Attachment 3 - Exhibit A to Resolution - EIR Certification

FINDING OF FACT / STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATION

FOR THE

LUMINA AT MACHADO RANCH
(SCH: 2021010265)
FEBRUARY 2022
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Development Services
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8500
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
Exhibit "A"
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 3

FINDING OF FACT / STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION

FOR THE

LUMINA AT MACHADO RANCH
(SCH: 2021010265)
FEBRUARY 2022
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Development Services
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8500
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
ATTACHMENT 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch TOC-1

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Section Page Number
I. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1 II. General Findings and Overview.......................................................................................... 2 III. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............ 7 IV. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Impacts Which Are Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level ............................................................................................. 19 V. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Those Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or Less Than Cumulatively Considerable ........................................................ 34 VI. Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 36 VII. Statements of Overriding Considerations Related to the Lumina at Machado Ranch Findings.................................................................................................................. 39 ATTACHMENT 3

TOC TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC-2 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 1

FINDINGS FOR THE

LUMINA AT MACHADO RANCH PROJECT

REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) requires the City of Manteca (City), as the CEQA lead agency, to: 1) make written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified, and 2) identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.)
This document explains the City’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the Lumina at Machado Ranch (Project) and the City decision-makers’ ultimate determinations of the feasibility of the project alternatives considered in the EIR. The statement of overriding considerations in Section VII, below, identifies the economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that the City decision-makers have determined should override any significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment.

The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR) for the Project, examined the proposed Project and several alternatives to the Project including: (1) No Project (No Build) Alternative; (2) Increased Density Alternative; and (3) Agriculture Protection Alternative.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the City Council, as the City’sfindings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis, substantial evidence, and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project, as well as the overriding considerations, which in this City Council’s view, justify approval of the Project, despite its environmental effects.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
2 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW
Project Overview
The Project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Manteca, immediately south of the city limit lines. The Project site is immediately southwest of the intersection of Airport Way and Woodward Avenue. The Project site is bounded on the north by Woodward Avenue and an existing single-family residential subdivision, on the east by Airport Way, on the south by an existing Reclamation District #2094 (RD2094) dry levee and existing agricultural fields, and on the west by the existing single-family residential subdivisions.

The Project site includes several distinct planning boundaries defined below. The following terms are used throughout this DEIR to describe the planning area boundaries within the Project site:
• Project Site (or Annexation Area) – includes the whole of the project, including the proposed 161.19-acre Development Area, 19.11-acre Non-development Area on 15 inhabited residential lots, and 3.16 acres of existing right-of-way. • Development Area - includes a 161.19-acre parcel (APN 241-32-018 and dedication areas along Woodward Avenue and Airport Way) that is intended for the development of up to 827 residential units, two parks, and public infrastructure. • Non-development Area 1 - includes six 1.0 acre lots with existing residential homes. Access to these homes is directly onto Woodward Avenue.
• Non-development Area 2 - includes nine lots ranging in size from 1.3 to 1.8 acres totaling

13.11 acres with existing residential homes. Access to three of these homes is directly onto Woodward Avenue, five are onto Airport Way, and one has access onto both Woodward Avenue and Airport Way.
• Right-of-Way Annexation Area - includes 3.16 acres of remaining right-of-way outside of areas of dedication owned by San Joaquin County and intended to be annexed into the City of Manteca.

The Lumina at Machado Ranch Project (hereinafter referred to as the “proposed Project”) consists of the Annexation of 16 APNs totaling 183.46 acres. This includes the Development Area (161.19 acre parcel, APN 241-32-018 and adjacent dedications), Non-development Area 1 (an inhabited annexation of 6 parcels on 6 acres), Non-development Area 2 (an inhabited annexation of 9 parcels on 13.11 acres), and the remaining Right-of-Way Annexation Area (3.16 acres of existing County right-of-way). The annexation will also include detachment from the Lathrop Manteca Fire District.

The proposed Project also includes a Tentative Subdivision Map for the Development Area that would be divided into four phases on a single tentative subdivision map. The tentative subdivision map would result in the subdivision of 161.19 acres into 827 residential lots (100.46 acres), a centralized park totaling 10.87 acres (Lot F), plus 1.28 acres of levee access and pocket park (Lot G).

Total parkland is 12.15 acres. Open space is also provided in the form of frontage landscaping strips ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 3
and a well site (Lots A, B, C, D, I, L, M and N - 38,864 sf frontage landscaping, and Lot J – 28,049 sf for a well site and frontage landscaping). The proposed Project anticipates a Development Agreement that will be negotiated between the City and Applicant.

