.8 miles northwest of the project site. Upon reviewing the South of Woodward Avenue Project, the City of Manteca Police Chief has indicated that the current police staffing could not adequately serve the annexation and development of the project sites in the 5 minute goal for Priority 1 calls. 21 According to the Manteca Police Chief, additional personnel and equipment would be required to adequately serve the annexation and development of the project site. The Manteca Police Department obtains funds from several revenue streams including Manteca s Public Safety tax, the City s Government Building Facilities Fee, and residential property tax collected by the General Fund. The project would contribute funding for the Police Department through paying applicable City fees and contributing property tax dollars to the General Fund. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required Impacts related to inadequate service ratios at schools in the project area. The proposed project site is located within two school districts. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I is located within the Ripon Unified School District (RUSD), while Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and the DeJong Property are located within the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD). As indicated in Table and Table , RUSD has available capacity of 1,019 and MUSD has available capacity of 3,780. Using the student generation factors provided by RUSD, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I would add 98 new students to RUSD. Using the student generation factors provided by MUSD, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II and the DeJong property would add 381 new students to MUSD. Both RUSD and MUSD have the available capacity for the estimated number of students to be generated from the South of Woodward Avenue project, as illustrated in Table In addition, the project proponent shall pay the required SB 50 school development fees per square foot for residential development in effect at the time of issuance of the building permits for the project. The payment of school impact fees, in accordance with California Government Code 65995, would reduce potential impacts on these school districts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

332 Table Students Generated from Proposed Project K-8 Students 9-12 Students Project Site Housing Units Project Generated Students Available District Capacity Project Generated Students Available District Capacity Ripon Unified School District Atherton Homes at Woodward Park Manteca Unified School District Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II DeJong Property Total: , Source: MUSD. Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. February Source: RUSD. Developer Fee Justification Document for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development Projects. May 2012 Source: RUSD. Local and State Loading Standard, by School Site. January 17, Impacts related to the provision of adequate park, recreation facilities, and library services for the proposed project. Park and Recreation Facilities The closest existing neighborhood park facility to the proposed project area is Tesoro Park, located at 1399 Tesoro Drive, just north of the project site in the Tesoro Estates residential subdivision. Tesoro Park is 9.5 acres in size and has picnic tables, barbeques, play equipment, and a tot lot. Woodward Park is a community/specialty park located at 710 E Woodward Avenue, just 0.50 miles west of the project site. Woodward Park is over 50 acres in size and has picnic tables, barbecues, play equipment, tot lot, basketball courts, restrooms, and sports fields. The projected population for the project area is 2,168 persons, based upon the average Manteca household size of 3.07 persons per the Manteca General Plan. The population growth associated with the proposed project would increase the use of existing park facilities in the area and require approximately additional acres of parkland per the City s requirement of five acres of parkland (combined neighborhood and community parkland) per 1,000 residents. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II The projected population for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II is 1,093 persons, based upon the average Manteca household size. The population growth associated with the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II would require approximately 5.47 additional acres of parkland per the City s parkland per residents requirement. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

333 To offset the demands placed on existing recreational and other public facilities in the City, the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Tentative Map includes the development of a 3.53-acre park, and the proposed Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Tentative Map includes the development of a 4.3-acre park, totaling 7.83 acres of parkland. The designated parklands would also be utilized as a stormwater detention basins for the project. DeJong Property The projected population for the DeJong property is 1,075 persons, based upon the average Manteca household size. The population growth associated with the proposed DeJong property would require approximately 5.37 additional acres of parkland per the City s parkland per residents requirement. With the 7.83 acres of proposed parkland included in Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II, the DeJong property would be required to develop approximately 3.02 acres of additional parkland to achieve the City s requirement of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents for the proposed project, or pay the in-lieu park fee for community parkland. Library Services The population growth associated with the proposed project would increase the demand on library services for the City of Manteca. However, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees, which a portion are library-related. The development impact fees would represent the project s fair share towards the city-wide library services, and would, in part, go towards the Manteca Library. In addition, future project residents would have access to all the libraries within the Stockton-San Joaquin Public Library System. Conclusion The proposed project would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact on library service. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II currently meet the City s parkland requirement; however, the amount of future parkland on the DeJong property is currently unknown. As a result, without a tentative map showing dedication of additional parkland acreage for the DeJong property, this impact is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure for the DeJong property would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level At the time of tentative map submittal for the DeJong property, the tentative map shall include the development of adequate parkland to achieve the City s requirement of five acres of parkland per 1,000 Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

334 residents for community and neighborhood parks, or pay in-lieu park fees prior to recording of the final map. Final calculations shall be made at the time of submittal of tentative map application for the DeJong property, for review and approval by the Manteca Community Development Department Impacts related to the provision of adequate gas and electricity, cable, and telephone services for the proposed project. Development of the project would occur in a location that is near to electricity and gas service. The proposed project would increase electricity and natural gas consumption, but not to a level that would be considered substantial in relation to regional or statewide energy supplies. The Manteca General Plan Public Facilities and Services Element and the Resource Conservation Element also provide measures to reduce electricity demand and infrastructure expansion, including support for conservation measures, alternative-energy use in the City, and land use and circulation improvements. In addition, as discussed in more detail in the Air Quality and Climate Change chapter of this Draft EIR (See Chapter 4.3), the residential uses of the project would include several design features aimed at reducing the electricity and natural gas consumption by the project. The residential components of the project would be subject to the City of Manteca s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which requires development projects to design and construct project buildings to exceed Title 24, California s Energy Efficiency Standards, by at least 10 percent. Title 24 measures consist of developing an energy budget for structures and designing the structures to use less than or equal to the amount of energy that is budgeted. Improved site planning and building design as well as energy conservation measures, as outlined in Title 24, would minimize the potential for wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The project would be subject to the minimum energy conservation requirements of the City s CAP, which are applicable to all building construction. Project development plans would provide unrestricted utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of PG&E s facilities. The project proponent would coordinate with PG&E to ensure that any necessary improvements to PG&E s facilities, as a result of the proposed project, are formally requested from and approved by the CPUC prior to project development. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

335 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region Impacts related to the cumulative increase in demand for public services and utilities within the City of Manteca. The proposed project is located within the City limits of Manteca. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to an increased demand for public services and utilities in the City of Manteca. Public service and utility needs for the City of Manteca were evaluated in the Manteca General Plan EIR and associated Master Plans to ensure that adequate services would be available for buildout of the Manteca General Plan, according to the Land Use Diagram. The analyses found that with implementation of the Manteca General Plan goals and policies, impacts to public services and utilities from buildout of the Manteca General Plan would be less than significant. The proposed South of Woodward Avenue Project would implement the relevant goals and policies such as, Policy PF-P-54, requiring the provision of private open space and recreational facilities as part of new residential developments, in addition to, Policy PF- P-53, which would require developments to pay a park acquisition and improvement fee. The proposed project would also cooperate with the Manteca and Ripon Unified School District and pay the development fees from new development as stated in Policy PF-P-34, as well as paying the required fees related to the City s PFIP for water and sewer. In addition, per Ordinance 1500, the project would be required to pay the City s Fire Facility Fee. Therefore, the proposed project s incremental contribution to the City s public services and utilities needs would not be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, similar to the proposed project, other future development projects would be required by the City to pay fair-share fees toward the expansion and creation of public services and utilities. Overall, the project s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact on public utilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes 1 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Environmental Impact Report. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Services Review. June 16, San Joaquin LAFCO. Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). December 14, West Yost Associates. Water Supply Assessment South of Woodward Avenue North. September Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

336 6 City of Manteca. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. January California Department of Water Resources California s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Update 2003 Individual Basin Descriptions. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Accessed on September 14, South San Joaquin Irrigation District. Urban Management Plan. August City of Manteca. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. January City of Manteca. Urban Water Management Plan. December Cal Recycle Website. Facility Operations: Forward landfill, Inc. ww.calrecycle.ca.gov. December 18, Lantz Rey, City of Manteca Fire Marshall. to Nick Pappani, Raney Planning & Management. December10, Nick Obligacion, City of Manteca Police Chief. to Nick Pappani, Raney Planning & Management. December 18, California Department of Education. Enrollment by Grade for January, Ripon Unified School District. Local and State Loading Standard, by School Site. January 17, RUSD. Developer Fee Justification Document for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development Projects. May California Department of Education. Enrollment by Grade for January, Manteca Unified School District. Draft Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. February City of Manteca Parks and Recreation Department website. January Michael A. Swearinger, Senior Regional Planner of SJCOG. Personal Communication with Nick Pappani, Raney Planning & Management. January Nick Obligacion, City of Manteca Police Chief. to Nick Pappani, Raney Planning & Management. December 18, Chapter 4.11 Public Services and Utilities

337 4.12. TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

338 4.12 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION INTRODUCTION The Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR discusses the existing, near-term, and cumulative transportation and circulation conditions associated with the South of Woodward Avenue Project (proposed project). The information contained within this chapter was prepared by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. The analysis includes consideration of automobile traffic impacts on roadway capacity, transit impacts, bicycle impacts, pedestrian impacts, and rail crossings impacts. All technical calculations could be found in Appendix K to this Draft EIR. Several agencies issued comment letters responding to the NOP that an EIR is being prepared for the proposed project. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requested that rail safety of at-grade railroad crossings be evaluated including queuing vehicle/pedestrian movements, and sightlines. Mitigation measures shall be considered if warranted based on the analysis. The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) issued a letter requesting that the project be evaluated for consistency with relevant regional transportation planning documents, which includes a Regional Congestion Management Plan (RCMP) consisting of a Tier 2 review of Tier 1 consistency as well as a quantitative analysis of RCMP impacts, both project-specific and cumulative. Caltrans issued a comment letter recommending that the study be prepared in accordance with Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (2002). 1 In addition, they offered comments regarding the analysis methods and requested electronic analysis files for their review. The following analysis scenarios are presented in this chapter: Existing Conditions: presents operating conditions as of Fall Existing Conditions represents the baseline condition, upon which project impacts are evaluated. Existing Plus Proposed Project Conditions: evaluates the project-specific effects of the proposed project. Cumulative No Project Conditions: Assumes cumulative land use assumptions and planned roadway network but with no development on the project site. Cumulative Plus Proposed Project Conditions: Assumes cumulative land use assumptions including development of the project as proposed, and planned roadway network. In addition, Appendix K to this Draft EIR presents the Existing Plus Pending Projects Plus Proposed Project analysis, which considers traffic associated with the proposed project and several other pending/approved land developments in the area. The scenario, which is not required by CEQA, is intended for informational purposes to convey the types of near-term impacts that could occur as a result of combined development of these projects, and evaluates what additional improvements should be considered. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

339 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The section below describes the existing condition of the roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and rail systems in the study area. Roadway System Study Area An extensive study area was developed based on the project s location, size and expected directionality of project travel. Figure displays the 15 intersections selected for analysis. In addition, various segments of the State Route (SR) 120 and State Route (SR) 99 freeways are also analyzed. The following factors were considered when developing the study area: project s size and location, and number and directionality of trips, facilities susceptible to being impacted by the proposed project, and input from NOP comment letters. Key Roadways Regional access to the project is provided by the SR 99 and SR 120 freeways. Access from SR 99 is provided from the Austin Road interchange. Access from SR 120 is provided from the Main Street interchange. The following describes the key arterial and collector roadways in the project vicinity: Main Street is a two-lane roadway that extends southerly from Downtown Manteca to SR 120 and beyond. North of SR 120, Main Street is a four-lane roadway. Beginning at the SR 120 overcrossing, Main Street features one lane in each direction and south of SR 120, has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph). South of Tannehill Drive, Main Street transitions to a two-lane rural road with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Woodward Avenue extends in an east-west direction parallel to SR 120 from west of McKinley Avenue to Moffat Boulevard. The segment directly east of Main Street is a four-lane divided arterial with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. East of Queensland Avenue, the roadway cross-section changes to include: two westbound lanes, a divided (either raised or striped) median, and one eastbound lane. East of Atherton Drive, it becomes a two-lane undivided roadway. Pillsbury Road is a north-south collector street that extends southerly from Woodward Avenue and features one lane in each direction separated by either a raised median or left-turn lane. Between Woodward Avenue and Tannehill Drive, there is a posted speed limit of 25 mph, and homes on the west side. Pillsbury Road continues southerly for about 1,000 feet as a two-lane undivided rural road that provides access to several residences. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

340 Figure : Study Area Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

341 Data Collection Traffic counts were collected at all study intersections in October During the counts, weather conditions were dry, and no unusual traffic patterns were observed. Traffic counts on SR 120 and SR 99 were collected from the Caltrans PeMS database. Figure displays the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, traffic controls, and lane configurations at the study intersections. The weekday AM peak hour occurred from 7:15 to 8:15 AM at the vast majority of study intersections. The weekday PM peak hour occurred from 5:00 to 6:00 PM at the majority of study intersections. However, the study intersections located near the SR 99/Austin Road interchange displayed a peak hour from 4 to 5 PM. Intersections Each study intersection was analyzed using the concept of Level of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade from A to F is assigned based on the average delay per vehicle. The LOS grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. In general, LOS A represents free-flow conditions with no congestion, and LOS F represents severe congestion and delay under stop-and-go conditions. Table displays the delay range associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The reported delay at signalized and all-way stop intersections is based on the weighted average delay for all intersection movements. At side-street stopcontrolled intersections, the reported delay and corresponding LOS is for the minor-street movement with the greatest delay. Table Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections A secs/veh secs/veh B secs/veh secs/veh C secs/veh secs/veh D secs/veh secs/veh E secs/veh secs/veh F > 80.0 secs/veh > 50.0 secs/veh Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, A SimTraffic micro-simulation model was developed for study facilities in the vicinity of the SR 120/Main Street and SR 99/Austin Road interchanges including both the ramp terminal intersections and adjacent surface street intersections. The use of SimTraffic at these locations is appropriate given the spacing of signalized intersections, and levels of traffic in the corridor. SimTraffic provides outputs consistent with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

342 Figure : Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Conditions Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

343 The accuracy of the SimTraffic model was confirmed by comparing field-measured maximum queue lengths with 95 th percentile queue length estimates from the model output. Per standard practice, 20 runs were conducted, statistical outliers were omitted, and the results were then averaged to yield reported conditions. The study intersections not located in the vicinity of the SR 120/Main Street and SR 99/Austin Road interchanges were analyzed using the Synchro (version 7) software program, which is consistent with HCM procedures. While Version 8 was recently released to apply the 2010 HCM update, the program has been found to have some glitches, which prohibit certain lane configurations from being analyzed. Furthermore, the 2000 and 2010 HCM intersection analysis methodologies did not change dramatically. All intersections within the state highway system were analyzed using SimTraffic, consistent with Caltrans preferences. The Synchro and SimTraffic analysis relies on peak hour factors and heavy vehicle percentages that were measured in the field. Other model inputs include lane configurations, traffic volumes, and traffic controls (including signal phasing/timing). Intersections were analyzed using the methodologies and procedures described in the Method of Analysis section below. Table displays the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic operations analysis results (refer to Appendix K for detailed calculations). According to the table, all study intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the following exception: 2) Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue operations on the side-street stop-controlled Van Ryn Avenue left-turn movement are at LOS E during the PM peak hour. LOS E occurs as a result of 28 vehicles making this movement against 875 conflicting through and left-turn movements on Industrial Park Drive. Table Peak Hour Intersection LOS Existing Conditions Peak Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec/veh) LOS AM 23 C 1. Main St / Industrial Park Dr Traffic Signal PM 32 C 2. Industrial Park Dr / Van Ryn Ave Side-Street Stop 3. Moffat Blvd / Industrial Park Dr Traffic Signal 4. Main St / SR 120 WB Ramps Traffic Signal 5. Main St / SR 120 EB Ramps Traffic Signal 6. Main St / Atherton Dr Traffic Signal AM 7 (20) A (C) PM 7 (39) A (E) AM 22 C PM 22 C AM 13 B PM 13 B AM 19 B PM 23 C AM 8 A PM 12 B Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

344 Table Peak Hour Intersection LOS Existing Conditions Peak Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec/veh) LOS AM 9 A 7. Main St / Woodward Ave All-Way Stop (Continued on next PM page) 12 B 8. Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr Side-Street Stop 9. Woodward Ave / Van Ryn Dr Side-Street Stop 10. Woodward Ave / Pillsbury Rd Side-Street Stop 11. Woodward Ave / Atherton Dr Side-Street Stop 12. Woodward Ave / Moffat Blvd. Side-Street Stop 13. Moffat Blvd / SR 99 SB Off- Ramp Side-Street Stop 14. Moffat Blvd / Austin Rd All-Way Stop 15. Austin Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps All-Way Stop Notes: 1 2 AM 3 (11) A (B) PM 3 (16) A (C) AM 4 (12) A (B) PM 4 (13) A (B) AM 2 (10) A (A) PM 2 (10) A (B) AM 2 (12) A (B) PM 1 (12) A (B) AM 5 (12) A (B) PM 5 (25) A (C) AM 4 (14) A (B) PM 4 (19) A (C) AM 14 B PM 19 C AM 11 B PM 8 A For signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, the overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop control, the average control delay for the worst movement is reported in parenthesis. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations based on LOS D standard at Ripon/Manteca intersections and LOS E standard at Caltrans intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, Freeways Freeway facilities were analyzed using procedures described in the HCM (Transportation Research Board, 2010). As requested by Caltrans in their NOP comment letter, the Highway Capacity Software, which applies the 2010 HCM methods, was used for the freeway ramp and mainline calculations. In accordance with Caltrans policies, weave segments were analyzed using the Leisch method, which is described in the latest edition of the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2012). Table displays the density range associated with each LOS category for mainline segments and ramp merge/diverge movements. The Leisch method only reports LOS. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

345 Notes: DRAFT EIR Table Freeway Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Mainline (Density) 1 Ramp Junctions (Density) 1 A < 11 < 10 B > 11 to 18 > 10 to 20 C > 18 to 26 > 20 to 28 D > 26 to 35 > 28 to 35 E > 35 to 45 > 35 F > 45 or Demand exceeds capacity 2 Demand exceeds capacity 2 1 Density expressed in passenger car equivalents per hour per mile per lane. 2 Occurs when freeway demand exceeds upstream (diverge) or downstream (merge) freeway segment capacity, or if off-ramp demand exceeds off-ramp capacity. Source: HCM (Transportation Research Board, 2010) Exhibits 11-5 and Table displays the existing peak hour operations on the study freeway facilities. As shown, all study freeway facilities currently operate at LOS D or better. Field observations indicate that vehicle slowing occasionally occurs in the northbound SR 99 weave segment between Austin Road and SR 120 (AM Peak Hour), and on eastbound SR 120 approaching SR 99 (PM Peak Hour). In both instances, congestion occurs as a result of the single-lane connector ramps from SR 120 and SR 99 (to/from the south). However, the freeway segments operate at LOS C. Freeway 1. SR 99 NB on-ramp at Austin Rd to offramp at SR 120 WB Table Peak Hour Freeway LOS Existing Conditions Type Weave 2. SR 99 NB off-ramp at Austin Rd Diverge 3. SR 99 SB from SR 120 on-ramp to Austin Rd off-ramp Basic 4. SR 99 SB off-ramp at Austin Rd Diverge 5. SR 99 SB on-ramp from Austin Rd Merge 6. SR 120 EB between Union Rd on-ramp and Main St off-ramp Basic 7. SR 120 EB off-ramp at Main St Diverge Peak Hour Density 1 LOS AM - C PM - B AM 31 D PM 29 D AM 23 C PM 27 D AM 28 C PM 30 D AM 25 C PM 28 D AM 20 C PM 24 C AM 25 C PM 28 C 8. SR 120 EB on-ramp from Main St Merge AM 21 C (Continued on next page) Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

346 Table Peak Hour Freeway LOS Existing Conditions DRAFT EIR Freeway 9. SR 120 EB between Main St on-ramp and SR SR 120 WB between SR 99 and Main St off-ramp Type Basic Basic 11. SR 120 WB off-ramp at Main St Diverge 12. SR 120 WB on-ramp from Main St Merge 13. SR 120 WB between Main St on-ramp and Union Rd off-ramp Basic Peak Hour Density 1 LOS PM 20 C AM 19 C PM 19 C AM 21 C PM 21 C AM 27 C PM 27 C AM 25 C PM 23 C AM 24 C PM 23 C Notes: 1 Density expressed in passenger car equivalents per hour per mile per lane. - = Density not reported for weave segments or LOS F conditions. Source: Fehr & Peers, Transit System Transit service in the City of Manteca is provided by Manteca Transit. The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD) provides fixed-route and flexible-response bus service in San Joaquin County. The nearest transit stop to the project site, located north of SR 120 at Main Street in the Walmart/Safeway Shopping Center, which serves routes 2 and 3, is approximately two miles from the project site. The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) is a commuter rail train service that operates between Stockton and the Bay Area. The Lathrop-Manteca ACE station is located on Shideler Parkway, which is directly north of Yosemite Avenue and east of McKinley Avenue and is approximately six miles from the project site. Field observations did not reveal any existing bus service facilities (shelters, benches, or bus turnouts) in the project vicinity. Bicycle/Pedestrian System Figure displays existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity. Pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity include sidewalks along developed properties and crosswalks at signalized study intersections. Properties that are in agricultural use, or rural residential generally do not have sidewalks. A class I (separated, off-street) bike path is located on the north side of Atherton Drive in the project vicinity. Class II bike lanes (on-street lane with appropriate signing and pavement striping) are located on Tannehill Drive and Heartland Drive in the existing neighborhood located directly west of the project site. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