The proposed Project would require a General Plan Land Use Amendment to adjust the exact location and shape of the Park land use designation within the Development Area. It is noted that the City is undergoing an Update to the General Plan, and there is a proposed Land Use policy (policy LU-1.5) that allows flexibility to relocate land uses that are on contiguous properties and are included in a single development application as long as it does not result in incompatibilities with adjacent or nearby land uses or designations. Were this policy approved at this time it would apply to the proposed Project, and there would be no need for a General Plan Amendment.

No changes are proposed for the Non-development Area 1. It is noted that the General Plan Update proposes changes to the land use in Non-development Area 2, and the proposed Land Uses under this General Plan Amendment are consistent with the General Plan Update.

The proposed Project is currently outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Manteca and therefore does not have a zoning designation. The proposed Project includes a request for pre-zoning of the Development Area, Non-development Area 1, and Non-development Area 2.

Refer to EIR Chapter 2.0, Project Description, for a more complete description of the details of the proposed Specific Plan.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Notice of Preparation Public Circulation: The City of Manteca circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project on January 22, 2021 to the State Clearinghouse, State Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, Other Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Persons. A public scoping meeting was held on February 10, 2021 to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and responses to the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The commenting agencies are provided below.
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board;
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control;
• Terra Land Group;
• Bill Ludwig; and
• An Anonymous Commenter.

Notice of Availability and Draft EIR: The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on October 8, 2021 inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2021010265) and the County Clerk, and was published in a local newspaper pursuant to the public noticing ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
4 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from October 8, 2021 through November 22, 2021.

The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting, identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impact or a less-than-significant impact, and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

Final EIR: The City of Manteca received two (2) comment letters on the Draft EIR during the public review period. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the Final EIR responds to the comments received during the public review period. The Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0, Errata.

The comments received did not provide evidence of any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:
• The NOP, comments received on the NOP, and all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Project (e.g., NOA).
• The Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comment letters, and technical materials cited in the documents.
• All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City and consultants in relation to the EIR.
• Minutes and transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings held by the City.
• Staff reports associated with City Council meetings on the Project. • Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e).

The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the City of Manteca, 1001 West Center Street, Suite 201, Manteca, CA 95337, or online at:

INSERT LINK

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code § 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 5
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Further, the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Id.) Section 21002 also provides that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles established by the Legislature in Public Resources Code § 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement in Public Resources Code § 21081 that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required.

CEQA Guidelines § 15091 provides the following direction regarding findings:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(See also Public Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(1)-(3).) As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1) [determining the feasibility of alternatives].) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (See Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400 [court upholds findings rejecting a “reduced herd” alternative to a proposed dairy as infeasible because the alternative failed to meet the “fundamental objective” of the project to produce milk]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1508 [agency decision-makers, in rejecting alternatives as infeasible, appropriately relied on project objective ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
6 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
articulated by project applicant].) Moreover, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001-1002.)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that the project’s benefits outweigh its significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b).)
CEQA Guidelines § 15093 provides the following direction regarding a statement of overriding considerations:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to § 15091.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared for the Project and, if the Project is approved, will be adopted concurrently with these Findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
In adopting these Findings, this City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to this City Council, the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 7
Final EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, this City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the Final EIR. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City.

SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT

AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
A. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.1-1:PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SCENIC VISTAS AND RESOURCES OR SUBSTANTIAL DEGRADATION OF VISUAL CHARACTER. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character is discussed on pages 3.1-10 through 3.1-12 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant. (b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed Project would convert the 161.19-acre Development Area from its existing use as primarily agricultural land to a residential neighborhood with associated park areas. The Project site is not designated as a scenic vista by the City of Manteca General Plan or the San Joaquin County General Plan, nor does it contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify the site for designation as a scenic vista. However, the City’s General Plan EIR does note that new development will impact current views of open space, which are primarily vistas of agricultural fields and orchards.

The above-referenced public views are primarily available to motorists traveling along Woodward Avenue and Airport Way, which bound the Development Area to the north and east respectively. Implementation of the proposed Project would change the existing visual character of the Development Area from a primarily agricultural site to an urbanized site. Impacts related to a change in visual character are largely subjective and very difficult to quantify. People have different reactions to the visual quality of a project or a project feature, and what is considered “attractive” to one viewer may be considered “unattractive” to other viewers.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
8 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
The Project site currently consists primarily of agricultural lands. Agricultural lands provide visual relief from urban and suburban developments, and help to define the character of a region. The loss of agricultural lands can have an adverse cumulative impact on the overall visual character and quality of a region.

As described above, proposed Project implementation would introduce residential uses, as well as supporting infrastructure into an area that is currently undeveloped and is primarily occupied by agricultural uses. Implementation of the proposed Project would introduce developed urban land uses into an area that is currently undeveloped and largely void of structures and impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would include visual components that would assist in enhancing the appearance of the site following site development. These improvements would include landscaping improvements such as new street trees and other vegetation landscaping. The proposed Project would also result in the construction of open park areas totaling 12.15 acres, which will result in areas of green space within the residential portion of the Project site. While implementation of the proposed Project would change the existing visual character of the site, it would not result in substantial adverse effects on a designated scenic vista. There are no proposed structures over 45 feet high that would impede views of the surrounding agricultural areas from the Project vicinity.

The proposed Project would result in a land use consistent with the development planned for the Project area, resulting in a residential subdivision development aesthetically similar to the surrounding uses. For example, the Terra Ranch Subdivision borders the proposed residential neighborhood to the west, which provides for similarly scaled residential lots and park and recreation areas.

Nevertheless, the loss of the agricultural use on the Project site will change the visual character of the Project site in perpetuity. Conditions of Approval will require compliance with the Development Standards for lighting, landscaping, and building design, which would collectively minimize the visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible as the site transitions from agricultural to urban/suburban uses; however, there is no development standard that would fully reduce the impact caused by the loss of the agricultural character as the site transitions to a new use. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. There is no additional feasible mitigation available that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 9
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts to aesthetics, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.2: CUMULATIVE DEGRADATION OF THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE REGION.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on the existing visual character of the region is discussed on page 4.0-4 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. implementation of the proposed Project would convert the 161.19-acre Development Area from its existing use as primarily agricultural land to a residential neighborhood with associated park areas. Implementation of the proposed development standards and consistency with the General Plan and the Manteca Zoning Ordinance would ensure that impacts are reduced to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, impacts related to degradation of the visual character of the site would be significant and unavoidable.

Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the General Plan for Manteca and the surrounding jurisdictions could result in changes to the visual character and quality of the City of Manteca through development of undeveloped areas and/or changes to the character of existing communities. Development of the proposed Project, in addition to other future projects in the area, would change the existing visual and scenic qualities of the City. There are no mitigation measures that could reduce this impact except a ceasing of all future development, which is not a feasible option. As such, this is a cumulatively considerable contribution and a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts to the existing visual character of the region, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
10 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

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

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

AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses is discussed on pages 3.2-15 through 3.2-17 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.2-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 10.3 acres of Prime Farmland and 148.0 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance.

Chapter 13.42 of the Municipal Code establishes the City's Agricultural Mitigation Fee Program, which authorizes the collection of development impact fees to offset costs associated with the loss of productive agricultural lands converted for urban uses within the City. The City’s agricultural mitigation fee program requires that future development pay the agricultural mitigation fee, currently $2,956.20 per acre, to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The City will use these funds to purchase conservation easements or deed restrictions on agricultural land to ensure that the land remains in agricultural use in perpetuity.

In addition to the City’s agricultural mitigation fee program, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) requires development to pay fees on a per-acre basis for impacts to agricultural lands that function as habitat for biological resources. San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) will then use these funds to purchase the conservation easements on agricultural and habitat lands in the Project vicinity. The compensation results in the purchase of conservation easements that are placed over agricultural land. As such, the Project fees paid to SJCOG as administrator of the SJMSCP will result in the preservation of agricultural lands in perpetuity.

The purchase of conservation easements and/or deed restrictions through the City agricultural mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP allows the landowners to retain ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 11
ownership of the land and continue agricultural operations, and preserves such lands in perpetuity.

The proposed conversion is consistent with the City’s overall planning vision, as identified in the 2023 General Plan, which assumes the site would be developed with residential and park uses. The 2023 General Plan and General Plan EIR anticipated development of the Project site as part of the overall evaluation of buildout of the City. Additionally, the proposed General Plan Update designates this land for Low Density Residential uses consistent with the proposed Project and is anticipated in the overall buildout of the City as part of the General Plan Update EIR, currently out for public review. The 2023 General Plan EIR also addressed the conversion and loss of agricultural land that would result from buildout of the 2023 General Plan, providing a discussion of the General Plan policies intended to reduce impacts. However, the 2023 General Plan EIR concluded that although these policies and regulations would reduce impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, the permanent loss of farmland would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural resources.