347 Figure : Existing Bicycle Facilities Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

348 Rail Crossings The study area includes a Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) track that extends parallel to Moffat Boulevard with at-grade crossings at Industrial Park Drive, Woodward Avenue, and Austin Road. Table provides an inventory of train crossings, equipment, and the accident history at each crossing based on USDOT data. 2 Three of the four collisions at Austin Road involved a vehicle stopped on the tracks that was hit by an approaching train. The fourth collision involved a vehicle that traveled around the lowered gates and collided with a passing train. Crossing warning equipment was operational in all four incidents. Three of the four collisions at Industrial Park Drive occurred in the 1970s, in which the crossing consisted only of crossbucks (i.e., a black-and-white sign that says Railroad Crossing ). The fourth collisions occurred in 1982 after gates were installed. Collisions have not been reported in the 31 years since that time. Crossing # Location N V R Austin Road Woodwar d Avenue Industrial Park Drive Table Inventory of At-Grade Railroad Crossings in Study Area Vehicular Train Activity Conditions Number of Daily Trains Average Speed Range 40 to 55 mph 40 to 55 mph 5 to 55 mph Equipment Present advanced warning signs, stop lines, RR Xing symbols, gates, bells, train signals advanced warning signs, stop lines, RR Xing symbols, gates, bells, train signals advanced warning signs, stop lines, RR Xing symbols, gates, bells, train signals, raised median Number of Lanes Estimated ADT 2 2 3,100 Accident History Four (4) non-injury accidents involving train/vehicle collisions (10/9/1995, 4/15/2000, 5/14/2001, and 12/30/2012) 2 5,400 None 5 11,900 Four (4) non-injury accidents involving train/vehicle collisions (5/15/1975, 4/11/1978, 8/6/1978, and 12/10/1982) Notes: 1 Number of trains per day is less at Austin Road crossing due to switching that occurs at the Woodward Avenue and Industrial Park Drive crossings. 2 Estimated ADT calculated assuming the AM and PM peak hour volumes are 16% of daily. Values rounded to the nearest 100 vehicles. Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis and Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

349 REGULATORY SETTING Existing transportation policies, laws, and regulations that would apply to the proposed project are summarized below and provide a context for the impact discussion related to the project s consistency with the applicable regulatory conditions. Federal and State Regulations Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining all stateowned roadways in San Joaquin County. Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the state highway system within the City of Manteca need to be approved by Caltrans. The City of Manteca does not have the ability to unilaterally make improvements to the state highway system. The State Route 120 Transportation Concept Report (TCR) (Caltrans, 2005) identifies a concept LOS of D for the segment from I-5 to SR 99. Consistent with this design goal, the recently completed Revised Final Traffic Report for the State Route 120/McKinley Avenue Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) (Fehr & Peers, April 2013) used a LOS D design goal for study facilities on SR 120. A LOS D operating goal has been established for SR 99 for such projects as the SR 99 Manteca Widening Project and the SR 99/Austin Road Improvements Project (as described on page 12 of the Revised Final Traffic Report for the SR 99/Austin Road Interim Improvements, Fehr & Peers, May 2013). Therefore, for purposes of this study, LOS D or better conditions are considered acceptable at study facilities on SR 99 while LOS E or F conditions are considered unacceptable. Local Regulations San Joaquin County Congestion Management Program According to SJCOG s 2012 Land Use Impact Program, a Tier 2 review is required for land developments that generate 125 or more vehicle trips during the weekday AM or PM peak hours. The proposed project therefore qualifies as requiring this level of review. A Tier 2 evaluation consists of both a review of Tier 1 consistency with applicable plans and a focused impact analysis of RCMP facilities. The Tier 2 evaluation includes: 1. For any RCMP roadway or intersection currently operating or expected to operate at LOS D or better under no project conditions, the project added traffic results in LOS E or F operating conditions. 2. For RCMP intersections or roadways currently operating or expected to operate at LOS E or at under no project conditions, the project results in increases to: a. average delay by 4 seconds or more; or b. the volume-to-capacity ratio by 1.0 or more. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

350 3. Conflicts with SJCOG adopted/approved regional plans applicable to the project including: a. Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan b. Park-and-Ride Master Plan c. Regional Bikeway Plan d. Smart Growth Infill Opportunity Zone Plan e. Regional Transit Systems Plan f. Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program g. Regional Transportation Plan h. Regional STAA Study for I-5 and SR 99 According to the SJCOG NOP comment letters, the following roadways and intersections are identified as RCMP facilities within the project vicinity: Roadways 1. SR 120 between SR 99 and I-5 2. SR Yosemite Avenue between Airport Way and SR Airport Way between SR 120 and Yosemite Ave. 5. Jack Tone Road north of SR Ripon Road between Jack Tone Road and Olive Avenue Intersections 1. SR 120 EB Ramps/Airport Way 2. SR 120 WB Ramps/Airport Way 3. SR 99 SB Ramps/Yosemite Avenue 4. SR 99 NB Ramps/Yosemite Ave. 5. Yosemite Avenue/Airport Way 6. SR 99 SB Ramps/Jack Tone Road 7. Jack Tone Road/River Road The 2012 Land Use Impact Program also describes how to determine appropriate mitigation for significant impacts. Page provides a robust discussion of mitigation measures including cost, feasibility, funding, lead agency role, fair-share payments, and other aspects. The Transportation, Traffic and Circulation chapter provides a comprehensive RCMP impact analysis within Section SJCOG Regional Transportation Plan San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) is currently preparing the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). However, because this document is still under development and has not been adopted by the SJCOG Board, the 2011 RTP is applicable in this study.). The 2011 RTP outlines countywide transportation expenditures based on funding from sources like the federal government, the State of California, and locally collected funds. The RTP contains several proposed improvements that would benefit the regional roadway network within the study area. The improvements are listed in Table Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

351 Table Status of Planned Improvements in Study Area Project Included in Tier I List in 2011 RTP? Included in Measure K? SR 99 Widening 4 to 6 lanes from SR 120 to Arch Road ($250M, OTD = 2015) Yes Yes No SR 120 Widening 4 to 6 lanes from I-5 to SR 99 ($90.6M, OTD = 2027) Yes Yes Yes New SR 120/McKinley interchange ($30M, OTD = 2020) Yes Yes Yes Upgrade SR 120/Union Road interchange ($33M, OTD = 2015) Yes Yes No Atherton Drive Extension new 4-lane road from Woodward Avenue to Raymus Expressway ($3.3M, Yes No No OTD = 2021) SR 99/Austin/Olive Expressway Interchange Reconstruction No Yes Yes SR 120/Main Street Interchange Upgrade No Yes No Raymus Expressway 2 to 6 lane expressway from SR 120 to SR 99 ($18M, OTD = 2019) Yes No Yes Included in RTIF? Notes: - 120/Main and SR 99/Austin/Olive interchange upgrades and Olive Expressway and River Road extension are listed as Tier II projects in 2011 RTP. - OTD = Open to Traffic Date and costs based on 2011 RTP. Source: Fehr & Peers San Joaquin County Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) SJCOG has implemented a regional traffic impact fee that is assessed on new developments throughout San Joaquin County. The RTIF capital project list provides funding for various freeway and local road widenings. The RTIF capital project began in 2005, and has generated nearly $30 million in funding for project delivery. For fiscal year 2012 (per: the fee schedule for new residential development is approximately $2,987 for single-family units and $1,792 for multifamily units. RTIF funds are expended on regionally significant capital improvements. Table lists those projects included in this fee program within the study area. Measure K Measure K is the half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation projects in San Joaquin County. Measure K was passed in November 1990, and began collecting funds for a system of improved highways and local streets, new passenger rail service, regional and inter-regional bus routes, park-and-ride lots, new bicycle facilities, and railroad crossings. On November 7, 2006, San Joaquin County voters decided to extend Measure K for an additional 30 years. The renewal of Measure K is estimated to generate $2.552 billion for the transportation programs identified in the Measure K Expenditure Plan. The categorical allocations of Measure K include local street repairs and roadway safety (35%), congestion relief projects (32.5%), railroad crossing safety projects (2.5%), and passenger rail, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

352 bus, and bicycles (30%), which include dedicated funding for bus rapid transit and safe routes to schools. Table lists those projects included in this fee program within the study area. City of Manteca General Plan The following are applicable goals and policies related to transportation, traffic, and circulation from the Manteca General Plan. Street System Policy C-P-1 Policy C-P-2 The City shall strive to attain the highest possible traffic levels of service (LOS) consistent with the financial resources available and the limits of technical feasibility. The impact of new development and land use proposals on LOS shall be considered in the review process. Manteca's target for transportation LOS is to provide a Citywide average of LOS of C or better, and a minimum of LOS D at any individual location. A C average, D minimum shall be accomplished by attempting to provide LOS C at all locations, but accepting LOS D under the following circumstances: Where constructing facilities with enough capacity to provide LOS C is found to be unreasonably expensive. For example, facilities would cost significantly more per dwelling unit equivalent (DUE) to provide LOS C than to provide LOS D. Where maintaining LOS C is impossible because surrounding facilities in other jurisdictions operate at LOS D or worse. Where free-flowing roadways or interchange ramps would discourage use of alternate travel modes. Where maintaining LOS C would be a disincentive to use of existing alternative modes or to the implementation of new transportation modes that would reduce vehicle travel. Note that for the purposes of this environmental analysis, the City considers LOS D as the acceptable LOS threshold for all intersections in the City of Manteca. The LOS standard was chosen primarily because of the constrained operations on the state highway system and the LOS policies of the surrounding jurisdictions. Policy C-P-3 Streets shall be dedicated, widened, extended, and constructed according to the Street cross-section diagrams established in the City Improvement Standards. Dedication and improvement of full rights-of-way as shown in the Street Standards shall not be required in existing developed areas where the City determines that such improvements are either infeasible or undesirable. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

353 Policy C-P-5 Policy C-P-6 Policy C-P-18 Development that would necessitate roadway improvements prior to the development of lands abutting those roadway improvements shall be required to make such improvements, or participate in such improvements, as a condition of approval. New development would pay a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements based on traffic generation and impacts on LOS in conformance with the standards and policies established in the Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP). In accord with the PFIP, the City shall assess development fees for traffic signals and highway interchanges sufficient to fund system-wide improvements. The development fee schedule for these traffic improvements shall be periodically reviewed, and revised as necessary. The City also requires new development to participate in the funding and construction of collector and arterial street improvements identified in the City's Street Master Plan. Bikeways and Pedestrian Paths Policy C-P-33 Policy C-P-35 Policy CD-P-31 The City shall establish a safe and convenient network of identified bicycle routes connecting residential areas with recreation, shopping, and employment areas within the City. Sidewalks shall be routed so that they connect to major public parking areas, transit stops, and intersections within the bikeway system. The pedestrian and bikeway system shall be linked to other pedestrian and bikeways in adjacent neighborhoods and ultimately, to the City-wide Pedestrian and Bikeway Trail System to provide a continuous interconnected system. City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan The Final City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan (2003) includes the following policies related to bicycle circulation in new development areas that are relevant to this analysis: a) New development shall construct bikeways included in the proposed system along all roadways included within or adjacent to that development. b) New development shall provide support facilities such as bicycle racks, personal lockers, and showers at appropriate locations, such as parks, major recreational destinations, park-and-ride facilities, employment centers, schools, and commercial centers. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

354 c) Bike crossings shall be provided at appropriate intervals along new roadways that would adequately serve new large-scale commercial, office, industrial, and residential development. d) New development shall be required to incorporate parks and schools as important destinations for bicyclists when designing circulation plans for subdivisions and other developments. City of Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan The City of Manteca is in the midst of updating the transportation component of the Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP). The PFIP is a fee program in which fees are collected from new development to finance capacity expansion of public facilities (i.e., water, sewer collection, drainage, and transportation) necessary to accommodate the new demands. The City s draft PFIP update includes a variety of roadway widening such as Main Street, parts of Woodward Avenue, and other roadways within the City. City of Ripon General Plan The LOS threshold from the City of Ripon General Plan is relevant to this analysis because some study facilities are within Ripon. The Ripon General Plan circulation element specifies LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS for transportation facilities within the City IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The methods used to analyze the impacts of the project on the roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and rail systems are provided in this section. The standards of significance to be used in identifying project-specific and cumulative impacts are first presented. The standards are based on policies of the City of Manteca and other responsible agencies as well as previous environmental documents prepared by the City. Standards of Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if the effects would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. For the purposes of this Draft EIR, the project would cause a significant impact if: Roadway System Signalized Intersections a) Worsen operations from LOS D or better to LOS E or worse. b) Increase the average delay by three (3) seconds or more at a signalized intersection in Manteca currently operating (or projected to operate) at LOS E or worse. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

355 c) Add traffic to a signalized intersection on a Caltrans facility that is currently operating (or projected to operate) at LOS E or worse. All-Way Stop Intersections a) Worsen operations from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. b) Increase the average delay by three (3) seconds or more at an unsignalized intersection in Manteca currently operating (or projected to operate) at LOS E or worse and cause the peak hour volume signal warrant to be met. c) Add traffic to an unsignalized intersection on a Caltrans facility that is currently operating (or projected to operate) at LOS E or worse and cause the peak hour volume signal warrant to be met. Side-Street Stop Intersections a) Worsen operations (for the highest delayed side-street movement) from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. b) Increase the average delay for the highest delayed side-street movement at an intersection in Manteca currently operating (or projected to operate) unacceptably by three seconds or more and cause one of the peak hour signal warrants to be met. c) Add traffic to a side-street stop intersection on a Caltrans facility that is currently operating (or projected to operate) at LOS E or worse and cause the peak hour volume signal warrant to be met. Freeways a) Worsen operations from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. b) Add 100 vehicles per day or more to a freeway segment that is currently operating (or projected to operate) unacceptably. c) Increase traffic by one percent or more at a freeway ramp that is currently operating (or projected to operate) unacceptably. d) Cause vehicular queues on a freeway off-ramp to spill back to the freeway mainline. Regional CMP System a) Cause a significant impact to a RCMP facility. b) Cause an inconsistency with an applicable RCMP transportation policy. Transit System a) Disrupt or interfere with existing or planned public transit services or facilities. b) Create an inconsistency with policies concerning transit systems set forth in a General Plan or other adopted policy document. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

356 Bicycle/Pedestrian System a) Disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities. b) Result in unsafe conditions for pedestrians, including unsafe pedestrian/bicycle or pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. c) Result in unsafe conditions for bicycles, including unsafe bicycle/pedestrian or bicycle/vehicle conflicts. d) Create an inconsistency with policies related to bicycle or pedestrian systems set forth in a General Plan or other adopted policy document. At-Grade Railroad Crossings a) Cause motorists to incur delays corresponding to LOS E or F conditions due to preemptions caused by train crossings. b) Add traffic to an at-grade railroad crossing that has a demonstrated record of having an above-average rate of accidents. Method of Analysis The information contained in the Transportation, Traffic and Circulation chapter of this Draft EIR was prepared by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. The analysis and methods section begins by describing the project s expected travel characteristics including the anticipated number of vehicle trips and directionality of those trips. The effects of those trips under existing and cumulative conditions are then analyzed. An interim condition scenario is also presented for informational purposes, though is not required as a CEQA-mandated scenario. The interim condition scenario evaluates traffic conditions under existing plus pending projects conditions, which assumes development of various approved, pending, and under construction land developments (including the proposed project) within the study area. Project Travel Characteristics Table displays the project s expected daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation based on trip rates contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012). As shown, the project would generate approximately 6,700 daily trips with 530 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 706 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Figure displays the project accesses under existing plus project conditions. As shown, the project would consist of six connections (labeled alphabetically as A through F) onto public streets. The connections are summarized below: Four public street connections (A-D) intersections along Pillsbury Road. Accesses A and B are located directly across from Heartland Drive and Tannehill Drive, respectively. All movements would be permitted at these connections. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

357 One public street connection (E) on Woodward Avenue west of Atherton Drive. Due to the proximity (430 feet) to Atherton Drive, this connection would be limited to rightturns only by an existing raised median on Woodward Avenue. One public street connection (F) onto the extension of Atherton Drive south of Woodward Avenue. Land Use Quantity Table Project Trip Generation Daily Trip Rate 1 AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Single-Family Residential 706 du s , Notes: 1 Based on average trip rates from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012). du s = dwelling units. Source: Fehr & Peers, Figure displays the expected distribution of trips under existing plus project conditions. The percentages were derived from a variety of sources including: A project-only traffic assignment from the base year version of the SJCOG traffic model. Locations of complementary land uses including schools (based on current school district boundaries from the school district website), shopping, parks, and other amenities. Relative travel time on competing routes such as travel to/from the west through the adjacent neighborhood versus Woodward Avenue. Under the existing plus project scenario, project access would principally be provided onto Woodward Avenue via Pillsbury Road and the Atherton Drive extension. Motorists could also travel to/from the west through the adjacent neighborhood via Heartland Drive and Tannehill Drive to access South Main Street. However, these neighborhood streets have posted speed limits of 25 mph and stop signs. In contrast, Woodward Avenue has a posted speed limit of 45 mph with little or no congestion. Thus, travel times would generally be shorter on Woodward Avenue versus the neighborhood streets to reach SR 120. The trip distribution percentages consider expected differences in inbound versus outbound routing between the project site and SR 99 to/from the north. Specifically, inbound trips to the project traveling southbound on SR 99 are likely to exit at the Austin Road interchange to reach the project via Moffat Boulevard and Woodward Avenue. Conversely, outbound trips desiring to travel northbound on SR 99 are more likely to use the SR 120/Main Street interchange, or Spreckels Avenue to the SR 99/Yosemite Avenue interchange. The trips are less likely to use the SR 99/Austin Road interchange due to the congestion that occurs between its northbound onramp and the nearby SR 120 connector ramp. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

358 Figure : Project Access Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

359 Figure : Project Trip Distribution Existing Plus Project Conditions DRAFT EIR Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

360 Cumulative Conditions Cumulative traffic forecasts were developed using a version of the SJCOG travel demand model recently applied for the update to the City s PFIP. The model considers reasonably foreseeable land uses in the City and in adjacent jurisdictions. Specifically, the following pending projects and buildout of the City of Manteca and Ripon General Plans were assumed and included in the analysis based on the City of Manteca 2013 Housing Inventory Map (as of June 1, 2013): SOWA 706 single-family units located south of Woodward Avenue between Pillsbury Road and Atherton Drive. Hat Ranch 810 age-restricted, active-adult dwelling units and 30,000 square-foot community center located west of Atherton Drive and north of the planned Raymus Expressway. Evans Estates 586 single-family units located east of Main Street and north of the planned Raymus Expressway. Pillsbury Estates 275 single-family units located west of Pillsbury Road and north of the Hat Ranch project. Winter Colonial, Lundbom, and Diego Country Estates 82 single-family units located directly south of Woodward Avenue and north of the SOWA project. Austin Road Business Park and Residential Community (BPRC) buildout assumed. Tesoro Apartments 148 multi-family units located on Atherton Drive just south of SR 120. Blossom Grove 93 single-family dwelling units located south of Woodward Avenue east of Union Road. Sundance and Oleander Estates 995 single-family units located on both sides of Woodward Avenue west of Union Road. The model also assumes various planned roadway improvements in the study area. The study assumes in place those projects that are listed as Tier I improvements in the 2011 RTP. Several other surface street improvements, which are not listed above, are also assumed to be constructed, and are generally included in the City s PFIP, or would be constructed as frontage improvements in conjunction with adjacent land development. The improvements are shown on Figure The cumulative scenario does not assume the Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway/SR 99 interchange because that interchange is not included as Tier 1 improvement in the 2011 RTP. However, the extension of Raymus Expressway from SR 120 (at McKinley Avenue) southeasterly to beyond Austin Road is assumed. The planned interim improvements at the SR 99/Austin Road interchange are assumed in place. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

361 Figure : Cumulative Roadway Network Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

362 The cumulative scenario also does not assume any upgrades to SR 99/Main Street interchange because that interchange is not included as Tier 1 improvement in the 2011 RTP. However, the widening of Main Street to four lanes from south of SR 120 to Raymus Expressway is assumed in place (i.e., a PFIP improvement). The cumulative scenario also assumes the realignment of Woodward Avenue southeasterly to Austin Road since this is part of the roadway improvements required to be in place for the Austin Road BPRC. As part of this improvement, the Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection will be signalized. Figure shows the roadway widenings and extensions assumed in place under cumulative conditions. The same improvements are assumed in place under cumulative no project and cumulative plus project conditions. By virtue of not assuming upgrades to the SR 99/Main Street interchange and completion of the Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway/SR 99 interchange, some traffic that would otherwise be using these facilities is assigned to surface streets. Many of these surface streets are expected to experience cumulatively degraded operations, regardless of whether the project is developed or not. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The significance of the proposed project impacts on the transportation system are evaluated in this section based on the thresholds of significance and analysis results as discussed. Each impact is followed by a recommended mitigation measure to reduce the significance of identified impacts, if needed The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to study intersections. Project trips were assigned to the study facilities in accordance with the trip generation and distribution/assignment assumptions described previously. Figure displays project-only trips at the study intersections. Project-only trips were then added to the existing volumes to yield existing plus project conditions, which are shown on Figure displays these forecasts at the study intersections. Pillsbury Road is a two-lane median-divided residential collector street with fronting residences on the west side and is estimated to carry approximately 1,300 vehicles per day under current conditions (based on a daily estimation from peak hour volumes). Under existing plus project conditions, the volume increases to about 5,700 vehicles per day. The study intersections were reanalyzed under existing plus project conditions using the same methods as used to analyze existing conditions. Table summarizes the results. According to the table, the project would cause the following notable (though not necessarily significant) intersection degradations: Side-street stop-controlled operations at the Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue intersection would worsen from LOS E to F during the PM peak hour. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

363 Figure : Project Only Trips Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

364 Figure : Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Existing Plus Project Conditions Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

365 The all-way stop-controlled Main Street/Woodward Avenue intersection would worsen from LOS B to D during the PM peak hour. Side-street stop-controlled operations at the Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection would worsen from LOS C to E during the PM peak hour. Side-street stop-controlled operations at the Moffat Boulevard/SR 99 off-ramp intersection would worsen from LOS C to F during the AM and PM peak hours. It should be noted the project s two primary accesses onto Woodward Avenue (Pillsbury Road and Atherton Drive) would each operate at LOS C or better on the side-street stopcontrolled approach during the AM and PM peak hours. The significance criterion for impacts at unsignalized intersections considers (in addition to LOS considerations) whether the project satisfies the Peak Hour Volume Warrant for consideration of a traffic signal. All unsignalized study intersections were evaluated under existing and existing project conditions using the Peak Hour Volume warrant (for urban areas) contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Caltrans, Table displays the results. Under existing conditions, the following three unsignalized study intersections satisfy the peak hour signal warrant: Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Ave (PM Peak Hour); Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours); and Moffat Boulevard/Austin Road (PM Peak Hour). The Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Ave and Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersections feature heavy volumes of side-street right-turning traffic that contribute to the signal warrant being met. The 2012 CA MUTCD offers guidance as to whether this movement shall be considered in the calculation. Generally speaking, when the movement is able to turn onto the major street mostly unimpeded, the volume could be removed or reduced in magnitude. However, in both instances, the amount of traffic on each major street (Industrial Park Drive and Moffat Boulevard) combined with the heavy right-turning volumes results in moderate vehicle delays and queues to the side-street right-turn movement. For this reason, the right-turn volumes were maintained in the signal warrant calculations. The addition of project trips would further the need for signals at the three locations listed above. In addition, the project would cause the Main Street/Woodward Avenue intersection to satisfy the peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