While the proposed Project will contribute fees toward the purchase of conservation easements on agricultural lands through the City’s agricultural mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP (as required by Mitigation Measure 3.2-1), those fees and conservation easements would not result in the creation of new farmland to offset the loss that would occur with Project implementation. As such, the loss of Important Farmland would be a significant and unavoidable impact relative to this topic.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts to agricultural resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.4: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. (b) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on the agricultural resources is discussed on page 4.0-5 of the Draft EIR.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
12 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.2-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 10.3 acres of Prime Farmland and 148.0 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. The loss of Important Farmland as classified under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program is considered a potentially significant environmental impact.

The City’s agricultural mitigation fee program requires that future development pay the agricultural mitigation fee, currently $2,956.2 per acre, to mitigate the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. The City will use these funds to purchase conservation easements or deed restrictions on agricultural land to ensure that the land remains in agricultural use in perpetuity.

In addition to the City’s agricultural mitigation fee program, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) requires development to pay fees on a per-acre basis for impacts to agricultural lands that function as habitat for biological resources. SJCOG will then use these funds to purchase the conservation easements on agricultural and habitat lands in the Project vicinity. The compensation results in the purchase of conservation easements that are placed over agricultural land, such as alfalfa and row crops. As such, the Project fees paid to SJCOG as administrator of the SJMSCP will result in the preservation of agricultural lands in perpetuity.

The purchase of conservation easements and/or deed restrictions through the City agricultural mitigation fee program and the SJMSCP allows the landowners to retain ownership of the land and continue agricultural operations and preserves such lands in perpetuity.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 13
be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on agricultural resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

C. AIR QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.3-1: PROJECT OPERATION WOULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE PROJECT REGION IS IN NONATTAINMENT, OR CONFLICT OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT’S AIR QUALITY PLAN.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, or conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan is discussed on pages 3.3-40 through 3.3-44 of the Draft EIR and determined to be significant. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.3-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance.

The SJVAPCD has established operations related emissions thresholds of significance as follows: 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO, 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), 27 tons per year of sulfur oxides (SOx), 15 tons per year particulate matter of 10 microns or less in size (PM10), and 15 tons per year particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5). If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for operational-generated emissions, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions to the extent feasible.

As shown in Table 3.3-6 in Section 3.3, operational emissions would exceed the SJVACPD thresholds of significance for NOx. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce criteria pollutant emissions to below the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1. This ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
14 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
measure would ensure that individual phases within the footprint of the proposed Project would reduce emissions to less the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1, the Project’s operational emissions would be reduced. Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 requires individual phases of the proposed Project to ensure emissions are below all of the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds through on- and off-site mitigation measures, where applicable.

However, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, it may not be feasible for all individual phases within the Project site to reduce operational emissions at full Project buildout below the applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts to air quality, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.4: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON THE REGION'S AIR QUALITY. (c) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on the region's air quality is discussed on pages 4.0-5 and 4.0-6 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-5.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Under buildout conditions in the San Joaquin County, the SJVAB would continue to experience increases in criteria pollutants and efforts to improve air quality throughout the basin would be hindered. As described in Section 3.3, San Joaquin County has a State designation Attainment or Unclassified for all criteria pollutants except for ozone, particulate matter of 10 microns or less in size (PM10), and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5). San Joaquin County has a national designation of either Unclassified or Attainment for all criteria pollutants except for ozone and PM2.5.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 15
Table 3.3-2 in Section 3.3 presents the State and Federal attainment status for San Joaquin County.

As discussed under Impact 3.3-1 in Section 3.3, the SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. The SJVAPCD has established operations related emissions thresholds of significance as follows: 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO), 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), 27 tons per year of sulfur oxides (SOx), 15 tons per year PM10, and 15 tons per year PM2.5.

As shown in Table 3.3-6, operational emissions would exceed the SJVACPD thresholds of significance for NOx. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce criteria pollutant emissions to below the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.

The proposed Project is subject to the SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule [ISR]), which could result in substantial mitigation of NOx and associated ROG emissions. The reductions are accomplished by the incorporation of mitigation measures into projects and/or by the payment of an Indirect Source Rule fee for any required reductions that have not been accomplished through Project mitigation commitments. The actual calculations will be determined and finalized by the SJVAPCD and Project applicants as individual projects are brought forward for approval under Rule 9510.

The substantial reductions in NOx (and associated ROG) and PM10 emissions accomplished by the application of the ISR represent the best achievable mitigation for indirect sources. However, even with the application of these measures, emissions levels would remain above the defined thresholds of significance.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 requires individual phases of the proposed Project to ensure emissions are below all of the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds through onand off-site mitigation measures, where applicable. Mitigation Measures 3.3-2 through 3.3-5 require a Dust Control Plan, dust control measures, and compliance with various SJVAPCD rules during construction. Overall, implementation of the proposed Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution and significant and unavoidable impact from air emissions.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
16 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on air quality, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

D. GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

1. IMPACT 3.7-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,

EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE

ENVIRONMENT TO CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment is discussed on pages 3.7-40 through 3.7-43 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.7-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. 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. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.

Estimated maximum mitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.7-3. Short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated at a maximum of approximately 1,435 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year. Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.7-4. The annual mitigated GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 12,118 MT CO2e.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 17
According to the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed Project (Fehr & Peers, 2021), and as described in more detail in Section 3.13 of this EIR, the Project would increase automobile VMT by approximately 7,807 new daily trips, which would generate substantial GHG emissions. The proposed Project would also generate substantial emissions from on-site energy, waste, and water emissions.

Consistent with the modeling for CalEEMod, the proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,623 residents during the Project’s operational phase.1 Dividing this number of estimated residents generated by the Project by the total annual operational GHG emissions at Project buildout yields approximately 4.62 MT CO2e/SP/Year, which is above the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory.

Construction emissions, when amortized2
, would equal approximately emissions

47.8 MT CO2e, which is equivalent to approximately 0.02 MT CO2e/SP/Year.

Therefore, the total annual GHG emissions at Project buildout would still yield approximately 4.62 MT CO2e/SP/Year, after inclusion of the amortized construction emissions.

The proposed Project is required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 in an effort to reduce GHG emissions to the extent possible. However, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, it may not be feasible for the Project to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at full Project buildout below the applicable threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be considered to have a significant and unavoidable impact. (2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project

1 This estimate is based on the CalEEMod model’s per-dwelling unit (du) estimate for Single Family Residences of approximately 3.17 persons per Single Family Residential du, and a total Project Single Family Residences count of 827.
2 The amortization period used for this calculation is 30 years.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
18 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
associated with impacts related to GHG emissions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.9: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE FROM INCREASED PROJECT-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a cumulative impact on climate change from increased Project-related GHG emissions is discussed on pages 4.0-9 and

4.0-10 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As presented in Table 3.7-1, short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated at a maximum of approximately 1,435 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e) per year. The Project is estimated to generate approximately 2,623 residents during the Project’s operational phase. Dividing this number of estimated residents generated by the Project by the total annual operational GHG emissions at Project buildout yields approximately 4.62 MT CO2e/SP/Year, which is above the 2.62 MT CO2e/SP/year in 2030 threshold based on emissions for the land use-driven emission sectors in the CARB GHG Inventory. Construction emissions, when amortized, would equal approximately emissions 47.8 MT CO2e, which is equivalent to approximately 0.02 MT CO2e/SP/Year. Therefore, the total annual GHG emissions at Project buildout would still yield approximately 4.62 MT CO2e/SP/Year, after inclusion of the amortized construction emissions.

Impacts related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions would result in a considerable contribution.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR. To the extent that this significant adverse impact will not be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 19
associated with cumulative impacts related to climate change and GHG emissions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT

IMPACTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL
A. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.2-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN CONFLICTS WITH ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR INDIRECTLY CAUSE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural landsis discussed on page

3.2-17 and 3.2-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.2-2.
(c) Findings. Neighboring agricultural land, including Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, are located to the east, south, and west of the Project site as shown on Figure 3.2-1. A variety of residential and commercial uses would be developed on the Project site with implementation of the proposed Project.

Existing agricultural lands that are located east of Airport Way and to the south of the site may be impacted by the increased human presence on the Project site. However, the City’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance reduces the potential for conflict between existing agricultural lands and adjacent uses. The notification procedures in the ordinance serves to inform landowners and developers of non-agricultural uses of what the expectations are in the area with regard to agricultural activities and to reduce complaints.

Most of the proposed development would be buffered from existing agricultural operations by existing roadways including, Airport Way on the eastern side of the Project site. However, the southern portion of the Project site would not be buffered from nearby agricultural operations. The City’s Right to Farm Ordinance is intended to reduce the occurrence of such conflicts between nonagricultural and agricultural land uses within the City through requiring the transferor of any property in the City to provide a disclosure statement describing that the City permits agricultural operations, including those that utilize chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 would further ensure that the Project includes adequate measures to buffer Project uses from adjacent agricultural uses and would reduce adverse effects on neighboring agricultural uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measure

3.2-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
20 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to conflict with adjacent agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.4-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS BIRD SPECIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have direct or indirect effects on special-status bird species is discussed on page 3.4-27 and 3.4-28 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures

3.4-1.
(c) Findings. Powerlines and trees located in the region represent potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the agricultural land represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for the ground-nesting birds. In general, most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late July and early August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB currently contains records for Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and tricolored blackbird within two miles of the Project site. In addition to the species described above, common raptors may nest in or adjacent to the Project site.