366 Table Peak Hour Intersection LOS Existing Plus Project Conditions Existing Plus Existing Project Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS 1. Main St / Industrial Park Dr Traffic Signal AM 23 C 24 C PM 32 C 34 C 2. Industrial Park Dr / Van Ryn Ave Side-Street Stop 3. Moffat Blvd / Industrial Park Dr Traffic Signal 4. Main St / SR 120 WB Ramps Traffic Signal 5. Main St / SR 120 EB Ramps Traffic Signal 6. Main St / Atherton Dr Traffic Signal 7. Main St / Woodward Ave All-Way Stop 8. Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr Side-Street Stop 9. Woodward Ave / Van Ryn Dr Side-Street Stop 10. Woodward Ave / Pillsbury Rd Side-Street Stop 11. Woodward Ave / Atherton Dr Side-Street Stop 12. Woodward Ave / Moffat Blvd. Side-Street Stop 13. Moffat Blvd / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp Side-Street Stop 14. Moffat Blvd / Austin Rd All-Way Stop 15. Austin Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps All-Way Stop Notes: 1 2 AM 7 (20) A (C) 9 (23) A (C) PM 7 (39) A (E) 9 (63) A (F) AM 22 C 23 C PM 22 C 23 C AM 13 B 16 B PM 13 B 14 B AM 19 B 20 C PM 23 C 28 C AM 8 A 9 A PM 12 B 14 B AM 8 A 9 A PM 12 B 27 D AM 3 (11) A (B) 3 (13) A (B) PM 3 (16) A (C) 4 (24) A (C) AM 4 (12) A (B) 3 (13) A (B) PM 4 (13) A (B) 4 (18) A (C) AM 2 (10) A (A) 6 (13) A (B) PM 2 (10) A (B) 4 (15) A (C) AM 2 (12) A (B) 4 (19) A (C) PM 1 (12) A (B) 5 (21) A (C) AM 5 (12) A (B) 7 (13) A (B) PM 5 (25) A (C) 7 (38) A (E) AM 4 (16) A (C) 7 (51) A (F) PM 4 (19) A (C) 9 (60) A (F) AM 14 B 22 C PM 19 C 24 C AM 11 B 13 B PM 8 A 9 A For signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, the overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop control, the average control delay for the worst movement is reported in parenthesis. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations based on LOS D standard at Ripon/Manteca intersections and LOS E standard at Caltrans intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

367 Table Peak Hour Signal Warrant Evaluation Existing Plus Project Conditions Unsignalized Intersection 2. Industrial Park Dr / Van Ryn Ave 7. Main St / Woodward Ave 8. Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr 9. Woodward Ave / Van Ryn Dr 10. Woodward Ave / Pillsbury Rd 11. Woodward Ave / Atherton Dr Peak Hour Signal Warrant Met 1 Existing Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Conditions Conditions AM No No PM Yes Yes AM No No PM No Yes AM No No PM No No AM No No PM No No AM No No PM No No AM No No PM No No 12. Woodward Ave / Moffat Blvd. 2 AM Yes Yes PM Yes Yes 13. Moffat Blvd / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp 14. Moffat Blvd / Austin Rd 15. Austin Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps Notes: 1 2 AM No No PM No No AM No Yes PM Yes Yes AM No No PM No No Based on the Peak Hour Volume warrant (for urban areas) contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Caltrans, Based on the Intersection Near a Grade Crossing (Warrant 9) contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), Caltrans, Source: Fehr & Peers, According to the established significance criteria, the impact at the Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue and Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersections is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) The intersections of Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue and Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard are included as part of the City s proposed PFIP. The PFIP includes future traffic signals at the Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue and Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersections. The signals would operate in coordination with the Moffat Boulevard/Industrial Park Drive/Spreckels Avenue Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

368 signalized intersection. It is anticipated the updated PFIP fee would be adopted prior to certification of this EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure would improve operations at the Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue and Woodward Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersections to acceptable (LOS D or better) conditions. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level Prior to issuance of each building permit, the project applicant shall pay the applicable PFIP fee The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to freeway facilities. Table displays the 95 th percentile vehicle queues on the off-ramps at the SR 120/Main Street and SR 99/Austin Road interchanges under existing and existing plus project conditions. Table also shows the available storage, which is measured from the off-ramp stop/limit line back to the freeway gore (i.e., diverge) point, and indicates that the 95 th percentile vehicle queues would increase with the addition of project trips. However, vehicles would not spill back onto the SR 120 or SR 99 freeway mainline. Table displays the operations of study freeway facilities under existing plus project conditions. As shown, the addition of project trips to existing conditions would result in continued LOS D or better operations at all study facilities. According to Table , all study freeway facilities would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under existing plus project conditions. According to Table , vehicles would not spill back onto the freeway mainline from the SR 120/Main Street or SR 99/Austin Road interchanges. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

369 Table th Percentile Freeway Off-Ramp Vehicle Queues Existing Plus Project Conditions Freeway SR 99 NB off-ramp at Austin Rd. SR 99 SB off-ramp at Austin Rd. SR 120 EB off-ramp at Main St. SR 120 WB off-ramp at Main St. Notes: 1 2 Available Storage 1,250 ft. 1,050 ft. 1,720 ft. 1,720 ft. 95 th Percentile Queue 1 Existing Plus Existing Peak Project Conditions Hour Conditions AM 150 ft. 250 ft. PM 125 ft. 175 ft. AM 100 ft. 150 ft. PM 75 ft. 200 ft. AM 200 ft. 175 ft. 2 PM 325 ft. 450 ft. AM 75 ft. 75 ft. PM 100 ft. 100 ft. 95 th percentile vehicle queue based on output from SimTraffic model. Values rounded to the nearest 25 feet. Greater queue (for either left or right movement) is reported. Project adds relatively little traffic to this off-ramp during this peak hour. Reduction in 95 th percentile vehicle queue is the result of random variations between the existing and existing plus project SimTraffic model runs. Source: Fehr & Peers, Table Peak Hour Freeway LOS Existing Plus Project Conditions Freeway 1. SR 99 NB on-ramp at Austin Rd to off-ramp at SR 120 WB Type Weave 2. SR 99 NB off-ramp at Austin Rd Diverge 3. SR 99 SB from SR 120 on-ramp to Austin Rd off-ramp Basic 4. SR 99 SB off-ramp at Austin Rd Diverge 5. SR 99 SB on-ramp from Austin Rd Merge 6. SR 120 EB between Union Rd onramp and Main St off-ramp Basic (Continued on next page) Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Density 1 LOS Density 1 LOS AM - C - C PM - B - B AM 31 D 31 D PM 29 D 30 D AM 23 C 23 C PM 27 D 27 D AM 28 C 28 C PM 30 D 30 D AM 25 C 25 C PM 28 D 29 D AM 20 C 20 C PM 24 C 24 C Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

370 Table Peak Hour Freeway LOS Existing Plus Project Conditions Freeway Type 7. SR 120 EB off-ramp at Main St Diverge 8. SR 120 EB on-ramp from Main St Merge 9. SR 120 EB between Main St onramp and SR SR 120 WB between SR 99 and Main St off-ramp Basic Basic 11. SR 120 WB off-ramp at Main St Diverge 12. SR 120 WB on-ramp from Main St Merge 13. SR 120 WB between Main St onramp and Union Rd off-ramp Basic Notes: 1 Density is reported in passenger cars per mile per lane. - = Density not reported for weave segments or LOS F conditions. Source: Fehr & Peers, Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Density 1 LOS Density 1 LOS AM 25 C 25 C PM 28 C 29 D AM 21 C 21 C PM 20 C 20 C AM 19 C 19 C PM 19 C 19 C AM 21 C 21 C PM 21 C 21 C AM 27 C 27 C PM 27 C 27 C AM 25 C 26 C PM 23 C 24 C AM 24 C 25 C PM 23 C 24 C The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to the transit system. According to the Manteca Transit Short Range Transit Plan Final Report (2009), expansion of fixed-route bus service is not anticipated to extend on Woodward Avenue east of Main Street. Instead, service expansions in the vicinity of SR 120 are being focused on destinations such as Stadium Shopping Center and the Promenade Shops. However, dial-a-ride service offered by Manteca Transit is available to project residents. The project would not disrupt existing or planned transit services or facilities or create an inconsistency with applicable policies related to transit. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

371 The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. According to the project description, the project would construct a Class I off-street bike path on the east side of the Atherton Drive extension south of Woodward Avenue. The bike path improvement is consistent with the proposed bicycle system in the Final Report: City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan (September 2003). The project would not disrupt existing or planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities or create an inconsistency with applicable policies related to bicycle or pedestrian systems. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to at-grade railroad crossings. The project would add traffic to the following three at-grade railroad crossings located on the following streets within the study area: Industrial Park Drive, Woodward Avenue, and Austin Road. According to the data in Table , these crossings do not have a demonstrated record of having an above-average rate of accidents. Mitigation Measure (a) would indirectly benefit the at-grade crossing on Industrial Park Drive by signalizing/coordinating the crossing with a new traffic signal at the nearby Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue intersection. Mitigation Measure (b) would upgrade the Woodward Avenue crossing to be part of a signalized intersection. The project would add very little traffic to the at-grade crossing on Austin Road, which does not have a demonstrated record of having an above-average rate of accidents. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required The proposed project could cause potentially significant traffic impacts during construction. Construction may include disruptions to the transportation network near the site, including the possibility of temporary street/lane closures. Heavy vehicles would access the site and may need to be staged for construction. Such activities could result in degraded roadway operating conditions. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

372 Prior to the beginning of construction, the applicant shall prepare a construction traffic management plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The plan shall ensure that acceptable operating conditions are maintained on local roadways during peak travel hours The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to Regional CMP roadways/intersections or inconsistencies in applicable Regional CMP transportation policies. Regional roadways in San Joaquin County are monitored as part of the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) implemented by SJCOG. The project vicinity contains six RCMP intersections and seven RCMP roadways, some of which (e.g., SR 120, SR 99) were analyzed in this chapter. Those that were not analyzed either operate acceptably and/or are located a considerable distance from the project site. Appendix K to this Draft EIR contains an evaluation of each RCMP facility, including its existing operation, project-added trips, and resultant operations. The project would not worsen any RCMP facilities to an unacceptable level or degrade any facilities to a significant degree. The applicable SJCOG adopted/approved regional plans were reviewed to evaluate project consistency with them. Plans reviewed included the Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan, Park-and-Ride Master Plan, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School Plan, and Regional Transit Systems Plan and based on those reviews the project would not directly conflict with a goal or policy within those plans, or preclude their implementation. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures Cumulative impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system are identified in this section. Each impact is followed by recommended mitigation measures to reduce the significance of identified impacts The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to study intersections. Figure shows the projected traffic volumes at the study intersections under cumulative no project conditions, assuming no development on the project site. Figure also shows the expected lane configurations and traffic controls at each intersection. As shown, four new intersections along Raymus Expressway are analyzed, and the Woodward Avenue/Austin Road intersection is analyzed. Figure shows the projected traffic volumes at the study intersections under cumulative plus project conditions. Unlike the existing plus project analysis, which was Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

373 a layering of project trips on top of existing volumes, the cumulative plus project forecasts were derived from the SJCOG travel demand model. The approach is reasonable because the project introduces new residential in close proximity to the mostly employment-oriented Austin Road BPRC. As such, the internalization effects of placing trip productions (i.e., residential) and attractions (i.e., employment and retail) in close proximity shall be considered. The SJCOG model does this, with results showing growth in traffic (relative to no project conditions) between roadways connecting the two projects, but decreases in traffic on some more remote roadways. The results occur because the project is introducing trip productions in closer proximity to the BPRC, meaning there is less need to have those trip productions come from more remote origins. Pillsbury Road is a two-lane median-divided residential collector street with fronting residences on the west side and is estimated to carry approximately 1,300 vehicles per day under current conditions (based on a daily estimation from peak hour volumes). Under cumulative plus project conditions (with the mitigated roadway network), the road is expected to carry 8,500 ADT, which is a sizeable volume for a two-lane residential collector street. Several options are available to moderate this volume and could be reduced by adding new street connections from the Atherton Drive extension into the SOWA project s north area. Table displays intersection LOS results under cumulative no project and cumulative plus project conditions. Under cumulative no project conditions, 11 out of the 19 study intersections would operate at unacceptable levels. Under cumulative plus project conditions, 13 out of the 19 study intersections would operate at unacceptable levels. The project would also degrade to a significant degree projected unacceptable operations at other intersections. Given projected LOS F (and severely over-capacity) conditions at the SR 99/Main Street and SR 99/Austin Road interchanges, queue lengths are not reported at each off-ramp due to the strong likelihood they would queue back onto the freeway mainline. According to Table , the project would cause cumulatively significant impacts at the following intersections. The majority of impacts are the result of projected unacceptable operations being degraded to a significant degree. Main Street / Industrial Park Drive LOS C to E during the AM peak hour and LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the PM peak hour. Industrial Park Drive / Van Ryn Avenue LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during both peak hours. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

374 Figure : Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative No Project Conditions Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

375 Figure : Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

376 Table Peak Hour Intersection LOS Cumulative Conditions Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS 1. Main St / Industrial Park Dr Traffic Signal AM 31 C 65 E PM 56 E 66 E 2. Industrial Park Dr / Van Ryn Ave Side-Street Stop 3. Moffat Blvd / Industrial Park Dr Traffic Signal 4. Main St / SR 120 WB Ramps Traffic Signal 5. Main St / SR 120 EB Ramps Traffic Signal 6. Main St / Atherton Dr Traffic Signal 7. Main St / Woodward Ave Traffic Signal 8. Woodward Ave / Buena Vista Dr Side-Street Stop 9. Woodward Ave / Van Ryn Dr Side-Street Stop 10. Woodward Ave / Pillsbury Rd Side-Street Stop 11. Woodward Ave / Atherton Dr Side-Street Stop 12. Moffat Blvd / Woodward Ave Traffic Signal 13. Moffat Blvd / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp Traffic Signal 14. Moffat Blvd / Austin Rd Traffic Signal 15. Austin Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps Traffic Signal 16. Woodward Ave / Austin Rd Traffic Signal AM 99 (>120) F (F) Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation PM >120 (>120) F (F) >120 (>120) >120 (>120) F (F) F (F) AM 46 D 62 E PM 57 E 58 E AM 71 E 79 E PM 48 D 52 D AM 119 F 110 F PM >120 F >120 F AM >120 F >120 F PM 103 F 100 F AM >120 F >120 F PM 30 C 31 C AM 4 (29) A (D) 4 (50) A (F) PM 43 (>120) E (F) 75 (>120) F (F) AM 3 (16) A (C) 3 (20) A (C) PM 5 (31) A (D) 11 (72) B (F) AM 2 (13) A (B) 6 (24) A (C) PM 1 (15) A (C) 3 (21) A (C) AM PM >120 (>120) >120 (>120) F (F) F (F) >120 (>120) >120 (>120) F (F) F (F) AM 10 B 19 B PM 17 B 19 B AM >120 F >120 F PM >120 F >120 F AM >120 F >120 F PM >120 F >120 F AM >120 F >120 F PM >120 F >120 F AM 8 A 14 B PM 19 B 18 B AM 26 C 27 C 17. Raymus Expy / Austin Rd Traffic Signal PM 30 C 34 C (Continued on next page)

377 Table Peak Hour Intersection LOS Cumulative Conditions Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Avg. Delay Avg. Delay Intersection Control Hour (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS 18. Raymus Expy / Atherton Dr Traffic Signal AM 5 A 6 A PM 6 A 7 A 19. Raymus Expy / Pillsbury Rd Roundabout 20. Raymus Expy / Main St Traffic Signal Notes: 1 2 AM 6 A 6 A PM 6 A 6 A AM 26 C 22 C PM 26 C 24 C For signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, the overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop control, the average control delay for the worst movement is reported in parenthesis. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations based on LOS D standard at Ripon/Manteca intersections and LOS E standard at Caltrans intersections. > 120 implies that volume/lane inputs exceed the model s ability to produce a reasonable delay estimate. Source: Fehr & Peers, Moffat Boulevard / Industrial Park Drive operations worsen from LOS D to E during the AM peak hour. Main Street / SR 120 westbound ramps LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour. Main Street / SR 120 eastbound ramps LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during both peak hours. Main Street / Atherton Drive LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour. Main Street / Woodward Avenue LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour. Woodward Avenue / Van Ryn Drive operations worsen from LOS D to F during the PM peak hour and the signal warrant is met. Woodward Avenue / Atherton Drive LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during both peak hours. Moffat Boulevard / SR 99 southbound off-ramp LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during both peak hours. Moffat Boulevard / Austin Road LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during both peak hours. Austin Road / SR 99 northbound ramps LOS F operations exacerbated to a significant degree during both peak hours. The impacts would be considered significant. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

378 Mitigation Measure(s) The Cities of Manteca and Ripon are jointly developing a Sub-Regional Fee Program to help fund the future SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway Interchange. Although the fee program has not yet been officially adopted by either jurisdiction, this is expected to occur in The fee program improvements would replace this interchange with a more traditional partial cloverleaf interchange design that has more capacity. Similar to prior environmental documents, this study has identified the need to upgrade the SR 120/Main Street interchange, and recommends the project applicant pays their fair share toward these upgrades. Although this interchange is included in the Measure K transportation sales tax, this interchange is not included as Tier I RTP project and is not included in the City s draft PFIP. The City s PFIP includes improvements at an intersection-specific level, including many of those listed in Mitigation Measure (c). In lieu of requesting the applicant to contribute a fair share payment for each of the facilities, the City may consider the applicant s payment of the applicable PFIP to represent the fair share contribution. The City s PFIP does not include funding for improvements to the SR 120/Main Street and SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway interchanges. As shown, fair share payments for improvements at those facilities are appropriate. Figure displays the peak hour traffic volumes, traffic controls, and lane configurations with the above improvements in place. The scenario is called the Cumulative Plus Project with Mitigated Roadway Network condition. Table shows the expected operations under this condition at the impacted study intersections with these improvements and the recommended mitigations restore operations at all study intersections to an acceptable LOS D or better. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would lessen the significance of cumulative considerable project impacts. However, due to the uncertainty of when the improvements would be made and where the remaining fair share contributions would come from, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable (a) (b) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay the appropriate fee into the Manteca-Ripon Sub-Regional Fee Program, which would help fund the SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway Interchange (including approach/departure roadways). In the event the fee program has not been adopted, the project applicant shall instead pay a fair share toward the planned SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway interchange to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay a fair share toward the upgrade of the SR 120/Main Street interchange to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

379 Figure : Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations Cumulative Plus Project w/ Mitigation Source: Fehr & Peers, Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

380 Table Peak Hour Intersection LOS Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Conditions Cumulative Plus Cumulative Plus Project Project With Mitigation Peak Avg. Delay 1 Avg. Delay 1 Intersection Mitigation Hour (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS 1. Main St / Industrial Park Dr Upgrade SR 120/Main St. AM 65 E 50 D Interchange and Adjust Lanes PM 66 E 51 D AM >120 (>120) F (F) 18 B 2. Industrial Park Dr / Van Ryn Ave Traffic Signal 3. Moffat Blvd / Industrial Park Dr 4. Main St / SR 120 WB Ramps 5. Main St / SR 120 EB Ramps 6. Main St / Atherton Dr 7. Main St / Woodward Ave Traffic Signal (retiming) Upgrade SR 120/Main St. 8. Woodward Ave / Van Ryn Dr Traffic Signal 9. Woodward Ave / Van Ryn Dr Traffic Signal 10. Woodward Ave / Pillsbury Rd Traffic Signal 11. Woodward Ave / Atherton Dr Traffic Signal 12. Woodward Ave / Moffat Blvd Traffic Signal 13. Moffat Blvd / SR 99 SB Off-Ramp 14. Moffat Blvd / Austin Rd 15. Austin Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps 16. Woodward Avenue/Austin Rd. 17. Raymus Expy / Austin Rd New SR 99/Raymus/River Expwy Interchange Plus PM >120 (>120) F (F) 26 C AM 62 E 43 D PM 58 E 45 D AM 79 E 10 B PM 52 D 11 B AM 110 F 18 B PM >120 F 39 D AM >120 F 40 D PM 100 F 44 D AM >120 F 37 D PM 30 C 31 C AM 4 (50) A (F) 17 B PM 75 (>120) F (F) 19 B AM 3 (20) A (C) 12 B PM 11 (72) B (F) 13 B AM 6 (24) A (C) 14 B PM 3 (21) A (C) 9 A AM 3 (20) A (C) 12 B PM 11 (72) B (F) 13 B AM 19 B 20 C PM 19 B 10 B AM >120 F Intersection does not PM >120 F exist. AM >120 F 32 C PM >120 F 46 D AM >120 F Intersection does not PM >120 F exist. AM 14 B 12 B PM 18 B 23 C AM 27 C 31 C PM 34 C 30 C (Continued on next page) Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

381 Table Peak Hour Intersection LOS Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Conditions Cumulative Plus Cumulative Plus Project Project With Mitigation Peak Avg. Delay 1 Avg. Delay 1 Intersection Mitigation Hour (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS 18. Raymus Expy / Atherton Dr AM 6 A 7 A PM 7 A 6 A 19. Raymus Expy / Pillsbury Rd AM 6 A 9 A PM 6 A 6 A 20. Raymus Expy / Main St AM 22 C 19 B PM 24 C 31 C 21. Raymus Expwy./SR 99 SB Ramps AM 17 B PM Intersections do not 25 C 22. River Road Expwy./SR 99 NB Ramps AM exist. 30 C PM 21 C Notes: 1 2 For signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, the overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop control, the average control delay for the worst movement is reported in parenthesis. Bold text indicates unacceptable operations. Intersection 12 not shown because it doesn t exist under any cumulative condition. > 120 implies that volume/lane inputs exceed the model s ability to produce a reasonable delay estimate. Source: Fehr & Peers, (c) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay a fair share toward the following surface street improvements (unless otherwise noted below) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: Main Street / Industrial Park Drive Restripe the westbound approach to provide a left-turn lane, shared left/through lane, and right-turn lane. Operate the eastbound and westbound approaches with split phasing. Extend the northbound left-turn lanes from 150 to 300 feet. Moffat Boulevard / Industrial Park Drive Reoptimize signal timing. Provide coordinated signal operations at the SR 120/Main Street interchange and Main Street / Atherton Drive intersection. Widen Main Street to six lanes from south of SR 120 to Woodward Avenue (remaining four lanes south of Woodward Avenue). Main Street / Atherton Drive Extend the northbound left-turn lane to 300 feet and provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. Widen Woodward Avenue to consist of two lanes in each direction approaching and departing Main Street. Woodward Avenue/Buena Vista Drive - Install Traffic Signal. Woodward Avenue/Van Ryn Avenue - Install Traffic Signal. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