New sources of noise and light during the construction and operational phases of the project could adversely affect nesters if they located adjacent to the Project site in any given year. Additionally, the proposed Project would eliminate the agricultural areas on the Project site, which serve as potential foraging habitat for birds throughout the year.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires participation in the SJMSCP. As part of the SJMSCP, SJCOG requires preconstruction surveys for projects that occur during the avian breeding season (March 1 – August 31). When active nests are identified, the biologists develop buffer zones around the active nests as deemed appropriate until the young have fledged. SJCOG also uses the fees to purchase habitat as compensation for the loss of foraging habitat. Implementation of the proposed Project, with the Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, would ensure that potential impacts to special status birds are reduced to a less than significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 21
identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to have direct or indirect effects on specialstatus bird species will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

C. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.5-1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL

ADVERSE CHANGE TO A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN CEQA GUIDELINES §15064.5.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 is discussed on pages 3.5-16 and 3.5-17 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 through 3.5-3.
(c) Findings. The Development Area is primarily active farmland with two existing houses and barns and/or sheds with associated equipment in the northeast corner. The CHRIS search for the Project site indicated two historic period resources were previously recorded in the Development Area, including the Tesla-Salado Manteca 115 kV transmission line (#P-39-005337) and the Walthall Slough Dry Land Levee (#P39- 005086). Additionally, the field survey identified two on-site residences (20329 South Airport Way and 20333 South Airport Way) that were more than 50 years in age and potentially historic resources.

The Tesla-Salado Manteca 115 kV transmission line was determined not to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Cardno 2017). Additionally, Peak & Associates determined that the two on-site residences (20329 and 20333 South Airport Way) do not meet the thresholds under Criteria A-D of the CRHR and are not historical resources. However, it was determined that the Walthall Slough Dry Land Levee may be a significant resource as a part of the San Joaquin River Levee system. As previously noted, the Walthall Slough Dry Land Levee extends into the southwest corner of the Project site and along the southern boundary. Altogether, Project site contains approximately 1,500 feet of the Walthall Slough Dry Land Levee along the southern border in the southwestern portion of the project area. As shown on Figure 2.0-10 of Chapter 2.0, Project Description, the southwest corner of the Project site is designated for open space and while the Walthall Slough Dry Land Levee extends along the southern boundary, it is placed outside proposed residential development. Therefore, the proposed development would avoid the Walthall Slough Dry Land Levee. The Project site is located in an area known to have historical and archaeological resources.

Therefore, as with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown historical and archaeological ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
22 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 through 3.5-3 would ensure that this potential impact is less than significant.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 through

3.5-3 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to a significant historical or archaeological resource will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.3-3: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, is discussed on page 3.5-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.5-4.
(c) Findings. Indications suggest that humans have occupied San Joaquin County for over 10,000 years and it is not always possible to predict where human remains may occur outside of formal burials. Therefore, excavation and construction activities, regardless of depth, may yield human remains that may not be interred in marked, formal burials.

Under CEQA, human remains are protected under the definition of archaeological materials as being “any evidence of human activity.” Additionally, Public Resources Code Section 5097 has specific stop-work and notification procedures to follow in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during Project implementation.

While no human remains were found during field surveys of the Project site, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that all construction activities which inadvertently discover human remains implement state-required consultation methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered human remains. The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.5-4 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 23
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. IMPACT 3.6-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL

SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING THE RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING RUPTURE OF A KNOWN EARTHQUAKE FAULT, STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING, SEISMICRELATED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION, OR LANDSLIDES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides is discussed on pages 3.6-16 through

3.6-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-1.
(c) Findings. The City, including the Project site, is subject to potential ground shaking caused by seismic activity. Seismic activity could come from a known active fault such as the Greenville fault, or any number of other faults in the region. In order to minimize potential damage to the buildings and site improvements, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations.

Collectively, these requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Manteca (Municipal Code Section 15.04.010), include design standards and requirements that are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California.

Section 1613 specifically provides structural design standards for earthquake loads.

The Project site has a moderate risk of seismic-related ground failure as a result of liquefication. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires the preparation of a final geotechnical evaluation of soils at a design-level, consistent with Sections 1803.1.1.2, 1803.5.11. and 1803.5.12 of the CBC. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that all on-site fill soils are properly compacted and comply with the applicable safety requirements established by the CBC to reduce risks associated with unstable soils and excavations and fills, and that any issues associated with unstable soils are addressed at the design level. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 would ensure the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
24 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.6-2:IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is discussed on pages 3.6-18 through 3.6-20 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.9-1.
(c) Findings. The Custom Soils Report identified the erosion potential for the soils in the Project site as low to moderate. Furthermore, because the Project site is essentially flat, the erosion potential is considered slight. Regardless of the potential for erosion, there is always the potential for human caused erosion associated with construction activities or through the operational phase of a project. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities temporarily expose soils and increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation during rail events. Construction activities can also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that can adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of th EIR requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 25

3. IMPACT 3.6-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE LOCATED ON A GEOLOGIC

UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE, OR THAT WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE AS A RESULT OF PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION, AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION OR COLLAPSE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Project implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is discussed on pages 3.6-20 and 3.6-21 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-1.
(c) Findings. Development of the proposed Project could result in the exposure of people and structures to conditions that have the potential for adverse effects associated with ground instability or failure. The Project site does not have a significant risk of becoming unstable as a result landslide, subsidence, or soil collapse. There is a potential for liquefaction, liquefaction induced settlement, and lateral spreading. However, through the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 and compliance with section 15.04.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of Project implementation, and potentially result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

4. IMPACT 3.6-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN DEVELOPMENT ON EXPANSIVE SOIL, AS DEFINED IN TABLE 18-1-B OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1994), CREATING SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT RISKS TO LIFE OR PROPERTY. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to result in development on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property is discussed on pages 3.6-21 and 3.6-22 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-1.
(c) Findings. The NRCS Web Soil Survey indicated that near surface soils within the Project site have low plasticity, and the expansion potential of the soils would respond to ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
26 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
fluctuations in moisture content. The California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 requires specific geotechnical evaluation when a preliminary geotechnical evaluation determines that expansive or other special soil conditions are present, which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects. The City of Manteca also requires a final geotechnical evaluation to be performed at a design-level to ensure that the foundations, structures, roadway sections, sidewalks, and other improvements can accommodate the specific soils, including expansive soils, at those locations.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-2, presented above, provides the requirement for a final geotechnical evaluation in accordance with the standards and requirements outlined in the California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16, Chapter 17, and Chapter 18, which addresses structural design, tests and inspections, and soils and foundation standards. The final geotechnical evaluation would include design recommendations to ensure that soil conditions do not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or structures. The grading and improvement plans, as well as the storm drainage and building plans, are required to be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the final geotechnical evaluation. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 (requiring a final Geotechnical Evaluation, and site recommendations) the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to result in development on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

5. IMPACT 3.6-6: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE OR SITE OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature is discussed on page 3.6-23 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.6-2.
(c) Findings. Although the Project site is not expected to contain subsurface paleontological resources, the Project site is in an area known to have these resources and it is possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during grounddisturbing activities. Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, state, or federal criteria.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, including stopping work in the event potential resources are found, ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 27
evaluation of the resource by a qualified paleontologist and appropriate handling of any potential resource. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

D. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. IMPACT 3.8-1: POTENTIAL TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD THROUGH THE ROUTINE

TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR THROUGH THE REASONABLY

FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is discussed on pages 3.8-19 through 3.8-22 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4.
(c) Findings. There are reportedly two (2) septic systems associated with the residences located within the Development Area. Although there is no physical or documented evidence of a release to or from these features, future development of the Development Area will require removal and appropriate closure of the septic tanks. The Phase 1 environmental site assessment report noted that there is at least one (1) irrigation well, 1 potable water supply well and associated equipment located at the west Project site boundary. According to information reviewed at the City of Manteca Public Works Division, potable water will be supplied to the Site by the City of Manteca as soon as the Project site is annexed.

Contractors would be required to comply with Cal-EPA’s Unified Program; regulated activities would be managed by San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health, the designated Certified Unified Program Agency for San Joaquin County, in accordance with the regulations included in the Unified Program (e.g., hazardous materials release response plans and inventories, California UFC hazardous material management plans and inventories). Additionally, in the event that hazardous materials are discovered during construction, a Soils Management Plan (SMP) will need to be ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
28 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
submitted and approved by the San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.8-1. The SMP will establish management practices for handling hazardous materials, including fuels, paints, cleaners, solvents, etc., during construction. Such compliance would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction of the proposed Project. As a result, it would lessen the risk of exposure of construction workers and the public to accidental release of hazardous materials, as well as the demand for incident emergency response.