382 Woodward Avenue/Pillsbury Road - Install Traffic Signal. Woodward Avenue/Atherton Drive - Install Traffic Signal. Moffat Boulevard/Austin Road - Provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase (d) Implement Mitigation Measure (a): The applicant shall pay the required PFIP fee The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to study freeway facilities. All impacts are the result of projected unacceptable operations being degraded to a significant degree. Table displays the 95 th percentile vehicle queues on the off-ramps at the SR 120/Main Street and SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road interchanges under cumulative plus project conditions with mitigations and indicates that the 95 th percentile vehicle queues would not spill back on the SR 120 or SR 99 freeway mainline. Table th Percentile Freeway Off-Ramp Vehicle Queues Cumulative Plus Project Mitigated Conditions Freeway SR 99 NB off-ramp at Raymus Expy. SR 99 SB off-ramp at Raymus Expy. SR 120 EB off-ramp at Main St. SR 120 WB off-ramp at Main St. Notes: 1 Available Storage 1,500 ft. (est.) 1,500 ft. (est.) 1,720 ft. 1,720 ft. Peak Hour AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 95 th Percentile Queue 1 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 575 ft. 275 ft. 100 ft. 625 ft 150 ft ft. 175 ft. 200 ft. 95 th percentile vehicle queue based on output from SimTraffic model. Values rounded to the nearest 25 feet. Greater queue (for either left or right movement) is reported. Source: Fehr & Peers, Table displays the freeway facility LOS results under cumulative no project and cumulative plus project conditions. Under cumulative no project conditions, 6 out of the 13 study facilities would operate at unacceptable levels. Under cumulative plus project conditions, traffic volumes would increase or decrease at these facilities, thereby marginally improving or worsening conditions. According to Table , the project would cause significant impacts to the following freeway facilities: Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

383 SR 99 southbound from SR 120 on-ramp to Austin Road off-ramp LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour. SR 99 southbound diverge at Austin Road LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour. Table Peak Hour Freeway LOS Cumulative Conditions Cumulative No Project Conditions Freeway 1. SR 99 NB on-ramp at Austin Rd to off-ramp at SR 120 WB Type Weave 2. SR 99 NB off-ramp at Austin Rd Diverge 3. SR 99 SB from SR 120 on-ramp to Austin Rd off-ramp Basic 4. SR 99 SB off-ramp at Austin Rd Diverge 5. SR 99 SB on-ramp from Austin Rd Merge 6. SR 120 EB between Union Rd onramp and Main St off-ramp Basic 7. SR 120 EB off-ramp at Main St Diverge 8. SR 120 EB on-ramp from Main St Merge 9. SR 120 EB between Main St onramp and SR SR 120 WB between SR 99 and Main St off-ramp Basic Basic 11. SR 120 WB off-ramp at Main St Diverge 12. SR 120 WB on-ramp from Main St Merge 13. SR 120 WB between Main St onramp and Union Rd off-ramp Basic (Continued on next page) Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Peak Hour Density 1 LOS Density 1 LOS AM - F - F PM - E - E AM 43 F 38 E PM 38 E 37 E AM 38 E 40 E PM - F - F AM 38 E 52 E PM 53 F 51 F AM 32 D 32 D PM 46 F 44 F AM 21 C 21 C PM 32 D 31 D AM 28 D 28 D PM 43 F 42 F AM 19 B 19 B PM 24 C 23 C AM 18 B 18 B PM 22 C 22 C AM 21 C 20 C PM 22 C 22 C AM 27 C 25 C PM 28 D 28 C AM 31 D 30 D PM 27 C 27 C AM 29 D 29 D PM 25 C 25 C Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

384 Table Peak Hour Freeway LOS Cumulative Conditions Cumulative No Project Conditions Freeway Type Peak Hour DRAFT EIR Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Density 1 LOS Density 1 LOS Notes: 1 Density is reported in passenger cars per mile per lane. - = Density not reported for weave segments or basic segments operating at LOS F conditions. Cells that are bolded represent unacceptable operations. Source: Fehr & Peers, Given projected LOS F (and severely over-capacity) conditions at the SR 120/Main Street and SR 99/Austin Road interchanges, queue lengths are not reported at each offramp due to the strong likelihood they would queue back onto the freeway mainline. Because queuing that extends from an off-ramp onto the freeway is considered a significant impact, the project s exacerbation of queuing problems at these off-ramps would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would lessen the significance of cumulatively considerable project impacts. The fee program would help provide funding to construct the future SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway Interchange. As part of the interchange design, a portion of the SR 99 freeway would need to be relocated further east. The interchange would be designed to current Caltrans standards, likely requiring auxiliary lanes in both directions of SR 99 to accommodate weaving and acceleration/deceleration. In addition, the on- and off-ramps at the existing Austin Road interchange would be eliminated. The net result of these improvements would be interchange spacing (from SR 120 to the new interchange) of at least one-mile and freeway off/on ramp auxiliary lanes, which of both improve operations. With construction of the future SR 99/Raymus Expressway/River Road Expressway Interchange, vehicular queuing at the off-ramps at the SR 120/Main Street and SR 99/Raymus Expressway interchanges would not spill back onto the freeway (as indicated in Table ). However, due to the uncertainty of when the improvements would be made and where the remaining fair share contributions would come from, the above impact is considered significant and unavoidable Implement Mitigation Measure (a) (Pay appropriate fee into the Manteca-Ripon Sub-Regional Fee Program). Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

385 The proposed project could cause potentially significant cumulative impacts to the transit system. The project would not disrupt existing or planned transit services or facilities or create an inconsistency with applicable policies related to transit. Therefore, even when considering the cumulative setting, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required The proposed project could cause potentially significant cumulative impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. According to the project description, the project would construct a Class I off-street bike path on the east side of the Atherton Drive extension south of Woodward Avenue. The bike path improvement is consistent with the proposed bicycle system in the Final Report: City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan (September 2003). The project would not disrupt or preclude construction of any other planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities or create an inconsistency with applicable policies related to bicycle or pedestrian systems. The bicycle and pedestrian facilities included in the Bicycle Master Plan represent a cumulative city-wide planning effort. Therefore, because the project is consistent with the Plan, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure(s) None required The proposed project could cause potentially significant cumulative impacts to atgrade railroad crossings. The project would add traffic to the following three at-grade railroad crossings located on the following streets within the study area: Industrial Park Drive, Woodward Avenue, and Austin Road. According to the data in Table , these crossings do not have a demonstrated record of having an above-average rate of accidents. Mitigation Measure (a) would indirectly benefit the at-grade crossing on Industrial Park Drive by signalizing/coordinating the crossing with a new traffic signal at the nearby Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue intersection. Mitigation Measure (b) would upgrade the at-grade Woodward Avenue crossing via signalization. Mitigation Measure (a) requires the project to contribute to the Manteca-Ripon Sub-Regional Fee Program, which would help fund a new interchange on SR 99 (and grade-separated roadway with the UPRR tracks), thereby reducing the usage of the existing at-grade crossing on Austin Road. Therefore, with implementation of the project-level and cumulative-level mitigation measures identified above, the proposed project s cumulative impact is considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

386 The proposed project could cause potentially significant impacts to Regional Congestion Management Program roadways/intersections or inconsistencies in applicable Regional CMP transportation policies. Regional roadways in San Joaquin County are monitored as part of the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) implemented by SJCOG. The project vicinity contains six RCMP intersections and seven RCMP roadways, some of which (e.g., SR 120, SR 99) were analyzed in this chapter. As described previously, the project places housing in close proximity to a major employment center (i.e., Austin Road Business Park). Accordingly, the travel demand model matches some home-based work purpose trips with employment-related trip attractions. As a result, certain roadways, including some RCMP facilities, experience reductions in travel as a consequence of project implementation. As described in Appendix K to this Draft EIR, the project would not worsen any RCMP facilities to an unacceptable level or degrade any facilities to a significant degree. The applicable SJCOG adopted/approved regional plans were reviewed to evaluate project consistency with them. Plans reviewed included the Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan, Park-and-Ride Master Plan, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School Plan, and Regional Transit Systems Plan and based on those reviews the project would not directly conflict with a goal or policy within those plans, or preclude their implementation. Therefore, the proposed project s cumulative impact related to RCMP roadways/intersections and policies would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure(s) None required. Endnotes 1 Caltrans. Traffic Impact Study Guidelines Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Query by Location. Available at: ailroad=&reportinglevel=all&radionm=county&street=&xingtype=%25&xingstatus=%25&xingpos=%25. Accessed December Chapter 4.12 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation

387 5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

388 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 5.1 Introduction The primary intent of the Alternatives Analysis in an EIR, as stated in Section (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, is to [ ] describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Furthermore, Section (f) states, The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The CEQA Guidelines provide the following guidance for discussing alternatives to a proposed project: An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section [a]). Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section ), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly (CEQA Guidelines Section [b]). The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency s determination [ ] Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section [c]). The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison (CEQA Guidelines Section [d]). CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-1

389 The specific alternative of no project shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project s environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline (CEQA Guidelines Section [e][1]). If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section [e][2]). In addition, Section (d) of the CEQA Guidelines states, If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. 5.2 Purpose of Alternatives The project alternatives need to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project, while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of the project. The following project objectives have been identified by the applicant: 1. Provide additional residential opportunities for the expanding populations of Manteca to help accommodate the growing community. 2. Implement the Manteca General Plan goals by providing for residential development for which adequate services can be provided in a timely manner. 3. Create an inviting village setting composed of distinct yet integrated neighborhoods with neighborhood parks, all of which would provide a desirable small town atmosphere and attractive lifestyle choice for residents. 4. Provide the infrastructure necessary for the delivery of safe and reliable public services including water, sewer, drainage, and roadway infrastructure improvements that enhance the entire City of Manteca. Potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, which would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in each of the associated chapters of this Draft EIR, include the following: Agricultural Resources. Development of the project would result in impacts related to the conversion of Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. Air Quality and Climate Change. Development of the project would result in impacts related to operational emissions of ROG and NO X, a conflict with the applicable air quality plan, and global climate change. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-2

390 Biological Resources. Development of the proposed project would result in impacts related to Swainson s hawk, nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and provisions associated with loss of open space of an adopted habitat conservation plan. Cultural Resources. Development of the proposed project could result in damage or destruction of previously unknown prehistoric cultural resources or human remains on the project site. In addition, implementation of the project would result in cumulative impacts to cultural resources. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources. Implementation of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impacts related to risks associated with structural damage from unstable or expansive soils. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Development of the proposed project could result in impacts related to the following: on-site storage tanks or other substance containers associated with the DeJong property only; on-site wells on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site and DeJong property only; and soil contamination on the DeJong property only. Hydrology and Water Quality. Development of the proposed project could result in impacts related to the existing drainage pattern of the project site, as well as surface runoff from the site. In addition, construction of the project could result in short-term impacts to surface water quality. Furthermore, implementation of the project could result in operational water quality degradation associated with urban runoff from the project site. Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing. Development of the proposed project would result in impacts related to the project s compatibility with existing adjacent land uses. Noise. Implementation of the proposed project could result in exposure of the project s proposed sensitive receptors to transportation-related noise levels in excess of City standards. In addition, construction noise could impact existing nearby sensitive receptors. Public Services and Utilities. Implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts related to park and recreation facilities. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation. Development of the proposed project could result in impacts to study intersections under project-level and cumulative conditions. In addition, the project could cause short-term traffic impacts related to construction. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-3

391 The proposed project s impacts that have been determined to remain significant and unavoidable, even after implementation of the feasible mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR, include the following: Aesthetics. Development of the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to scenic vistas associated with the open space views of agricultural fields and orchards. Because feasible mitigation does not exist to reduce the impact, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Agricultural Resources. Development of the proposed project would contribute to the cumulative impact related to conversion of important farmland. Due to the permanent loss of agricultural land attributable to the project, even with implementation of mitigation measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation. Implementation of the proposed project would create significant cumulative impacts to study intersections and study freeway facilities. Although implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the impacts, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 5.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The requirement that an EIR evaluate alternatives to the proposed project or alternatives to the location of the proposed project is a broad one; the primary intent of the alternatives analysis is to disclose other ways that the objectives of the project could be attained while reducing the magnitude of, or avoiding, the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives that are included and evaluated in the EIR must be feasible alternatives. However, the CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for a range of reasonable alternatives and thus limit the number and type of alternatives that may need to be evaluated in a given EIR. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section (f): The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determined could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be feasible. In the context of CEQA Guidelines Section , feasible is defined as:...capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. Finally, an EIR is not required to analyze alternatives when the effects of the alternative cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-4

392 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Further Analysis DRAFT EIR Consistent with CEQA, primary consideration was given to alternatives that could reduce significant impacts, while still meeting most of the basic project objectives. Any alternative that would have impacts identical to or more severe than the proposed project, and/or that would not meet any or most of the project objectives were dismissed from further consideration. The alternatives considered but dismissed from further analysis in this Draft EIR are discussed below. One alternative, the Off-Site Alternative, was considered but dismissed. The major characteristics of the Off-Site Alternative are summarized below. Off-Site Alternative Section (f)(2)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states, If the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reason in the EIR. A feasible location for the proposed project that would result in substantially reduced impacts does not exist. The CEQA Guidelines Section (b) requires that only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. The Off-Site Alternative would involve the construction of the proposed project on an alternative location. The Off-Site Alternative would locate the proposed project on other lands located within the vicinity of the proposed project site. Because the project applicant does not own a comparable property, the Off-Site Alternative has been dismissed from further consideration. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines state that, by definition, an alternative should avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the environmental effects of the project. Alternative locations within the City would generally contain characteristics similar to the proposed project site. Development of the project on another similar site would result in an equal area being graded and, therefore, similar physical environmental impacts would occur related to land disturbance activities. In addition, the development of the same number of residential units would result in traffic, air quality, and noise impacts that would likely be very similar, or even potentially worse than the proposed project, depending on site accessibility. Furthermore, development of the same number of residential units on another similar site in the City would likely result in similar impacts associated with loss of farmland and agricultural resources. The proposed project may not be consistent with the Manteca General Plan land use designation for another site, and land use and planning impacts could potentially be greater. Similarly, an Off-Site Alternative location could currently contain housing that would need to be removed, and displacement of housing or people could occur. Accordingly, potentially greater impacts related to population and housing could occur. Therefore, development of the project at an alternative location in the City of Manteca would be expected to result in the same impacts, or worse, when compared to the proposed project. As a result, an environmentally feasible off-site location that would meet the requirements of CEQA, as well as meet the basic objectives of the project, does not exist. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-5

393 Alternatives Considered in this Draft EIR The following alternatives were considered and evaluated for the proposed project: No Project Alternative; Reduced Density Alternative; and Reduced Footprint Alternative. CEQA requires the evaluation of the comparative impacts of the No Project alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section [e]). Analysis of the No Project Alternative shall discuss [ ] existing conditions [ ] as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. (Id., subd. [e][2]) If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in the property s existing state versus environmental effects that would occur if the project were approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this no project consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means no build, wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project would not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment. (Id., subd. [e][3][b]). Per the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has decided to evaluate a No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain under current conditions. In addition, the City has decided to evaluate a Reduced Density Alternative, which includes the development of the proposed project at the lowest density allowable for the proposed land uses. Per the site s Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation, the lowest density allowable is 2.1 residential units per gross acre. The proposed project includes the development of 706 single-family units, as compared to the Reduced Density Alternative, which would develop 402 single-family units ( acres x 2.1 du/ac = 402 du). Furthermore, the City has decided to evaluate a Reduced Footprint Alternative, which includes implementation of the proposed project over a smaller development footprint. Under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the same number of units would be developed, but on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites only. The DeJong property would remain under existing conditions. Development of the proposed 706 single-family dwelling units on the two sites rather than the three would result in the disturbance of 80 fewer acres of land while still being consistent with the project site s existing Manteca General Plan land use designation of LDR (706 du / acres = 6.3 du/ac). CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-6

394 The major characteristics of each of the alternatives are summarized below. No Project Alternative DRAFT EIR The No Project Alternative is defined in this section as the continuation of the existing conditions of the project site, which is currently agricultural land. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Because development of the site would not occur, land disturbance and any associated physical environmental impacts would not occur. The majority of impacts are directly related to land disturbances. Accordingly, such impacts related to land disturbance would not occur under the No Project Alternative. For example, transportation, traffic, and circulation in the project vicinity would not be modified under the No Project Alternative; thus, all associated impacts such as increased vehicle traffic on area roadways, increase in mobile air pollutant emissions, and traffic-related noise increases would not occur. Therefore, impacts related to air quality and climate change, noise, and transportation, traffic, and circulation would be fewer than anticipated for the proposed project. In addition, because land disturbance would not occur under the No Project Alternative, impacts to any potential on-site biological resources or potential destruction of previously unknown cultural resources would not occur, and, thus, would be fewer than that of the proposed project. Because the site would not introduce any new structures or buildings on the site under the No Project Alternative, modifications to the existing visual character or quality of the site or surroundings, creation of any new sources of light or glare, changes to views of or from scenic vistas, or changes to scenic resources would not occur. Thus, aesthetic impacts would be less under the No Project Alternative compared to the proposed project. Similarly, as structures or buildings would not be proposed for the site as part of the No Project Alternative, impacts related to structures being affected by geology, soils, and seismicity would not occur, and on-site construction personnel or future residents would not be exposed to any potential hazardous materials on-site. The No Project Alternative would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or surrounding area and would not create or contribute an increase in runoff water that would exceed existing or planned stormwater drainage system capacity or violate water quality standards. Groundwater recharge would not be affected by the No Project Alternative. Placement of housing or structures within a floodplain and any associated risks would not occur with the No Project Alternative. Therefore, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be fewer than that of the proposed project. As the project site would continue to be utilized as agricultural land under the No Project Alternative, conversion of the site to non-agricultural uses and loss of productive agricultural land would not occur. Thus, impacts related to agricultural resources would be fewer than the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not involve the creation of housing and would not directly increase population or employment in the area. Accordingly, modifications to the population and/or housing in the area would not occur, and an associated increase in demand for public services and utilities would not occur. It should be noted, however, that the No Project CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-7

395 Alternative could result in potentially greater impacts than the proposed project related to land use and planning associated with compatibility issues and consistency with the Manteca General Plan, as the No Project Alternative would result in the ongoing agricultural use on a site that is currently designated and zoned for urban uses. Under the No Project Alternative, the site would not be annexed into the City and would remain within the County s jurisdiction, which could allow the site to continue to be used for agricultural purposes. However, the site is immediately adjacent to currently developed areas with existing residential development and proposed future residential development. Thus, if the site continues to be used for agricultural purposes, compatibility with the surrounding land uses could potentially become an issue as the City continues to grow. Because implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in the site remaining under current conditions, physical environmental impacts would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in fewer overall impacts compared to that of the proposed project. The following areas would result in no impact if the No Project Alternative were selected: Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality and Climate Change; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing; Noise; Public Services and Utilities; and Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation. Reduced Density Alternative The Reduced Density Alternative includes the development of the proposed project at the lowest density allowable per the Manteca General Plan land use designation for the project site. The proposed project includes the development of 706 single-family units, as compared to the Reduced Density Alternative, which would develop 402 single-family units ( acres x 2.1 du/ac = 402 du). Although the Reduced Density Alternative would consist of fewer units, the same site disturbance would occur. The Reduced Density Alternative would achieve the majority of the proposed project s objectives. Aesthetics Development of proposed project or the Reduced Density Alternative would result in development of residential units on the entire project site. As a result, the Reduced Density CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-8

396 Alternative would result in the similar impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, and cumulative impacts. As such, significant and unavoidable impacts would still occur under the Reduced Density Alternative. In addition, both the proposed project and Reduced Density Alternative would alter the existing visual character and quality of the site and the site s surroundings and introduce new sources of light and glare. Because the Reduced Density Alternative would modify the existing land uses on the site to residential uses, the same potential for degradation of visual character and quality of the site and surroundings would occur. However, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of 304 fewer dwelling units, which would likely decrease the amount and potential effects of light and glare. Therefore, development of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts, as compared to the proposed project. Agricultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of the entire project site. As such, the Reduced Density Alternative would still result in the conversion of currently productive agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts related to agricultural resources would be similar under the Reduced Density Alternative to the proposed project, and significant and unavoidable impacts would still occur. Air Quality and Climate Change Development of the Reduced Density Alternative would consist of buildout of the same acreage, but with 304 fewer residential units. As the same site disturbance would occur, constructionrelated impacts would be similar to that of the proposed project. However, because the Reduced Density Alternative would involve fewer homes and future residents, emissions associated with vehicle trips, as well as area and energy sources, would be fewer than that of the proposed project. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version software was utilized to estimate the Reduced Density Alternative s operational emissions. The CalEEMod results are presented in Table 5-1. As shown in the table, the unmitigated operational emissions associated with the Reduced Density Alternative would be below the applicable thresholds of significance. Therefore, the potentially significant impact related to operational emissions of ROG and NO X and a conflict with the applicable air quality plan identified for the proposed project would not occur under the Reduced Density Alternative. Accordingly, air quality impacts would be fewer under Reduced Density Alternative than the proposed project. Table 5-1 Unmitigated Reduced Density Alternative Operational Emissions Pollutant Project Emissions (tons/yr) SJVAPCD Thresholds of Significance (tons/yr) ROG NO X CO SO X PM PM CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-9

397 Source: CalEEMod, January Because both the proposed project and the Reduced Density Alternative would be required to comply with the City s Climate Action Plan for GHG emissions and global climate change, associated impacts would be expected to be similar under the Reduced Density Alternative. Biological Resources Because the same site disturbance would occur under the Reduced Density Alternative as the proposed project, the same potential exists for effects on existing habitat, interference with native or migratory wildlife species or corridors, confliction with policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, conversion of woodlands, and confliction with provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources would be similar under the Reduced Density Alternative to the proposed project. Cultural Resources Because the same site disturbance would occur under the Reduced Density Alternative as the proposed project, the same potential exists for changes in significance of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource, or destruction of a previously unknown cultural resource. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources would be similar under the under the Reduced Density Alternative to the proposed project. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources Development of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the same site disturbance as the proposed project, but would consist of buildout of 304 fewer residential units. Accordingly, the same potential for on-site hazards related to geology, soils, and seismicity, such as earthquakes, soil erosion, soil stability, and expansive soil, would occur under the Reduced Density Alternative. In addition, as the Reduced Density Alternative involves buildout of the same site, the same impacts to mineral resources would occur. However, because the Reduced Density Alternative would involve fewer residential units, fewer homes and future residents would be exposed to the aforementioned potential geological hazards. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts associated with geology, soils, and seismicity compared to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Reduced Density Alternative would involve the same site disturbance as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to exposure to any existing on-site hazards or hazardous materials would be similar under the Reduced Density Alternative to the proposed project. As the Reduced Density Alternative, like the proposed project, would consist of residential uses, impacts related to the creation of hazards to the public or the environment related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be similar to that of the proposed project. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed project. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-10

398 Hydrology and Water Quality Because the same land disturbance would occur during construction, construction activities associated with the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the same impacts as the proposed project related to potential water quality and erosion issues. The Reduced Density Alternative, similar to the proposed project, would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. However, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve the construction of 304 fewer residential units than the proposed project. As such, the amount of impervious surfaces under the Reduced Density Alternative would be expected to be slightly less than that of the proposed project. Therefore, development of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts than that of the proposed project related to the effects on the existing stormwater drainage system capacity, contaminated runoff, and groundwater recharge. As the site is not located within a floodplain, the same impacts related to placement of structures or housing within a floodplain and associated flooding risks would occur under the Reduced Density Alternative as the proposed project. Overall, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in slightly fewer hydrology and water quality related impacts, as compared to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing The Reduced Density Alternative would, like the proposed project, involve annexation to the City of Manteca and Prezoning. The land use proposed under both the proposed project and the Reduced Density Alternative would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. Therefore, although the Reduced Density Alternative would consist of 304 fewer residential units, impacts related to land use and planning would be similar to that of the proposed project, as both are consistent with what is planned for the site. Neither the proposed project nor the Reduced Density Alternative would displace existing housing or people, and both would create housing on the site. Due to the creation of fewer residential units, the Reduced Density Alternative would induce less of a population growth in the area than the proposed project. Accordingly, impacts related to population and housing would be slightly less than that of the proposed project. Noise Development of the Reduced Density Alternative would consist of buildout of the same acreage, but with 304 fewer residential units. As the same site disturbance would occur, constructionrelated noise and vibration impacts would be similar to that of the proposed project. However, because the Reduced Density Alternative would involve fewer future residents, noise levels associated with an increase in project-generated vehicle trips would be fewer than that of the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in fewer noise-related impacts than that of the proposed project. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-11

399 Public Services and Utilities Because the Reduced Density Alternative would consist of buildout of 304 fewer residential units, the increase in demand for public services and utilities including, but not limited to, water supply and delivery; wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste disposal, law enforcement and fire protection, and schools would be less than that of the proposed project. Therefore, development of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to public services and utilities than that of the proposed project. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation Development of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the buildout of 304 fewer dwelling units than the proposed project, which would subsequently result in fewer projectgenerated vehicle trips. Because fewer vehicle trips would be generated by the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the intensity of traffic-related impacts would be reduced, as compared to the proposed project. It should be noted, however, that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still increase traffic on surrounding intersections and roadways. Where such intersections and roadways are projected to operate at unacceptable levels with or without the proposed project, similar impacts would be expected under the Reduced Density Alternative (i.e., significant and unavoidable impacts would still be expected to occur under the Reduced Density Alternative). However, overall, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in fewer transportation, traffic, and circulation impacts than that of the proposed project. Reduced Footprint Alternative Under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites would be built out in accordance with the sites existing Manteca General Plan land use designation of LDR, while the DeJong property would remain under existing conditions. Development of the proposed 706 single-family dwelling units on the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites only would result in the disturbance of 80 fewer acres of land with an overall density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre, which would be within the allowable density range for LDR land uses of 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would achieve the majority of the proposed project s objectives. Aesthetics Development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in development of the same number of residential units as the proposed project, but on fewer overall acres. Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in the conversion of currently open space agricultural land to urban development, the impacts of the current views of open-space land in the area would still occur. Although the amount of land being converted under the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project, the impact to scenic vistas would still be expected to be equal to that of the proposed project. Accordingly, significant and unavoidable impacts would still occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. However, because development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would disturb less land, the potential to disturb any existing scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-12

400 and historic buildings within a state scenic highway would be less than that of the proposed project. Similarly, as fewer acres would be converted to urban uses, the potential for degradation of visual character and quality of the site and surroundings would be less under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would develop the same number of residential units as the proposed project, which would result in the same generation of new light and glare sources in the area. However, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be built over less land, the development would be visible from fewer locations and receptors. Therefore, the potential effects of light and glare on surrounding land uses would be expected to be slightly less than that of the proposed project. Overall, development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts, as compared to the proposed project. Agricultural Resources The Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in the development of only a portion of the proposed project site, which would result in the conversion of fewer acres of currently productive agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. However, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would still result in the permanent loss of agricultural land, significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts would still occur. Overall, impacts related to agricultural resources would be slightly fewer under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project. Air Quality and Climate Change Development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of buildout of the same number of residential units, but on less acreage. As less site disturbance would occur, construction-related impacts would be expected to be slightly less than that of the proposed project. In addition, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would involve the same number of homes and future residents, emissions associated with vehicle trips, as well as area and energy sources would be equal to that of the proposed project. Because both the proposed project and the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be required to comply with the City s Climate Action Plan for GHG emissions and global climate change, associated impacts would be expected to be similar under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. Overall, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in similar air quality and climate change impacts as the proposed project. Biological Resources Because less land disturbance would occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative as the proposed project, the potential for effects on existing habitat, interference with native or migratory wildlife species or corridors, confliction with policies or ordinance protecting biological resources, conversion of woodlands, and confliction with provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan would be less as well. Therefore, impacts related to biological resources would be fewer under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-13

401 Cultural Resources Because less land disturbance would occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative as the proposed project, the potential for changes in significance of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource, or destruction of a previously unknown cultural resource would be less. Therefore, impacts related to cultural resources would be fewer under the under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources Development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in less land disturbance as the proposed project, but buildout of the same number residential units. Because fewer acres would be developed, the potential for on-site hazards related to geology, soils, and seismicity, such as earthquakes, soil erosion, soil stability, and expansive soil, would be less under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project. However, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would involve the same number of residential units, the same number of homes and future residents would be exposed to the aforementioned potential geological hazards. The impacts related to mineral resources under the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be similar to that of the prosed project, as mineral resources do not exist at any of the sites. Overall, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in slightly fewer impacts associated with geology, soils, and seismicity compared to the proposed project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials As the Reduced Footprint Alternative, like the proposed project, would consist of residential uses, impacts related to the creation of hazards to the public or the environment related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be similar to that of the proposed project. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would involve less land disturbance than the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to exposure to any existing on-site hazards or hazardous materials would be less under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than the proposed project. Specifically, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not involve development of the DeJong property, the potentially significant impacts identified for the proposed project related to on-site storage tanks or other substance containers and soil contamination would be less than significant under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. Overall, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials as the proposed project. Hydrology and Water Quality Because less land disturbance would occur during construction, construction activities associated with the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to potential water quality and erosion issues. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would alter the existing drainage pattern of only two of the sites, and the DeJong property would not be disturbed. As such, the amount of impervious areas under the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be less than that of the proposed project. Therefore, development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts than that of the proposed project related to CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-14

402 effects on the existing stormwater drainage system capacity, contaminated runoff, and groundwater recharge. As the site is not located within a floodplain, the same impacts related to placement of structures or housing within a floodplain and associated flooding risks would occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative as the proposed project. Overall, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer hydrology and water quality related impacts, as compared to the proposed project. Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing Although the Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of the annexation of a smaller area to the City of Manteca than that of the proposed project, annexation and prezoning would still be required under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. In addition, buildout of the same number of residential units as the proposed project would occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of similar buildout as the proposed project and would be consistent with the land use designation for the site, similar impacts related to land use and planning would occur. Neither the proposed project nor the Reduced Footprint Alternative would displace existing housing or people, and both would create new housing. Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would create the same number or residential units as the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would induce the same population growth in the area as the proposed project. Accordingly, impacts related to population and housing would be equal to that of the proposed project. Noise Development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of buildout of less acreage, but the same number of residential units as the proposed project. Although less land disturbance would occur, the same number of units would be constructed; thus, the construction-related noise and vibration impacts would be slightly less than or equal to that of the proposed project. In addition, future residences would be located further from Woodward Avenue and the UPRR line under the Reduced Footprint Alternative as compared to the proposed project. Thus, trafficrelated noise along Woodward Avenue and rail noise would have less of an impact on the future residents under the Reduced Footprint Alternative than that of the proposed project. However, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would involve the same number of future residents, noise levels associated with an increase in project-generated vehicle trips would be expected to be equal to that of the proposed project. Overall, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in slightly fewer noise-related impacts than that of the proposed project. Public Services and Utilities Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of buildout the same number of residential units, the increase in demand for public services and utilities including, but not limited to, water supply and delivery; wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste disposal, law enforcement and fire protection, and schools would be equal to that of the proposed project. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-15

403 Therefore, development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in similar impacts related to public services and utilities as the proposed project. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation Development of the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in the buildout of the same number of dwelling units as the proposed project. Thus, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in the same project-generated vehicle trips as the proposed project. Because the same number of vehicle trips would be generated by the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the intensity of traffic-related impacts would be expected to be similar to that of the proposed project. It should be noted that the smaller project area of the Reduced Footprint Alternative could result in modifications to site access and trip distributions as compared to the proposed project, which could result in potential increases and/or decreases in traffic at certain intersections or roadways identified in the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project. Nonetheless, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would still increase traffic on surrounding intersections and roadways. Where such intersections and roadways are projected to operate at unacceptable levels with or without the proposed project, similar impacts would be expected under the Reduced Footprint Alternative (i.e., significant and unavoidable impacts would still be expected to occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative). Overall, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in similar transportation, traffic, and circulation impacts as the proposed project. 5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states, If the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Designating a superior alternative depends in large part on what environmental effects one considers most important. This Draft EIR does not presume to make this determination; rather, the determinations of which impacts are more important are left to the reader and the decision makers. Generally, the environmentally superior alternative is the one that would result in the fewest environmental impacts as a result of project implementation. However, it should be noted that the environmental considerations are one portion of the factors that must be considered by the public and the decisionmakers in deliberations on the proposed project and the alternatives. Other factors of importance include urban design, economics, social factors, and fiscal considerations. In addition, the superior alternative would, ideally, still provide opportunities to achieve most of the stated project objectives. A comparison of the proposed project to the three alternatives discussed in detail above is illustrated in Table 5-2, below. Aside from the No Project Alternative, the development alternatives would meet the majority of the proposed project s objectives. As shown in the table, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project in eight resource areas, and equal impacts in four resource areas. Similarly, the Reduced Footprint CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-16

404 Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project in eight resource areas, and equal impacts in four resource areas. Because both the Reduced Density Alternative and the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project in the same number of resource areas, the reduction in the severity of impacts must be evaluated in order to determine the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to transportation, traffic, and circulation than the Reduced Footprint Alternative; however, the significant and unavoidable impacts would still occur under both alternatives. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts related to agricultural resources than the Reduced Density Alternative; however, significant and unavoidable impacts would still result under both alternatives. As such, the number of significant and unavoidable impacts overall would be similar under the Reduced Density Alternative and the Reduced Footprint Alternative. However, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would reduce potentially significant impacts identified for the proposed project related to hazards and hazardous materials to less-than-significant levels; thus, mitigation for such impacts would not be required. Therefore, because potentially significant impacts identified for the proposed project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the impacts related to agricultural resources would be fewer, under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-17

405 Resource Area Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality and Climate Change Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing Table 5-2 Alternative Environmental Impacts Comparison No Project Alternative Proposed Project Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation DRAFT EIR Reduced Density Alternative Reduced Footprint Alternative None Fewer* Fewer* None Equal* Fewer* None Fewer Equal None Equal Fewer None Equal Fewer None Fewer Fewer None Equal Fewer None Fewer Fewer Greater Fewer Equal Noise Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation None Fewer Fewer Public Services and Less-Than-Significant with Utilities Mitigation None Fewer Equal Transportation, Traffic, Significant and and Circulation Unavoidable None Fewer* Equal* No Impact = None; Less than Proposed Project = Fewer; Equal to Proposed Project = Equal; and Greater than Proposed Project = Greater. * Significant and Unavoidable impact(s) determined for the proposed project would still be expected to occur under the Alternative. CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES 5-18

406 6. STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS

407 6 STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS 6.1 Introduction The Statutorily Required Sections chapter of the Draft EIR includes brief discussions regarding those topics that are required to be included in an EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section The chapter includes a discussion of the proposed project s potential to induce economic or population growth. In addition, the chapter includes lists of significant irreversible environmental changes, cumulative impacts, and significant and unavoidable impacts caused by the proposed project. 6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts An EIR must discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth in the vicinity of the project and how that growth would, in turn, affect the surrounding environment (see CEQA Guidelines, Section [d]). Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including through the elimination of obstacles to growth or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of the removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. A number of issues must be considered when assessing the growth-inducing effects of development plans, such as the proposed project, including the following: Elimination of Obstacles to Growth: The extent to which infrastructure capacity provided to accommodate the proposed project would allow additional development in surrounding areas; and Economic Effects: The extent to which development of the proposed project could cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Growth-inducing impacts associated with the proposed project would be considered to be any effects of the project allowing for additional growth or increases in population beyond that proposed by the project or anticipated in the Manteca General Plan. The proposed project would include annexation from San Joaquin County to the City of Manteca; however, the proposed project would be consistent with the City s land use designation for the site of LDR. The proposed project includes the development of 706 single-family residential dwelling units, as well as parks, landscaping, a Class I bike path with a greenbelt, and associated infrastructure. As discussed in further detain in Chapter 4.9, Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, the project could introduce an additional 2,168 new residents to the City of Manteca, which would directly induce population in the area. However, the increase in population would be within the anticipated population projections per the San Joaquin Council of Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-1

408 Governments (SJCOG). In addition, as the proposed project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan land use designation for the site, the associated increase in population has been anticipated by the City within the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase in population, but not beyond that already anticipated in the Manteca General Plan. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services, would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth. The primary infrastructure systems installed as part of the proposed project, including roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and wastewater, water, and storm drain systems, would be sized to meet demands created by the proposed project. It should be noted that existing utility lines currently exist in the project vicinity, and the proposed project would include connection to the existing lines. As discussed in in further detail in Chapter 4.9 of this Draft EIR, in order to ensure that population growth does not outpace availability of adequate infrastructure, the City has adopted a Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter of City Municipal Code), which states that any project seeking sewer capacity shall first obtain project allocations prior to issuance of building permits. Compliance with the City s Growth Management Ordinance would ensure that the City has adequate sewer infrastructure available and the ability to provide adequate sewer services to the proposed project. The proposed project s impacts related to sewer services, as well as other public services and utilities, are discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.11, Public Services and Utilities, of this Draft EIR. As determined in Chapter 4.11, the proposed project s impacts related to public services and utilities would be less than significant with implementation of the required mitigation measures where appropriate. Therefore, because the growth associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the type of development anticipated for the site by the City per the Manteca General Plan, and the infrastructure required for the proposed project would be sized to meet the demands created solely by the project, the proposed project would not be expected to generate any new growthinducing impacts. 6.3 Cumulative Impacts CEQA Guidelines, Section requires that an EIR discuss the cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed project that adversely affect the environment. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). [I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355, subd. [a]). The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355, subd. [b]). Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-2

409 The need for cumulative impact assessment reflects the fact that, although a project may cause an individually limited or individually minor incremental impact that, by itself, is not significant, the increment may be cumulatively considerable, and, thus, significant, when viewed together with environmental changes anticipated from past, present, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064, subd. [h(1)], Section 15065, subd. [c], and Section 15355, subd. [b]). Accordingly, particular impacts may be less than significant on a projectspecific basis but significant on a cumulative basis if their small incremental contribution, viewed against the larger backdrop, is cumulatively considerable. However, it should be noted that CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064, Subdivision (h)(5) states, [ ]the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable. Therefore, even where cumulative impacts are significant, any level of incremental contribution is not necessarily deemed cumulatively considerable. Section 15130(b) of CEQA Guidelines indicates that the level of detail of the cumulative analysis need not be as great as for the project impact analyses, but that analysis should reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, and that the analysis should be focused, practical, and reasonable. To be adequate, a discussion of cumulative effects must include the following elements: (1) Either (a) a list of past, present and probable future projects, including, if necessary, those outside the agency s control, or (b) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior certified EIR, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact, provide that such documents are reference and made available for public inspection at a specified location; (2) A summary of the individual projects environmental effects, with specific reference to additional information and stating where such information is available; and (3) A reasonable analysis of all of the relevant projects cumulative impacts, with an examination of reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project s contribution to such effects (Section 15130[b]). For some projects, the only feasible mitigation measures will involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations, rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis (Section 15130[c]). Section 15130(a)(3) states that an EIR may determine that a project s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not significant, if a project is required to implement or fund the project s fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. Cumulative Setting The lead agency should define the relevant geographic area of inquiry for each impact category (id., Section 15130, subd. [b][3]), and should then identify the universe of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts relevant to the various categories, either through the preparation of a list of such projects or through the use of a Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-3

410 summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact (id., subd. [b][1]). The proposed project, in conjunction with development in the vicinity of the project site and within the region, would contribute to cumulative environmental impacts. The cumulative analysis for the proposed project is based on the Manteca General Plan EIR, as well as present and probable future projects, which was derived from the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project. The traffic impact study utilized a version of the SJCOG travel demand model recently applied for the update to the City s Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP). The model considers reasonably foreseeable land uses in the City and in adjacent jurisdictions and includes pending projects (i.e., development of various approved, pending, and under construction land developments, including the proposed project), and buildout of the City of Manteca and Ripon General Plans. The model includes full buildout of the Austin Road Business Park and Residential Community. In addition, various planned roadway improvements are assumed for the cumulative analysis, including projects listed as Tier I improvements in the 2011 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and several other surface street improvements. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are analyzed in each of the technical chapters of this Draft EIR (Chapters 4.1 through 4.12) and are summarized below. Aesthetics The Manteca General Plan EIR determined that as the City of Manteca continues to expand, the cumulative loss of agricultural land that separates the neighboring communities could contribute to the loss of each community s sense of identity and place. The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative change in visual character of an agricultural area within the City of Manteca. Residential subdivisions are located to the north and west of the project site, and agricultural land is located adjacent to the east. South of the project site is the proposed Hat Ranch Project, the Austin Road Business Park and Master Planned Community are planned for development to the east, and three smaller residential projects are planned to the northwest of the project site. Therefore, in terms of the change to the visual character of the project area, development on the project site would be typical of what is anticipated to occur around the project site. Should development be allowed, the character of the area would change from flat fields and roadways to residences with trees and park/open-space areas. Development in the City, in addition to the development on the project site, would contribute to a change in the visual character of the area. The Manteca General Plan designates the entire project site as LDR allowing for 2.1 to 8.0 residential units per gross acre, which is consistent with the residential densities proposed for the overall project site, therefore, a General Plan Amendment would not be needed. The Manteca General Plan EIR addressed build-out of the plan area, which included the project area, and states that converting agricultural land to residential use would not create a significant impact. Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-4

411 Therefore, the conversion of the project site, in addition to other lands in the project area, from a rural agriculture to urban residential setting would be considered less-than-significant. Agricultural Resources Approximately 29.1 percent of the Manteca General Plan Study Area, as of 2002, was developed. The Manteca General Plan EIR determined that, at buildout, approximately 66 percent of the existing important farmland within the study area would remain in agricultural use. However, the Manteca General Plan EIR also determined that even with implementation of mitigation measures, goals, and policies, impacts related to the conversion of agricultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable, for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. The Manteca General Plan designates the project site for residential development and the conversion of this particular agricultural land was thereby anticipated in the Manteca General Plan EIR. In addition, the project applicant would be required to pay the City s Agricultural Mitigation Fee for the project. Other, similar development projects in Manteca, resulting in conversion of farmland, would be required to pay the City s Agricultural Mitigation Fee. Payment of said fee would help ensure that each project mitigates the loss of productive agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the City by permanently protecting agricultural lands planned for agricultural use. Notwithstanding the above, the project s incremental contribution towards the significant impact of important farmland conversion would be considered cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with similar impacts from other development in the region. As a result, the proposed project s incremental contribution to the environmental effect of the buildout of the Manteca General Plan on agricultural resources is thereby determined to be significant. Due to the permanent loss of agricultural land attributable to the project, even with implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR that would help to reduce the project s incremental contribution towards the cumulative impact related to conversion of important farmland, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Air Quality and Climate Change The Air Quality and Climate Change chapter of the Draft EIR addresses cumulative impacts associated with regional air quality and global climate change separately. Each of the discussions included in the Draft EIR are summarized below. Air Quality A cumulative impact analysis considers a project over time in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects whose impacts might compound those of the project being assessed. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development. Future attainment of AAQS is a function of successful implementation of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) attainment plans. Consequently, the SJVAPCD s application of thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants is relevant to the determination of Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-5

412 whether a project s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. A lead agency may determine that a project s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located [CCR 15064(h)(1)]. Thus, according to the SJVAPCD, if project-specific emissions would be less than the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the area is in non-attainment under applicable AAQS. As presented in Chapter 4.3, Air Quality and Climate Change, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in project-specific operational emissions of ROG and NOX that exceed the applicable thresholds of significance; however, with implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Consequently, in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance, because the proposed project would result in emission less than the thresholds of significance with implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would correspondingly be considered to result in a less-thansignificant cumulative impact to air quality. Climate Change Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. It should be noted that construction-related GHG emissions are a one-time release and are, therefore, not typically expected to generate a significant contribution to global climate change, as global climate change is inherently a cumulative effect that occurs over a long period of time. The City of Manteca has developed a CAP supporting the goals of AB 32, which is designed to reduce community-related and City operations-related GHG emissions to a degree that would not hinder or delay implementation of AB 32. Achieving the State target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 would require a reduction in emissions of 21.7 percent from projected 2020 BAU conditions. In order to meet the target reduction, the City has developed a variety of reduction strategies. For new development projects constructed in the City of Manteca, the CAP requires the development projects to achieve GHG emissions reductions by implementing reduction strategies. The strategies proposed in the CAP are expected to achieve local reductions that are adequate to meet the City s 2020 target. Cities with Climate Action Plans that are consistent with the State and regional AB 32 and SB 375 reduction targets can use their CAP as the basis for determining if projects would result in significant climate change impacts under CEQA. The City of Manteca CAP contains the elements necessary to fulfill such a function. Therefore, compliance with the strategies proposed in the City s CAP would be considered to reduce a project s impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change to less-thansignificant levels. Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-6

413 A detailed discussion of the project s compliance with the CAP s seven required reduction strategies is included in Chapter 4.3 of the Draft EIR. In summary, the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II sites would comply with three of the seven required reduction strategies per the City s CAP. However, because a tentative map has not yet been submitted for the DeJong property, compliance with the same reduction strategies cannot currently be verified. In addition, because design-level plans for all three sites have not been developed as of yet, whether the project would comply with the remaining four required reduction strategies is not currently known. Because the strategies included in the CAP would achieve local reductions that are adequate to meet the City s 2020 target, which is consistent with the AB 32 reduction targets, if the project would be consistent with the City s CAP, the proposed project would not be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may result in a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. The proposed project is required to comply with the City of Manteca s CAP. Without providing proof of compliance with the required measures of the City s CAP, the proposed project could be considered to result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emission and global climate change. However, implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Biological Resources The City of Manteca, like other cities and communities in the region, is experiencing urban growth. Some housing developments have already been approved or planned in the areas surrounding the proposed project site. Cumulatively, the projects would reduce common and special-status plant and wildlife habitats. However, as explained in the Manteca General Plan EIR (p. 6-29), the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) is, in effect, a plan to mitigate both the site-specific and the cumulative impacts of individual projects on biological resources within San Joaquin County. The three properties included in the proposed project would participate in the SJMSCP. Mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR require the project applicant(s) to pay impact fees to the SJCOG for the conversion of Multi-Purpose Open Space Lands. As a result, the project s incremental contribution to the cumulative biological impact related to increasing urbanization would be less than significant. Cultural Resources The potential exists for unknown subsurface prehistoric cultural resources to be unearthed during site excavation and grading. The proposed project along with other development in Manteca could damage or destroy cultural resources particular to that area. The archaeology of prehistoric and historical resources in their original context is crucial in developing an understanding of the social, economic, and technological character. According to the Manteca General Plan EIR, with implementation of General Plan goals and policies related to the protection of cultural resources, impacts to cultural resources resulting from buildout of the General Plan would be less than significant. For example, Policy RC-P-37 in the Manteca General Plan requires the City to not knowingly approve any public or private Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-7

414 project that could adversely affect an archaeological site without consulting the California Archaeological Inventory at Stanislaus State University, conducting a site evaluation as may be indicated, and attempting to mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. City implementation of the policy shall be guided by CEQA and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The proposed project complies with Manteca General Plan Policy RC-P-37 in that the California Archaeological Inventory at Stanislaus State was consulted and a site evaluation performed by a qualified archaeologist. Future developments would also be required to adhere to the Manteca General Plan goals and policies to protect archaeological resources. The Cultural Resources Survey conducted by Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. did not find any recorded prehistoric or archaeological deposits in the area researched; however, buildout of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts related to historical or prehistoric resources if previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction and damaged, which could result in a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources The Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources chapter of the Draft EIR addresses cumulative impacts associated with geology, soils, and seismicity and mineral resources separately. Each of the discussions included in the Draft EIR are summarized below. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Due to regional earthquake activity, the potential exists for earthquake-related ground shaking during the life of the proposed project. The proposed project would increase the number of people and structures that could be exposed to potential effects related to seismic hazards. Development of the proposed project would also increase the number of structures that could be subject to the effects of shallow depth to rock or expansive soils, and site preparation would result in temporary and permanent topographic changes. However, potentially adverse environmental effects associated with seismic hazards, as well as those associated with geologic or soils constraints and topographic alteration, are usually site-specific and generally would not combine with similar effects that could occur with other projects in Manteca. Furthermore, all projects would be required to comply with the CBC and other applicable safety regulations. Consequently, the proposed project would generally not be affected by, nor would the project affect, other development approved by the City of Manteca. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant. Mineral Resources The sole known mineral resource recovery site in the vicinity of the City has ceased mining operations and the Oakwood Lake Resort has been built on the reclaimed mined lands. In addition, the Manteca General Plan notes that a residential project has been approved by San Joaquin County on the site of the former quarry. As a result, mineral resources were found not to Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-8

415 be a significant issue for the City and further environmental analysis was not required in the Manteca General Plan EIR. For similar reasons, as mineral resources are not located in the vicinity of the proposed project or the City, development of the proposed project would not result in any impacts to mineral resources. Similarly, because a known mineral resource or a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site does not exist within or in the vicinity of the City, the proposed project, in conjunction with other existing and future development in the City of Manteca, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact associated with mineral resources. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to mineral resources would be considered less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts associated with hazardous materials are site-specific and generally do not affect, or are not affected by, cumulative development, unless. Cumulative effects could be considered if the project was, for example, part of a larger development in which industrial processes that would use hazardous materials are proposed. However, this is not the case with this project, and projectspecific impacts were found to be less than significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. In addition, surrounding development would be subject to the same federal, State, and local hazardous materials management requirements as would the proposed project, which would minimize potential risks associated with increased hazardous materials use in the community, including potential effects, if any, on the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with cumulative hazardous materials use. Hydrology and Water Quality While cumulative development within the City of Manteca would result in additional stormwater runoff and entry of pollutants into receiving waters via construction and operation of future projects, each project is required to comply with the City s regulatory stormwater documents, standards, and requirements. Compliance with such would ensure that each project provides adequate storage capacity for the additional stormwater runoff generated, as well as incorporates sufficient Best Management Practices (BMPs) to successfully remove pollutants from site runoff during the construction and operational phases. The proposed project, with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR, would not result in any significant impacts to hydrology (drainage and flooding) or water quality. As a result, the proposed project s incremental contribution to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant. Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing The Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing chapter of the Draft EIR addresses cumulative impacts associated with land use and planning and population and housing separately. Each of the discussions included in the Draft EIR are summarized below. Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-9

416 Land Use and Planning The proposed project, along with reasonably foreseeable projects within the City of Manteca, would change the intensity of land uses within the geographic area that would be affected by the proposed project. The cumulative land use impacts of the project, together with the related impacts of other foreseeable projects would be considered significant. The increased development associated with these projects would result in environmental impacts, such as impacts related to traffic, air, and noise, which are analyzed in other sections of this Draft EIR. However, it should be noted that the project site is currently designated for LDR development in the Manteca General Plan, and, therefore, the project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan. Furthermore, the final authority for determination of consistency with the Manteca General Plan rests with the Manteca City Council. Given the land use controls, Manteca General Plan goals and policies, and development standards presently in use within Manteca, the project s incremental contribution to cumulative land use impacts would be minimized to a level that is considered less than significant. Population and Housing The Manteca General Plan enables residential growth, and identifies the necessary infrastructure improvements, including roads, utilities, and government services that would support future growth. Specifically, the Manteca General Plan planned for LDR development at the project site. The new residences provided by the proposed project would fall within SJCOG s growth estimates for the City of Manteca and for the region. The direct and indirect impacts of population and housing growth on the project site are considered throughout this Draft EIR and include potential impacts to traffic, air quality, noise, the provision of public services and utilities, and other resource areas. To the extent that the projected population would result in significant adverse effects to such resources, the impacts have been identified and considered within relevant sections of this Draft EIR. Because the population from the proposed project, plus similar projects within the City, is within SJCOG s projections, the increase in population has been anticipated by the various utilities and public service providers and other agencies that rely on SJCOG s population projections for anticipating future impacts on various services. As a result, the increase in housing and population facilitated by the proposed project would not be considered to result in a significant incremental contribution to the cumulative impact on population, housing, or employment growth, and the proposed project s cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be considered less than significant. Noise The cumulative context for noise impacts associated with the proposed project would consist of the existing and future noise sources that could affect the project or surrounding uses. Noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative context. Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-10

417 Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and on-site activities resulting from operation of the proposed project. Estimated cumulative traffic noise levels with and without the proposed project are presented in Chapter 4.10 of this Draft EIR. According to the estimates, traffic noise from the proposed project is not expected to increase traffic noise levels in excess of the City s 10 db increase criteria at existing sensitive receptors. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant increases in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors. In addition, the new residential uses proposed for the project would be constructed to comply with the applicable City of Manteca exterior and interior noise level standards. Because the increase in noise levels associated with implementation of the proposed project would be below the normally perceptible range and below the City s applicable thresholds of significance, the total noise increase associated with the proposed project would be considered small incremental increases to the existing and future noise environment. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to have a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the surrounding noise environment, and the cumulative noise impact would be considered less than significant. Public Services and Utilities The proposed project is to be annexed into the City limits of Manteca. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to an increased demand for public services and utilities in the City of Manteca. Public service and utility needs for the City of Manteca were evaluated in the Manteca General Plan EIR and associated Master Plans to ensure that adequate services would be available for buildout of the Manteca General Plan, according to the Land Use Diagram. The analyses found that with implementation of the General Plan goals and policies, impacts to public services and utilities from buildout of the Manteca General Plan would be less than significant. The proposed South of Woodward Avenue Project would implement the relevant goals and policies such as, Policy PF-P-54, requiring the provision of private open space and recreational facilities as part of new residential developments, in addition to, Policy PF-P-53, which would require developments to pay a park acquisition and improvement fee. The proposed project would also cooperate with the Manteca and Ripon Unified School District and pay the development fees from new development as stated in Policy PF-P-34, as well as paying the required fees related to the City s PFIP for water and sewer. In addition, Ordinance 1500 states the project would be required to pay the City s Fire Facility Fee. Therefore, the proposed project s incremental contribution to the City s public services and utilities needs would not be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, similar to the proposed project, other future development projects would be required by the City to pay fair-share fees toward the expansion and creation of public services and utilities. Overall, the project s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact on public utilities would be less than significant. Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-11

418 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation The Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation chapter of the Draft EIR addresses cumulative impacts associated with study intersections, freeway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit system, at-grade railroad crossings, and the Regional Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Each of the discussions included in the Draft EIR are summarized below. Study Intersections The proposed project would cause cumulatively significant impacts at a number of intersections, as presented in Chapter 4.12 of this Draft EIR. The majority of impacts are the result of projected unacceptable operations being degraded to a significant degree. Although implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR would reduce the significance of cumulative considerable project impacts, due to the uncertainty of when the improvements required in the mitigation measures would be made and where the remaining fair share contributions discussed in the mitigation measures would come from, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Study Freeway Facilities The proposed project would cause significant impacts to the following freeway facilities: the SR 99 southbound from SR 120 on-ramp to Austin Road off-ramp LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour; and the SR 99 southbound diverge at Austin Road LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour. Although implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR would reduce the significance of the cumulative impact, due to the uncertainty of when the improvements required in the mitigation measures would be made and where the remaining fair share contributions discussed in the mitigation measures would come from, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Transit System The project would not disrupt existing or planned transit services or facilities or create an inconsistency with applicable policies related to transit. Therefore, even when considering the cumulative setting, this impact is considered less than significant. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities According to the project description, the project would construct a Class I off-street bike path on the east side of the Atherton Drive extension south of Woodward Avenue. The bike path improvement is consistent with the proposed bicycle system in the Final Report: City of Manteca Bicycle Master Plan (September 2003). The project would not disrupt or preclude construction of any other planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities or create an inconsistency with applicable policies related to bicycle or pedestrian systems. The bicycle and pedestrian facilities included in the Bicycle Master Plan represent a cumulative city-wide planning effort. Therefore, because the Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-12

419 project is consistent with the Plan, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. At-Grade Railroad Crossings The project would add traffic to the following three at-grade railroad crossings located on the following streets within the study area: Industrial Park Drive, Woodward Avenue, and Austin Road. The crossings do not have a demonstrated record of having an above-average rate of accidents. Mitigation Measure (a) would indirectly benefit the at-grade crossing on Industrial Park Drive by signalizing/coordinating the crossing with a new traffic signal at the nearby Industrial Park Drive/Van Ryn Avenue intersection. Mitigation Measure (b) would either permanently close the at-grade crossing on Woodward Avenue or upgrade to a crossing that operates as part of a signalized intersection. Mitigation Measure (a) requires the project to contribute to the Manteca-Ripon Sub-Regional Fee Program, which would help fund a new interchange on SR 99 (and grade-separated roadway with the UPRR tracks), thereby reducing the usage of the existing at-grade crossing on Austin Road. Therefore, with implementation of the project-level and cumulative-level mitigation measures identified above, the proposed project s cumulative impact is considered to be less than significant. Regional CMP Regional roadways in San Joaquin County are monitored as part of the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP) implemented by SJCOG. The project vicinity contains six RCMP intersections and seven RCMP roadways, some of which (e.g., SR 120, SR 99) were analyzed in this chapter. The project places housing in close proximity to a major employment center (i.e., Austin Road Business Park). Accordingly, the travel demand model matches some home-based work purpose trips with employment-related trip attractions. As a result, certain roadways, including some RCMP facilities, experience reductions in travel as a consequence of project implementation. As described in Chapter 4.12 of this Draft EIR, the project would not worsen any RCMP facilities to an unacceptable level or degrade any facilities to a significant degree. The applicable SJCOG adopted/approved regional plans were reviewed to evaluate project consistency with them. Plans reviewed included the Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan, Park-and-Ride Master Plan, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School Plan, and Regional Transit Systems Plan and based on those reviews the project would not directly conflict with a goal or policy within those plans, or preclude their implementation. Therefore, the proposed project s cumulative impact related to RCMP roadways/intersections and policies would be considered less than significant. 6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes The State CEQA Guidelines mandate that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would result if the proposed project were implemented (CEQA Guidelines, Section [c]). An impact would fall into this category if any of the following would occur: Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-13

420 The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to a previously remote area); The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or The phasing of the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves a wasteful use of energy). The development of the proposed project would result in the irreversible conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. The site is currently agricultural land, designated in the Manteca General Plan for future residential uses, and is predominantly surrounded by residential development. In addition, the proposed project would likely result in, or contribute to, the following irreversible environmental changes: Conversion of currently undeveloped land to urban land uses; Irreversible change in visual character of the area; Placement and/or extension of roadways in areas providing access to the proposed project and connecting to adjacent developments; Irreversible consumption of goods and services associated with the future population; and Irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources associated with the future population. 6.5 Significant Unavoidable Impacts According to CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable should the proposed action be implemented (CEQA Guidelines [b]). Such impacts would be considered unavoidable when the determination is made that either mitigation is not feasible or only partial mitigation is feasible such that the impact is not reduced to a level that is less-than-significant. This section identifies significant impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigations imposed by the City. The final determination of the significance of impacts and the feasibility of mitigation measures would be made by the City as part of the City s certification action. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project are summarized below. Project-level impacts to a scenic vista (Impact 4.1-1) The Manteca General Plan EIR states that development of agricultural areas at the edge of Manteca would impact the current views of open-space, which are primary vistas of agricultural fields and orchards. The Manteca General Plan EIR determined that new development would impact existing views and a significant and unavoidable impact would occur. Although the proposed project would include the creation of open-space in the form of parks and greenbelts, development would still alter the current visual experience of the site. Consistent with the City of Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-14

421 Manteca determination in the General Plan EIR, the conversion of the proposed project site would also be considered significant. Feasible mitigation does not exist to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts related to loss of agricultural land (Impact 4.2-4) The Manteca General Plan designates the project site for residential development and the conversion of this particular agricultural land was thereby anticipated in the Manteca General Plan EIR. In addition, the project applicant, as well as other similar development projects in Manteca, would be required to pay the City s Agricultural Mitigation Fee. Payment of the fee would help ensure that each project mitigates the loss of productive agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the City by permanently protecting agricultural lands planned for agricultural use. Nonetheless, the project s incremental contribution towards the significant impact of important farmland conversion would be considered cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with similar impacts from other development in the region. As a result, the proposed project s incremental contribution to the environmental effect of the buildout of the Manteca General Plan on agricultural resources is thereby determined to be significant. Due to the permanent loss of agricultural land attributable to the project, even with implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR that would help to reduce the project s incremental contribution towards the cumulative impact related to conversion of important farmland, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts related to study intersections (Impact ) Under cumulative no project conditions, 11 out of the 19 study intersections would operate at unacceptable levels. Under cumulative plus project conditions, 13 out of the 19 study intersections would operate at unacceptable levels. The project would also degrade to a significant degree projected unacceptable operations at other intersections, as identified in Chapter 4.12 of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR would reduce the significance of the cumulative impact; however, due to the uncertainty of when the improvements required in the mitigation measures would be made and where the remaining fair share contributions discussed in the mitigation measures would come from, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts related to study freeway facilities (Impact ) The proposed project would cause significant impacts to the following freeway facilities: the SR 99 southbound from SR 120 on-ramp to Austin Road off-ramp LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour; and the SR 99 southbound diverge at Austin Road LOS E operations exacerbated to a significant degree during the AM peak hour. Although implementation of mitigation measures set forth in this Draft EIR would reduce the significance of cumulative considerable project impacts, due to the uncertainty of when the improvements required in the mitigation measures would be made and where the remaining fair share contributions discussed in the mitigation measures would come from, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Chapter 6 Statutorily Required Sections 6-15

422 7. REFERENCES

423 7 REFERENCES Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I. April 9, 2013, p. 11. Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Addendum Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I. April 22, Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II. April 5, Cal Recycle. Facility Operations: Forward landfill, Inc. Available at: Accessed December 18, Caltrans. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Caltrans. Highway Design Manual Caltrans. State Route 120 Transportation Concept Report Caltrans. Traffic Impact Study Guidelines California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM): Top Four Summary. Available at: http: // Accessed November California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at: June 4, California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December California Air Resources Board. Glossary of Air Pollution Terms. Available at: Accessed November California Air Resources Board. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. Available at: http// Accessed April California Department of Education. Enrollment by Grade for Available at: Accessed January, Chapter 7 References 7-1

424 California Department of Finance. E-1: Cities, Counties, and the State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2012 and January 1, California Department of Finance. E-5: Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January , with 2010 Benchmark. January 1, California Department of Transportation. User s Guide for CL4: A User-Friendly Interface for the CALINE4 Model for Transportation Project Impact Assessments. June California Department of Water Resources California s Groundwater-Bulletin 118, Update 2003-Individual Basin Descriptions. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin: Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Available at: Accessed on September 14, City of Manteca. Final Report: Bicycle Master Plan City of Manteca. Housing Inventory Map As of June 1, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 EIR. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. October 6, City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan Housing Element. Adopted June 15, City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Code, Chapter 17, Zoning (amended through June 2010). City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Services Review. June 16, City of Manteca. Parks and Recreation Department. Available at: Accessed on January City of Manteca. Public Facilities Implementation Plan Update. February 26, City of Manteca. Storm Drain Master Plan. March City of Manteca. Urban Water Management Plan. December City of Manteca. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. January City of Ripon. General Plan Adopted September 19, Condor Earth Technologies, Inc. Pesticide Screening. January 16, Chapter 7 References 7-2

425 Dees & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Feasibility Study. April 19, Dees & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Feasibility Study. April 24, DRAFT EIR ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts. California Emissions Estimator Model User s Guide Version July Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. Query by Location. Available at: te=06&countycity=115&railroad=&reportinglevel=all&radionm=county&street=&xin gtype=%25&xingstatus=%25&xingpos=%25. Accessed December Fehr & Peers. Revised Final Traffic Report for the SR 99/Austin Road Interim Improvements Fehr & Peers. Revised Final Traffic Report for the State Route 120/McKinley Avenue Interchange Project Approval and Environmental Document Fehr & Peers. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation FEMA. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06077C0640F. October 16, Available at: alogid=10001&langid=-1. Accessed November 25, Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Environmental Noise Assessment South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) Project. January 17, Lantz Rey, City of Manteca Fire Marshall. Personal communication. December 10, Laurel Boyd, Habitat Planner Technician, SJCOG, Inc. SJMSCP Response to Lead Agency. April 17, Manteca Unified School District. Draft Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. February Michael Brandman Associates. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan. August 21, Michael A. Swearinger, SJCOG Senior Regional Planner. Personal communication. January Monk & Associates. Biological Resource Analysis, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I & II, and the DeJong Property Project Site. October 15, Chapter 7 References 7-3

426 Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey for San Joaquin County. Available at: Accessed July 29, Nick Obligacion, City of Manteca Police Chief. Personal communication. December 18, Ripon Unified School District. Developer Fee Justification Document for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development Projects. May Ripon Unified School District. Local and State Loading Standard, by School Site. Available at: Accessed on: January 17, San Joaquin Council of Governments. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School Plan. Adopted September San Joaquin Council of Governments. Park-and-Ride Master Plan. October 31, San Joaquin Council of Governments. Regional Transit Systems Plan. June San Joaquin Council of Governments. Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan. Adopted August 16, San Joaquin Council of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan San Joaquin County LAFCO. Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). Amended December 14, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at: Accessed November San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. District Policy Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as the Lead Agency. December 17, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts May San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Environmental Review Guidelines Procedures for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. August San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. As revised January 10, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Guidance for Valley Land-use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA. December 17, Chapter 7 References 7-4

427 South San Joaquin Irrigation District. Urban Management Plan. August State of California, Governor s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Archaeological Resources State of the Cities Data Systems (SOCDS). Building Permits Database. Available at: Accessed January Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. A Cultural Resources Survey for the South of Woodward Avenue North Project, Manteca, San Joaquin County, California. October U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, San Joaquin County. October U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: February U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at: Accessed November United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. Available at: Accessed January 6, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County. California. October University of California, Davis. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. December West Yost Associates. Water Supply Assessment South of Woodward Avenue North. September Chapter 7 References 7-5

428 8. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

429 8 EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED Raney Planning & Management, Inc. C. Timothy Raney, AICP President Cindy Gnos, AICP Senior Vice President Nick Pappani Vice President Rod Stinson Division Manager / Air Quality Specialist Angela DaRosa Senior Associate / Air Quality Technician Elise Carroll Associate Maggie Harry Associate Kevin Valente Associate Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Robert E. Marty Condor Earth Technologies, Inc. Alexander DeWitt Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants John Gard, P.E. j.c. brennan & associates, Inc. Jim Brennan Luke Saxelby Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. Tim Williams Monk & Associates, Inc. Geoff Monk Sarah Lynch Tom Origer & Associates, Inc. Janine M. Loyd Eileen Barrow West Yost Associates James P. Connell, P.E. President Associate Geologist Principal President Senior Consultant Principal Principal Biologist Associate Biologist Senior Associate Associate Principal Engineer Chapter 8 EIR Authors and Persons Consulted 8-1

430 APPENDIX A

431 CITY OF MANTECA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: October 8, 2013 TO: SUBJECT: Interested Parties Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed South of Woodward Avenue North Project REVIEW PERIOD: October 8, 2013 to November 6, 2013 The City of Manteca is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) North project (proposed project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to provide responsible agencies and interested persons with sufficient information in order to make meaningful responses as to the scope and content of the EIR. Your timely comments will ensure an appropriate level of environmental review for the project. Scoping Meeting: The Lead Agency will hold a public scoping meeting to receive verbal comments on Tuesday, October 22, 2013 at 3:00 p.m. at the City of Manteca Council Chambers, 1001 West Center Street, Manteca, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Location and Setting The proposed project site is located in San Joaquin County, southeast of the City of Manteca City limits (See Figure 1, Regional Location). The project site is bounded by E. Woodward Avenue to the north, the proposed Hat Ranch project to the south, agricultural land and the future Atherton Drive extension to the east, and Pillsbury Road to the west (See Figure 2, Project Location). The approximately acre project site consists of six parcels, identified by Assessor s Parcel Numbers (APNs) , , , , , and The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong Property (See Figure 2, Project Location Map). The site is located at an elevation of 47 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and in an area of low topographic relief. The three project sites were formerly utilized for the cultivation of row crops and an almond orchard Surrounding Land Uses Residential subdivisions are located to the north and west of the project site, and agricultural land is located adjacent to the east and south of the project site. The Austin Road Business Park and Master Planned Community are planned for development to the east and three smaller residential projects are planned to the northwest of the project site. Project Components The SOWA North project is made up of three project sites referred to as Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong with a total single-family 1

432 residential development of 706 units (171, 185, and 350 units, respectively). The number of units associated with each project will be described below. All three sites are proposed to be annexed into the City of Manteca and Prezoned with City zoning, as required under State law. While the DeJong project includes only program-level entitlements (Annexation and Prezoning), the Atherton Homes at Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II projects also include tentative maps. These program- and project-level entitlements are discussed below, for each project site, as appropriate. Annexation The project is currently located within San Joaquin County and has a San Joaquin County General Plan land use designation of General Agriculture (A/G), allowing for a maximum of one residential unit per 20 acres. In addition, the City of Manteca General Plan designates the entire project site as Low Density Residential (LDR) allowing for 2.1 to 8.0 residential units per gross acre, which is consistent with the residential densities proposed for the overall project site. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment would not be needed. The project includes a request for annexation of the acre site to the City of Manteca, which ultimately requires San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval. In addition, in order to avoid the creation of a County island area, two 1.06-acre parcels (APN , and -02) located immediately west of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, along Pillsbury Road, have been included in the proposed annexation area. Both parcels contain one single family residence. Prezone Consistent with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, Prezoning shall be applied to the annexation areas (See Gov. Code Section 56375). To ensure compatibility with the Manteca General Plan Low Density Residential (LDR) designation for the project site, each of the three sites, as well as the two parcels along Pillsbury Road on the western end of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site, would be Prezoned to the City s Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone district. Tentative Subdivision Maps Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I The Tentative Map (TM) for the 54-acre Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I site includes 171 singlefamily lots, a 3.53-acre park basin, which includes a 1-acre tot lot, landscaped entry, and Class I bike path with associated greenbelt (Parcel B), which would connect the park to the future extension of Atherton Drive (See Figure 3: Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Tentative Subdivision Map). The proposed lot sizes range from a minimum of 7,370 square feet to a maximum of 18,181 square feet. The TM identifies the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project would be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of 101 lots and comprise the western section of the site, while Phase 2 would consist of 70 lots and comprise the remaining eastern section. Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II The TM for the acre Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II site includes 185 single-family lots for development of single-family homes and one 4.3-acre park basin (See Figure 4: Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Tentative Subdivision Map). Improvements will include grading, modifying the existing irrigation system, construction of public streets and street lighting, all to City of Manteca standards. The TM identifies that the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II project would be completed in three phases. Phase 1 would consist of 64 lots and make up the southern portion of the project site; Phase 2 would consist of 69 lots and comprise the northern and a portion of the center section of the site; and Phase 3 would consist of the remaining 52 lots, split into two sections, and make up the central western and eastern portions of the site. 2

433 DeJong Property Although a TM is not proposed, based on the Prezoning designation of R-1 and discussions with the applicant a approximately 350 single family homes is assumed. Infrastructure The primary infrastructure systems installed as part of the proposed project would be sized to meet demands created by the proposed project. The proposed project infrastructure includes roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and wastewater, water, and storm drain systems. Roadways Access to the project would be provided by Pillsbury Road via Woodward Avenue. The northerly access of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project would require removal of an existing median in Pillsbury Road, while the southern access point would line up to existing Mono Drive to create a four-way intersection. The northerly access of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II project would connect to the existing Heartland Drive, while the southern access point would connect to the existing Tannehill Drive. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project includes an area reserved for Atherton Drive right-ofway, which includes a 20-foot landscape frontage with meandering walk. Future internal roadway connections are proposed within the three projects. Water Manteca receives its water supply from two sources: groundwater from local wells and surface water supplied by the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). The SSJID operates a water treatment plant near the SSJID s Woodward Reservoir, and the treated water is conveyed to Manteca through a series of pipelines. Water would be provided to the project site via new connections to the existing water infrastructure surrounding the project site. Eight-inch diameter pipes would be arrayed in a typical looped system to ensure adequate flow to all portions of the project for both domestic use and fire protection. For the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II projects, water lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Pillsbury Road. Infrastructure details have not been submitted for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for this site, but it is anticipated that water lines would be extended onto the site from the main in Pillsbury Road or Woodward Avenue. Wastewater The City s Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF) has capacity to treat 9.87 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats 6.5 mgd. The project site is located in the South Manteca Trunk Sewer shed. Wastewater from the proposed project would be conveyed via a system of eight-inch pipelines. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project sewer system would include the construction of 2,670+/- lineal feet of sewer line in the Pillsbury Road right-of-way, from the northwest corner of the site, north to Woodward Avenue. This offsite sewer line would connect to the 30-inch sewer trunk in Woodward Avenue. The Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II wastewater would also be transported to the sewer line in the Pillsbury Road right-of-way, which would be built as part of the Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I project. Infrastructure details have not been submitted for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for this site, but it is anticipated that on-site sewer lines would connect to the lines in Pillsbury Road or Woodward Avenue. 3

434 Stormwater Detention Manteca s stormwater drainage system is managed by the City s Public Works Department. The backbone of the City s storm drains is a long standing relationship with the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) and use of the SSJID s drains and laterals. The relationship is formalized in a agreement that allows the City the use of SSJID facilities to the year City use of SSJID facilities is limited to availability of SSJID capacity. The SSJID owns the drains and laterals that are the backbone of the City s storm drain system, and the City operates and maintains the storm drain system. The City depends on drains and laterals of the SSJID to convey stormwater runoff west to French Camp Slough and the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The City collects runoff in an urban storm drain system and conveys flows in most cases to one of more than 54 detention basins. Storm drainage from the project area is gravity discharged into the French Camp Outlet Canal, which eventually flows into French Camp Slough. The proposed park areas for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and II would include surface storage basins to detain stormwater during major storm events. For Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, the surface basin would then discharge the stormwater into SSJID Lateral X, per the City of Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan. The treated stormwater would then be conveyed to the 66-inch storm drain trunk in Woodward Avenue. The stormwater from the Phase 1 portion of Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II would flow to the basin in Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I before being discharged into SSJID Lateral X. The detention basin serving Phases 2 and 3 of Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II would discharge into the existing Woodward Avenue storm drain trunk line, per the City of Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan. Infrastructure details have not been submitted for the DeJong property due to the program-level entitlements for the site, but it is anticipated that an on-site park/basin area would detain stormwater flows prior to discharging treated flows into the Woodward Avenue storm drain trunk line. For more information regarding the project, please contact Erika Durrer, Senior Planner, at (209) A copy of this NOP is also available for review at the City of Manteca Community Development Department and on the City of Manteca website: Project Entitlements The City of Manteca has discretionary authority and is the lead agency for the proposed project. The proposed project requires approval of the following entitlements by the City of Manteca: Approval of an Annexation for the overall acre project site; Prezone of the acre site to Single Family Residential (R-1); Approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II; and Approval of Development Agreements for Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I and Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II. Upon City approval of an Annexation Resolution, authorizing the applicants to submit formal annexation applications to San Joaquin County LAFCO, the annexation of the acre site would require San Joaquin County LAFCO approval. The proposed project would require the following additional City of Manteca approvals: Approval of a Grading Permit; Approval of Building Permits; and Tentative Map(s) for the DeJong Property. 4

435 2.0 PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND SCOPE OF THE EIR The EIR prepared for the proposed project will provide analysis of the impacts pertaining to the resource areas identified below. Although detailed analysis has not been conducted at this time, preliminary analysis of the proposed project has identified impacts likely to result from the project. The proposed EIR will incorporate by reference the City of Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document and the Manteca General Plan 2023 EIR. In addition to these City documents, project-specific technical studies prepared by various technical consultants will be utilized. The following paragraphs discuss the anticipated topics that will be included in the EIR. Aesthetics The Aesthetics chapter of the EIR will summarize the existing regional and project area aesthetics and visual setting in relation to the proposed project. The chapter will describe project-specific aesthetics issues regarding development of the proposed project, such as scenic vistas, trees, historic buildings, scenic highways, and the existing visual character or quality of the site, as well as light and glare. Agricultural Resources The Agricultural Resources chapter of the EIR will summarize the status of the existing agricultural resources within the project boundaries, using the current State model and data, including identification of any Prime/Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the project boundaries. If Prime/Unique Farmland or Farmland of State is found on-site, the analysis will address the conversion of said lands to residential uses. Any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or right-to-farm ordinances applicable to the proposed project will also be identified. In addition, the chapter will address the project s consistency with LAFCO policies and standards regarding agricultural resources. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Climate Change) The air quality analysis for the proposed project will utilize the traffic data provided to obtain vehicle trip generation data. The air quality impact analysis will include a quantitative assessment of short-term (i.e., construction) and long-term (i.e., operational) increases of criteria air pollutant emissions of primary concern (i.e., ROG, NO X, and PM 10 ). For carbon monoxide, a CALINE 4 modeling will be performed only if one or more of the study intersections are degraded to a level of service specified by the Air District. The project s cumulative contribution to regional air quality will be discussed, based in part on the modeling conducted at the project level. The significance of air quality impacts will be determined in comparison to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) recommended significance thresholds. SJVAPCD-recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated to reduce any significant air quality impacts, and anticipated reductions in emissions associated with proposed mitigation measures will be quantified. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Action Plan. Information from the Climate Action Plan, as well as the most up to date guidance from the District, will be relied on for analysis. In addition, the SJVAPCD will be consulted throughout preparation of the Air Quality and Climate Change analysis and will follow the District s recommended guidance. An estimation of GHG emissions will be provided. SJVAPCD s tiered approach in assessing the significance of GHG emissions as a result of the project will also be utilized. Consistent with the tiered approach, the proposed project will be evaluated for compliance with adopted GHG Emission Reduction Plans and/or GHG Mitigation Programs as well as for the need to implement Best Performance Standards (BPS). The City of Manteca has released a Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) March 2013, and anticipates adoption of the CAP in October The proposed project will be in compliance with the CAP to the greatest extent feasible. Should the CAP be adopted and if the proposed project is in compliance with the adopted CAP, implementation of BPS would not be required. If 5

436 applicable, implementation of project BPS to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than significant will be reviewed and/or recommended. If the proposed project does not include the required BPS, projectspecific GHG emissions would need to be quantified. If necessary, GHG will be quantified for the project as follows: Run the CalEEMod program, based on discussions with SJVAPCD, using project land use and trip generation, if available, to produce an estimate of Vehicle Miles Traveled and carbon dioxide emissions for the project. If project-specific land use and trip generation data is not available, Raney will utilize the model s default trip generation rates will be utilized for analysis; and Compare project GHG emissions to SJVAPCD Business As Usual (BAU) standards. Biological Resources The Biological Resources chapter of the EIR will include a description of the potential effects to plant communities, wildlife, and wetlands including adverse effects on rare, endangered, candidate, sensitive, and special-status species from buildout of the proposed project. The chapter will be based on a report prepared by a technical subconsultant who will evaluate potential impacts to biological resources, including common plant and animal species and special-status plant and animal species. In addition, the subconsultant will evaluate potential wetlands on-site, including waters of the United States (regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and waters of the State (regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife). In addition, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) will be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable fees, avoidance and minimization measures, and/or other measures that would minimize impacts to special-status species to the extent possible. Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources chapter of the EIR will describe the potential effects to historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources from implementation of the proposed project. The chapter will be based on a report prepared by a technical subconsultant. Files maintained at the Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus and the library, and files maintained by the subconsultant will be reviewed for any existing historical and cultural resources. In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission and local Native American groups will be contacted, and a comprehensive field inspection of the project site will be performed. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity / Mineral Resources The Geology, Soils & Seismicity / Mineral Resources chapter of the EIR will summarize the setting and describe the potential effects from soil erosion, earthquakes, liquefaction, and expansive soils, as well as identify any unique geological features within the project area. Geotechnical information for the project site, the City of Manteca General Plan 2023 and General Plan EIR, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps will be utilized for the analysis. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter of the EIR will summarize the setting and describe any potential for existing or possible hazardous materials. This will include an evaluation of the possible presence of pesticides in the on-site soil, within the project area or as a result of the proposed project. The analysis will be based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), as well as the City of Manteca General Plan 2023 and the General Plan EIR. Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of the EIR will summarize setting information and identify potential impacts related to irrigation drainage, stormwater drainage, flooding, groundwater, and water 6

437 quality. The chapter will also include an analysis of the proposed storm drainage systems for the three sites. The Manteca General Plan 2023 and the General Plan EIR, as well as the City of Manteca s Storm Drain Master Plan and/or ordinances related to water quality, will be reviewed for relevant information that will be incorporated into the project analysis. Land Use and Planning / Population and Housing The Land Use & Planning / Population & Housing chapter of the EIR will evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with City of Manteca adopted plans and policies as well as compatibility with surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed. Particular attention will be focused on the potential incompatibilities that could result from the juxtaposition of residential uses and active agriculture operations. The chapter will further address potential impacts to population and housing due to the proposed residential development. The Manteca General Plan 2023 and the City of Manteca Zoning Ordinance, as well as LAFCO policies and standards will be reviewed, as well as any other appropriate documents, to address consistency issues. The Land Use & Planning / Population & Housing chapter will identify land use and population and housing impacts and mitigation measures and note any inconsistencies or incompatibilities with adopted plans and polices created by the approval of the proposed project. Noise The Noise chapter of the EIR will be based on a report prepared by a technical subconsultant who will analyze potential noise and vibration impacts associated with short-term construction activities on the project site, as well as long-term noise levels due to and upon the proposed project. Using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) traffic noise prediction model for the prediction of traffic noise levels, existing noise levels from major roadways (including Woodward Avenue, State Route 99 (SR 99), and other identified local roadways in the vicinity of the project site) will be analyzed. Direct inputs to the traffic model will include traffic data provided by the traffic consultant, existing posted speed limits, truck count information, and 24-hour traffic split data collected by the subconsultant. In addition, any existing railroad operations in the project vicinity will be quantified. The subconsultant will conduct a noise survey within the project site to quantify existing background noise levels. The noise survey will consist of short-term noise level measurements and continuous noise level measurements for a minimum of 24-hours. Using the FHWA model for the prediction of traffic noise levels, future traffic noise levels both upon the project site and due to the project site on the surrounding community will be determined. Public Services and Utilities/Recreation The Public Services and Utilities/Recreation chapter of the EIR will summarize setting information and identify potential new demand for services, including water, sewer, energy, fire, police, schools, parks, and recreational services. The analysis will be based on information from the Manteca General Plan 2023 and the General Plan EIR. In addition, the appropriate City departments, as well as other appropriate agencies, will be consulted in order to obtain the most recent information regarding City public services. This chapter will provide adequate public services and utilities information for LAFCO to rely upon the EIR when making its annexation determination for the site. Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation The Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation chapter of the EIR will be based on a report prepared by a technical subconsultant. The chapter will include an analysis five scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing Plus Project Conditions, Existing Plus Pending Projects Conditions (including SOWA South Project), Cumulative No Project Conditions, and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Key traffic issues include the fact that the project is located close to three Caltrans freeway interchanges, some of which are near capacity or otherwise not planned to be improved. The SR 99 / Austin Road interchange is particularly critical given its expected use by the project and the conversations with the City of Manteca and Caltrans, which have led to a mitigation monitoring program at the location. 7

438 The subconsultant will analyze weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic operations at the following existing transportation facilities: 1) Woodward Avenue / Main Street 2) Woodward Avenue / Buena Vista Drive 3) Woodward Avenue / Van Ryn Avenue 4) Woodward Avenue / Pillsbury Road 5) Woodward Avenue / Atherton Drive 6) Woodward Avenue / Moffat Boulevard 7) Van Ryn Avenue / Industrial Park Drive 8) Industrial Park Drive / Moffat Boulevard 9) Main Street / Atherton Drive 10) Main Street / Mission Ridge Drive / Industrial Park Drive 11) SR 120 WB Ramps / Main Street 12) SR 120 EB Ramps / Main Street 13) SR 99 SB Off-Ramp / Moffat Boulevard 14) Moffat Boulevard / Austin Road / SR 99 SB On-Ramp 15) Austin Road / SR 99 NB Ramps The following freeway facilities, which are likely to be used by project trips, will be studied during the weekday AM and PM peak hours: 1) SR 120 EB between Union Road and Main Street (mainline segment) 2) SR 120 EB off-ramp at Main Street (diverge) 3) SR 120 EB on-ramp at Main Street (merge) 4) SR 120 EB between Main Street and SR 99 (mainline segment) 5) SR 120 WB between Main Street and SR 99 (mainline segment) 6) SR 120 WB off-ramp at Main Street (diverge) 7) SR 120 WB on-ramp at Main Street (merge) 8) SR 120 WB between Union Road and Main Street (mainline segment) 9) SB SR 99 from SR 120 on-ramp to Austin Road off-ramp (mainline segment) 10) SB SR 99 off-ramp at Austin Road (diverge) 11) SB SR 99 on-ramp from Austin Road (merge) 12) NB SR 99 off-ramp at Austin Road (diverge) 13) NB SR 99 on-ramp at Austin Road to off-ramp at ST 120 WB (weave) Freeway facilities will be analyzed using procedures described in the Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, In addition, bike, pedestrian, transit, and at-grade railroad crossings will be evaluated, as well as site access. Cumulative Impacts In accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, an analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with the project will be undertaken and discussed. In addition, pursuant to CEQA Section 21100(B)(5), the analysis will address the potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project, focusing on whether or not a removal of any impediments to growth would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Alternatives In accordance with Section (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, several project alternatives will be analyzed and an Alternatives chapter will be prepared for the EIR. The Alternatives chapter will describe the alternatives and identify the environmentally superior alternative. The alternatives will be analyzed at a level of detail less than that of the proposed project; however, the analyses will include sufficient detail to allow a meaningful comparison of the impacts. The Alternatives chapter will describe the alternatives and identify the environmentally superior alternative. 8

439 SUBMITTING COMMENTS To ensure that all significant issues related to the proposed project are identified and addressed, written comments are invited from all interested parties. To be considered, all comments must be in writing and clearly legible. Written comments concerning the proposed CEQA analysis for the South of Woodward Avenue North project should be directed to the name and address below: Erika E. Durrer, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Manteca 1001 West Center Street Manteca, CA Office: (209) Written comments are due to the City of Manteca at the location addressed above by 5:00 p.m. on November 6,

440 Figure 1 Regional Location N Project Site 10

441 Figure 2 Project Location Project Site Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II DeJong Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I N 11

442 Figure 3 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I Tentative Subdivision Map 12

443 Figure 4 Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II Tentative Subdivision Map 13

444 APPENDIX B

445 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 320 WEST 4 TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor November 6, 2013 Erika Durrer City of Manteca 1001 W. Center Street Manteca, CA Dear Erika: Re: SCH Manteca South of Woodward Avenue North Project - NOP The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway-rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings. The Commission s Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES) is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed South of Woodward Avenue North project from the State Clearinghouse. The City of Manteca (City) is the lead agency. According to the NOP, the project includes construction of 706 single-family units on the vacant acre parcels. The project area is bounded by Woodward Avenue on the north, Sedan Avenue on the south and Pillsbury Road on the west. Union Pacific Railroad Company Mainline B Fresno Branch track, located approximately 100 feet east of the project area, crosses over Woodward Ave (CPUC ID 001B and DOT #752435V) and Austin Road (CPUC ID 001B and DOT #752434N) at-grade. Any development adjacent to or near the railroad/light rail right-of-way should be planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns/destinations with respect to railroad right-of-way and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Language should be in place so that any traffic impact studies undertaken also address rail crossing safety analysis and associated proposed mitigation measures. Safety analysis should include queuing on tracks, pedestrian movements, turning movements and sightlines. Safety improvement measures may include the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to increase in traffic volumes (e.g., addition or upgrade of crossing warning devices, active and passive signs, median islands, channelization fencing, and ADA-compliant tactile warning surfaces) and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad right-ofway.

446 Erika Durrer November 6, 2013 Page 2 of 20 The City should also arrange a diagnostic meeting with UPRR and RCES staff to discuss relevant safety issues and requirements for authorization to alter the existing atgrade crossing as necessary. Please continue to keep RCES informed of the project s development and submit the recommended traffic study to RCES for review and approval prior to the project approval. Any construction of a new crossing or any modification to the existing crossing requires authorization from the Commission. RCES representatives are available for consultation on any potential safety impacts or concerns on the nearby crossings. More information can be found at: If you have any questions, please contact Ken Chiang at , at ykc@cpuc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Ken Chiang, P.E. Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engineering Section Safety and Enforcement Division CC: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA

447

448

449

450 S J C O G, Inc. 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA (209) FAX (209) San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation & Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) SJMSCP RESPONSE TO LOCAL JURISDICTION (RTLJ) ADVISORY AGENCY NOTICE TO SJCOG, Inc. To: Erika Durrer, City of Manteca, Community Development Department From: Laurel Boyd, SJCOG, Inc. Date: October 14, 2013 Local Jurisdiction Project Title: NOP of an EIR for the Proposed South of Woodward Avenue North Projects Assessor Parcel Number(s): , -12, -13; , -02, -03 Local Jurisdiction Project Number: N/A Total Acres to be converted from Open Space Use: 153 acres Habitat Types to be Disturbed: Multi-Purpose Open Space Habitat Land Species Impact Findings: Findings to be determined by SJMSCP biologist. Dear Ms. Durrer: SJCOG, Inc. has reviewed the application for the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed South of Woodward Avenue North Projects. The City of Manteca is the lead agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed South of Woodward Avenue (SOWA) North project (proposed project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to provide responsible agencies and interested person with sufficient information in order to make meaningful responses as to the scope and content of the EIR. The overall project site is made up of three distinct sites referred to as Atherton Homes at Woodward Park I, Atherton Homes at Woodward Park II, and DeJong Property. The project site is bounded by E. Woodward Avenue to the north, the proposed Hat Ranch project to the south, agricultural land and the future Atherton Drive extension to the east, and Pillsbury Road to the west (APN: , -12, -13, , -02, -03). City of Manteca is a signatory to San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Participation in the SJMSCP satisfies requirements of both the state and federal endangered species acts, and ensures that the impacts are mitigated below a level of significance in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measure are properly implemented and monitored and that appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP. Although participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary, Local Jurisdiction/Lead Agencies should be aware that if project applicants choose against participating in the SJMSCP, they will be required to provide alternative mitigation in an amount and kind equal to that provided in the SJMSCP. This Project is subject to the SJMSCP. This can be up to a 30 day process and it is recommended that the project applicant contact SJMSCP staff as early as possible. It is also recommended that the project applicant obtain an information package. Please contact SJMSCP staff regarding completing the following steps to satisfy SJMSCP requirements: Schedule a SJMSCP Biologist to perform a pre-construction survey prior to any ground disturbance SJMSCP Incidental take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement: 1. Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs) will be issued to the project and must be signed by the project applicant prior to any ground disturbance but no later than six (6) months from receipt of the ITMMs. If ITMMs are not signed within six months, the applicant must reapply for SJMSCP Coverage. Upon receipt of signed ITMMs from project applicant, SJCOG, Inc. staff will sign the ITMMs. This is the effective date of the ITMMs. 2. Under no circumstance shall ground disturbance occur without compliance and satisfaction of the ITMMs. 3. Upon issuance of fully executed ITMMs and prior to any ground disturbance, the project applicant must: a. Post a bond for payment of the applicable SJMSCP fee covering the entirety of the project acreage being covered (the bond should be valid for no longer than a 6 month period); or b. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP fee for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or

451 2 S JCOG, Inc. c. Dedicate land in-lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or d. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits. 4. Within 6 months from the effective date of the ITMMs or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the project applicant must: a. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or b. Dedicate land in-lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or c. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits. Failure to satisfy the obligations of the mitigation fee shall subject the bond to be called. Receive your Certificate of Payment and release the required permit It should be noted that if this project has any potential impacts to waters of the United States [pursuant to Section 404 Clean Water Act], it would require the project to seek voluntary coverage through the unmapped process under the SJMSCP which could take up to 90 days. It may be prudent to obtain a preliminary wetlands map from a qualified consultant. If waters of the United States are confirmed on the project site, the Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would have regulatory authority over those mapped areas [pursuant to Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act respectively] and permits would be required from each of these resource agencies prior to grading the project site. If you have any questions, please call (209)

452 3 S JCOG, Inc. S J C O G, Inc. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation & Open Space Plan 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA (209) FAX (209) SJMSCP HOLD TO: FROM: Local Jurisdiction: Community Development Department, Planning Department, Building Department, Engineering Department, Survey Department, Transportation Department, Other: Laurel Boyd, SJCOG, Inc. DO NOT AUTHORIZE SITE DISTURBANCE DO NOT ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT DO NOT ISSUE FOR THIS PROJECT The landowner/developer for this site has requested coverage pursuant to the San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). In accordance with that agreement, the Applicant has agreed to: 1) SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement: 1. Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs) will be issued to the project and must be signed by the project applicant prior to any ground disturbance but no later than six (6) months from receipt of the ITMMs. If ITMMs are not signed within six months, the applicant must reapply for SJMSCP Coverage. Upon receipt of signed ITMMs from project applicant, SJCOG, Inc. staff will sign the ITMMs. This is the effective date of the ITMMs. 2. Under no circumstance shall ground disturbance occur without compliance and satisfaction of the ITMMs. 3. Upon issuance of fully executed ITMMs and prior to any ground disturbance, the project applicant must: a. Post a bond for payment of the applicable SJMSCP fee covering the entirety of the project acreage being covered (the bond should be valid for no longer than a 6 month period); or b. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP fee for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or c. Dedicate land in-lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or d. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits. 4. Within 6 months from the effective date of the ITMMs or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the project applicant must: a. Pay the appropriate SJMSCP for the entirety of the project acreage being covered; or b. Dedicate land in-lieu of fees, either as conservation easements or fee title; or c. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits. Failure to satisfy the obligations of the mitigation fee shall subject the bond to be called. Project Title: NOP of an EIR for the Proposed South of Woodward Avenue North Project Applicant: City of Manteca Assessor Parcel #s: , -12, -13; , -02, -03 T, R, Section(s): Local Jurisdiction Contact: Erika Durrer The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measures are properly implemented and monitored and that appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP.

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460 San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 East Weber Avenue Stockton, CA (209) FAX (209) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REGIONAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM To: Erika Durrer Senior Planner; Community Development Dept., City of Manteca From: Laura Brunn, Associate Regional Planner, San Joaquin Council of Governments Date: October 15, 2013 Jurisdiction Project Title: SOWA North Referral Type: NOP Distribution Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Project Referral for the SOWA project. As the County s designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), the Congestion Management Agency (CMA), and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) has reviewed the project information received on October 9, 2013 from the City of Manteca. On November 15, 2012 the SJCOG Board of Directors adopted the 2012 update to the Regional Congestion Management Program (RCMP). Chapter 6 of the RCMP describes the updated Land Use Analysis Program, including Tier 1 and Tier 2 review/analysis requirements, analysis methods, impact significance criteria, and mitigation. Chapter 6 is attached for your reference. The full program plan is available at the following link: or request by to brunn@sjcog.org. The trip generation for this project will fall under a Tier 2 Review that will include a Tier 1 consistency review as well as a quantitative analysis of RCMP impacts project specific and cumulative plus project conditions. Please refer to Chapter 6 of the 2012 RCMP for details regarding analysis/mitigation requirements for land development projects. The environmental document(s) should contain a section that specifically addresses requirements and standards of the RCMP. Consistency with other Regional Plans As stipulated within the RCMP Project Review Criteria in Chapter 6 of the 2012 RCMP, the project is required to show consistency with all *applicable regional transportation planning documents, such as:

461 Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan Park-and-Ride Master Plan Regional Bikeway Plan Smart Growth Infill Opportunity Zone Plan Regional Transit Systems Plan Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program Regional Transportation Plan Interregional STAA Study for I-5 and SR-99 *SJCOG staff is available to assist with project specific guidance and narrowing the scope of the relevant regional plans that need to be included. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please forward all documents to this office. If you have any questions please call the RCMP s lead planner, Laura Brunn, at (209) Sincerely, Laura Brunn, PMP SJCOG Associate Regional Planner Attachments: ATTACHMENT A - Exhibit of Project Site Location & RCMP Network ATTACHMENT B 2012 RCMP, Chapter 6_Land Use Analysis Program M:\Project Review\CMA\Lathrop\SOWA North Project\NOP_SOWA North.docx

462

463 Chapter 6 Land Use Impact Analysis Program

464 2012 Congestion Management Program San Joaquin Council of Governments Chapter 6 Land Use Impact Analysis Program 6.1 Introduction A CMP must contain a program to analyze the impacts of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions on regional transportation systems. The program must generally be able to estimate the costs associated with mitigating those impacts, as well as provide credits for local public and private contributions to improving regional transportation systems. The program described in this chapter meets this requirement. To comply with this state mandate, SJCOG and its member agencies have integrated a regional layer of review within the CEQA review process. Extending the scope of CEQA EIR traffic studies to include impacts to the CMP system has been considered by all the State s CMA s as the most expeditious way to implement the CMP Land Use Analysis element. The legislative intent of the CMP Land Use Analysis Program (LUAP) is to improve the linkage between local land-use decisions with regional transportation facility improvement needs; to better address the impacts of development in one community on another; and, to promote information sharing between local governments when the decisions made by one jurisdiction have an impact on another. As part of the annual Measure K and biennial state CMP reporting requirements, SJCOG is required to evaluate the efforts made by each local jurisdiction within San Joaquin County to ensure compliance with this state program statute (see Chapter 10). Hence, SJCOG must evaluate the efforts made by each jurisdiction to ensure that proposed land use projects comply with the established RCMP Land Use Analysis requirements. Given that the RCMP Land Use Analysis Program directly interfaces with established local agency land use review programs, it is important that the following components of the program are clearly described, measurable, and understandable: RCMP Traffic Impact Criteria RCMP Traffic Impact Significance Criteria RCMP Traffic Mitigation Measures RCMP Analysis Methods 6.2 Land Use Projects Review Criteria The following describes the types of proposed projects that trigger RCMP review. RCMP land use category summary descriptions are provided in Appendix D. It should be noted that SJCOG is not a land use authority, and as such it will not seek to approve or disapprove land use projects. All land use development projects are subject to RCMP review unless the project meets the following criteria: 1. The project is statutorily or categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as detailed in Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Articles 18 and The project is subsequent to the land uses approved within a Master EIR, Negative Declaration, or other environmental analysis and the land use agency determines that the project is within the scope of the previously Page 52 Land Use Impact Analysis Program approved project per CEQA Guidelines This criteria does not apply to projects subsequent to Program EIRs (such as General Plans), unless exempt otherwise from CEQA. Project referral should be submitted as soon as the jurisdiction receives the application. Within 30 days of receipt, SJ- COG staff will provide preliminary comments and determine the level of review to be completed as part of the CEQA process (Tier 1 or Tier 2) per the guidelines given below. For most Tier 1 projects, the CMA review will be complete at this stage. The purpose of the review will be to ensure that proposed projects are consistent with regional planning documents (Tier 1 Review) and that their effects on the regional transportation system are analyzed (Tier 2 Review), as described in further detail below. Tier 1 Review All development projects will be qualitatively reviewed for consistency with SJCOG s regional planning documents, including one of more of the following, as appropriate: Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan Regional Expressway System Plan (System Management and TDM components) Park-and-Ride Master Plan Regional Bikeway Plan Smart Growth Infill Opportunity Zone Plan Regional Transit Systems Plan Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program Regional Transportation Plan Interregional STAA Study for I-5 and SR-99 Tier 2 Review Projects that trigger the one or both of the following thresholds will be subject: or more vehicle trips during weekday AM or PM peak-hours; or, or more total daily vehicle trips on any day of the week. As defined above, all development projects regardless of trip generation characteristics will be at a minimum reviewed for consistency with applicable regional planning documents. Triggering a quantitative Tier 2 review will entail addressing the Tier 1 consistency review as well as a quantitative analysis of RCMP impacts project specific and cumulative plus project conditions. It should be noted that SJCOG s ability to comment should not be interpreted as an authority to reject development applications. 6.3 RCMP Impact Significance Criteria To determine whether project added traffic constitutes a significant impact to the RCMP network, the following significance criterion is established.

465 2012 Congestion Management Program San Joaquin Council of Governments Tier 1 Development Projects Projects subject to Tier 1 reviews will be not subject to specific significance criteria. SJCOG will notify a project sponsor of any recommended design consideration, mitigation measures and/or conditions that should be carried forward in the final approval. After project approval, the lead agency will submit the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and/or final project conditions to SJCOG. The Project and applicable elements of the MMRP/Final Project Conditions will be recorded for reference when preparing the annual Measure K and biennial State CMP reports, which require disclosure of jurisdictional compliance. Tier 2 Review A proposed development will have a significant impact to the RCMP network if any one of the following criteria is met during the AM or PM peak hours: 1. For any RCMP roadway or intersection currently operating or expected to operate at LOS D or better under No Project conditions, the project-added traffic results in LOS E or F operating conditions 2. For RCMP intersections or roadways currently operating or expected to operate at LOS E or F under No Project conditions, the project results in increases to: average delay by 4 seconds or more; or, the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio by 1.0 or more 3. Conflicts with SJCOG adopted/approved Regional Plans applicable to the project. During the project review period, SJCOG staff will identify any inconsistencies with regional planning documents, such as: Regional Transportation Demand Management Plan Regional Expressway System Plan (System Management and TDM components) Park-and-Ride Master Plan Regional Bikeway Plan Smart Growth Infill Opportunity Zone Plan Regional Transit Systems Plan Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program Regional Transportation Plan Interregional STAA Study for I-5 and SR-99 State and local agency significance criteria may be more or less stringent that the RCMP significance criteria described above. Note that the RCMP significance criteria will not require additional analysis work performed for TIAs but will require RCMP impacts, as well as their significance after mitigation, to be explicitly identified in the TIA and environmental documentation. 6.4 Mitigation Measures State law places responsibility for the RCMP Land Use Analysis Program on local jurisdictions, since they retain the power to approve or deny land development applications. SJCOG can assist cities and the County in determining regional traffic impacts, but the Lead Agency is responsible for determining how to mitigate these impacts and what the cost will be to do so. SJCOG encourages local agencies to require development projects to cover the costs of mitigating transportation impacts, but the decision to do so rests with the city or County. If the RCMP significance criteria are exceeded and feasible mitigation is not identified to mitigate the impact to less than significant levels, the impact must be identified as significant and unavoidable. 1. SJCOG s policy regarding mitigation measures for capital improvement projects is: RCMP mitigation measures must be adequate to allow the RCMP roadway to meet the RCMP LOS standard RCMP mitigation measures for project specific impacts must be fully funded to be considered adequate; RCMP mitigation measures that rely on state or federal funds directed by or influenced by SJCOG must be consistent with project funding priorities established in the CIP of the RCMP and the RTP, or the Federal TIP; and, For RCMP mitigation measures that involve a local or regional fair share contribution for mitigating RCMP cumulative impacts, the fee must be committed to funding priorities established in the CIP of the RCMP, the RTP, or the Federal TIP. The SJCOG Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) program establishes a RCMP specific mitigation fee program relative to cumulative regional impacts. To satisfy these requirements, project applicants are required to pay their fair share contribution into the RTIF program. However, to better inform the public and stakeholders, the environmental document (i.e., mitigation language) must convey that payment into the RTIF program does not guarantee that the lead agency (local agency) will necessarily spend these developer fees on the identified mitigation improvement. SJCOG will administer the RCMP/RTIF Mitigation Monitoring Program to track the actual funding/implementation of identified mitigation improvements (i.e., conditions of approval) identified as part of environmental documents. SJCOG will periodically report each local agency s implementation progress of identified mitigation measures as part of mandated RCMP and RTIF program compliance hearings to the SJCOG Board. SJCOG will also provide this status update mitigation improvement information to local agencies as part SJCOG s state and federal flexible funding cycle call for projects. 2. The RCMP also requires cumulative impacts to the RCMP network be addressed through the CEQA analysis process. The project analysis of traffic impacts to the RCMP network must reflect the most recently approved development projects from the lead agency as well as from adjacent jurisdictions. It should also include currently programmed infrastructure improvements. 3. As part of the RCMP Land Use Analysis Program, if a Land Use Impact Analysis Program Page 53

466 2012 Congestion Management Program San Joaquin Council of Governments RCMP intersection is projected to operate at LOS E or F (CEQA Cumulative and/or Cumulative Plus Project analyses) after trip exemptions have been accounted for, the affected jurisdiction can choose to pro-actively prepare a Deficiency Plan in lieu of waiting for the facility to possibly fail after the development is implemented. The benefit of preparing and adopting a RCMP deficiency plan based on a future year deficiency finding is that the identified improvements can be submitted/proposed for flexible funding cycle sooner (i.e., call for projects ). Given the typical 7-10 year lag between the time a project is programmed till it is actually constructed/implemented, this proactive approach better ensures that identified improvements are implemented in a more timely manner rather than long after a congestion problem becomes evident i.e., reactive. Inter-Jurisdictional Impacts A regional analysis based on local land use decisions will often involve more than one jurisdiction. For example, a large project approved by City A (Lead Agency) may affect traffic on a nearby principal arterial in City B (affected city). The RCMP places the responsibility for addressing the significant traffic impacts with the approving jurisdiction. However, SJ- COG also recognizes that City A will need to work with City B in order to properly mitigate the traffic impacts on the affected segment. It is the preference of SJCOG that the lead agency work with any affected jurisdiction to arrive at a mutually agreeable plan for addressing the inter-jurisdictional impacts of a given project. If a dispute arises, or at the request of either party, SJCOG will assist both localities in preparing a mitigation plan that meets the requirements of this land use program. 6.5 Regional Traffic Impact Fees The RCMP Land Use Program is intended to ensure that new development contributes a fair share and provides transportation improvements at the time of new construction. The SJCOG Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) program establishes a RCMP cumulative impact mitigation fee that serves to streamline the CEQA process as it relates to regional impacts. All jurisdictions adopted and began implementation of the RTIF program by July 1, SJCOG monitors the local jurisdictions collection and disbursement of the fee to ensure that the RTIF is being applied toward traffic mitigation projects that were identified in the development of the fee or towards regional impacts identified as part of the RCMP Land Use Analysis Program. Compliance monitoring is performed through SJCOG s annual audit process of local agency transportation funds. A flow chart of the Land Use Analysis Program is provided in Figure 6-1 on the following page. As alluded to at the bottom of the flow chart, RCMP compliance findings are in part determined based on local agency compliance with the RCMP Land Use Analysis Program. A detailed description of the SJ- COG s RCMP conformance assessment process is provided in Chapter 10. RCMP impacts and identified mitigations will be recorded for reference and disclosed as part SJCOG s annual Measure K and biennial State CMP compliance reports. 6.6 Analysis Methods All RCMP analysis procedures will be based on the most recent HCM methodology (i.e., 2010 HCM) when reliable software implementations are available. This includes basic freeway, multi-lane highway, two-lane highway and intersections. Generally, vehicle trip generation should be based on the most current Trip Generation informational report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The published trip generation estimates are often described for both the peak hour of the land use (generator) and for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. For analyzing the study threshold criteria, trip generation for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic should be used if available. If not available, trip generation for the peak hour of the generator can be substituted. If the land use is not specifically represented in the ITE trip generation rates, then an estimate of the project s trip generation should be conducted and fully documented using estimation methodologies normally accepted in the fields of traffic engineering and transportation planning. Use of specific trip generation studies or other trip generation information sources (e.g., San Diego Association of Governments trip rates) will be considered on a case by case basis. 6.7 Regional Traffic Model SJCOG s regional traffic model is an integral component of the Land Use Analysis Program, and its maintenance is a requirement of both the State CMP legislation and the Measure K Ordinance. The following model applications are used to assist in the implementation of the RCMP Land Use Analysis Program. Regional Traffic Model Details Helping to determine a development project s trip distribution (select zone analysis) Per California Code Section , interregional trips are exempt from triggering the need for RCMP Deficiency Plans. SJCOG s model is used for estimating the extent of interregional trips from outside the San Joaquin County i.e., Stanislaus County, the Sacramento region, the entire Bay Area, Calaveras County, and Amador County (see Chapter 7). These analyses can be deferred to or used in combination with local jurisdiction travel models that can demonstrate to meet state/federal guidelines for model calibration/validation. Page 54 Land Use Impact Analysis Program

467 REGIONAL CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SJCOG DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Process Flowchart for Lead Agency *Project Referred to SJCOG SJCOG Determines Tier of Review no Will the project : yes **Project will undergo same review process as Tier 1 plus required analysis of impacts to the RCMP Roadway Network Tier 1 Review **Project will be reviewed for consistency with Regional Planning Documents, as appropriate Generate 125 or more vehicle trips during weekday AM or PM peak-hours; Or Generate 500 or more total daily vehicle trips on any day of the week Tier 2 Review SJCOG notifies project sponsor of recommendations necessary to minimize RCMP impacts, if necessary SJCOG notifies project sponsor of recmmendations necessary Will to the project : minimize RCMP impacts, if necessary After Final Approval, lead agency submits MMRP and/or final project conditions to SJCOG Generate 125 or more vehicle trips during weekday AM or PM peak-hours; Or Project consistency recorded in database Generate 500 or more total for daily reference vehicle trips when on preparing any day of the week annual. Measure K Consistency Report and Biennial State Update Mitigation and project design elements relative to transportation planning and programming will be tracked and sent to the local jurisdictions annually for project prioritization consideration *Refer to SJCOG REFERRAL DECISION TREE on opposite side. **For details on RCMP review process, please refer to Chapter 6 of the 2012 Regional Congestion Management Program Plan January 2013

468 November 6, 2013 Erika E. Durrer Community Development Department City of Manteca 1001 West Center Street Manteca, CA Project: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed South of Woodward Avenue North Project District CEQA Reference No: Dear Erika Durrer; The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the development of approximately acres project with a total of 706 single-family dwellings. The District offers the following comments: Emissions Analysis 1) The District is currently designated as extreme nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, attainment for PM10 and CO, and nonattainment for PM2.5 for the federal air quality standards. At the state level, the District is designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 air quality standards. The District recommends that the Air Quality section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of the following impacts: 1a) Criteria Pollutants: Project related criteria pollutant emissions should be identified and quantified. The discussion should include existing and post-project emissions. i) Construction Emissions: Construction emissions are short-term emissions and should be evaluated separate from operational emissions. The District recommends preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if annual construction emissions cannot be reduced or mitigated to below the following