Development of the Project would involve site grading, excavation for utilities, trenching, backfilling, and the construction of proposed facilities that could result in the exposure of construction workers and the general public to hazardous materials. Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides, in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyldichloroethylene (DDE). The Phase 1 environmental assessment report notes that historic use of the Site for agricultural purposes has the potential to have introduced persistent agricultural chemicals such as herbicides and/or pesticides into the surface soils. In addition to soil contamination due to past agricultural use, the Phase 1 report notes that the existing structures were constructed during the period when asbestoscontaining materials may have been used. Altogether, these are considered potentially significant impacts.

Overall, consistency with federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to the handling of hazardous materials discussed above and implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1, 3.8-2, 3.8-3, and 3.8-4 as well as Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 from Section

3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, would ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through

3.8-4 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 29
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.9-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction is discussed on pages 3.9-27 through 3.9-29 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.9-1.
(c) Findings. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities could temporarily increase runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Construction activities could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas. To ensure that construction activities are covered under General Permit 2009-0009-DWQ (amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012- 0006-DWQ), projects in California must prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sediments to meet water quality standards. Such BMPs may include: temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover. The BMPs and overall SWPPP is reviewed by the RWQCB as part of the permitting process. The SWPPP, once approved, is kept on site and implemented during construction activities and must be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB and/or the lead agency.

In accordance with the NPDES Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 requires an approved SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using BMPs that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to the review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to violate water quality standards or waste ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
30 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
discharge requirements during construction will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.9-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS DURING OPERATION. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation is discussed on pages 3.9-29 through 3.9-32 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.9-2 and 3.9-3.
(c) Findings. The ongoing operational phase of the proposed Project requires the final discharge of stormwater into the on-site detention basins. The discharge of stormwater must be treated through BMPs prior to its discharge. The City of Manteca implements best management practices to the extent they are technologically achievable to prevent and reduce pollutants.

Additionally, there are various non-structural and structural stormwater BMPs that can be implemented to reduce water pollution. Non-structural BMPs are typically aimed at prevention of pollution through public education and outreach. Non-structural BMPs include: school educational programs, newsletters, website information, commercial, billboards/advertisements, river cleanups, and storm drain stenciling. Structural BMPS are aimed at the physical collection, filtering, and detaining of stormwater. Structural BMPs include items such as drop inlet filters, vault filters, hydrodynamic separators, surface detention basins, and underground detention facilities.

Mitigation Measures 3.9-2 and 3.9-3 would ensure that BMPs are implemented to reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project site.

Therefore, Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.9-2 and 3.9- 3 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 31
F. NOISE

1. IMPACT 3.11-1:WOULD THE PROJECT GENERATE A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT

INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT IN EXCESS OF STANDARDS

ESTABLISHED IN THE LOCAL GENERAL PLAN OR NOISE ORDINANCE, OR APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF OTHER AGENCIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies is discussed on pages 3.11-23 through 3.11-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-4.
(c) Findings. Under Plus Project conditions, the proposed Project’s contribution to increased traffic ranges between 0.1 dB and 2.5 dB, with three roadway segments experiencing increases that would exceed the 1.5 dB increase threshold where existing noise levels are over 65.0 dB. Additionally, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at a distance of 50 feet.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-1A requires that construction activities adhere to the requirements of the City of Manteca Municipal Code with respect to hours of operation.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-1B requires that all construction equipment is fitted with factory equipped mufflers, and in good working order. Mitigation Measure 3.11-2 requires construction of an 8-foot tall sound wall along the Woodward Avenue and South Airport Way frontages, adjacent to proposed Development Area residential uses, in order to achieve the City’s exterior noise standards. Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 requires further noise control measures, such as higher rated windows and walls.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 requires quiet pavement on various Project roadways. With mitigation, impactsresulting from traffic and construction noise on sensitive uses would be considered less than significant.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measures 3.11-1A through 3.11-4 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
32 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to generate significant noise will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.11-2: WOULD THE PROJECT GENERATE EXCESSIVE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION OR GROUNDBORNE NOISE LEVELS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in significant noise as a result of construction is discussed on pages 3.11-28 through 3.11-29 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.11-5. [Note – Errata change on page 3.9-29 to change MM to 3.11-5] (c) Findings. 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 can take the form of cosmetic or structural damage. With the exception of vibratory compactors, construction vibration levels anticipated for the proposed Project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at a distance of 25 feet. Use of vibratory compactors within 26 feet of the adjacent buildings could cause vibrations in excess of 0.2 in/sec. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 10-15 feet, or further, from the Development Area project site. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 will ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level by using static drum rollers for compaction required less than twenty-six (26) feet from the adjacent residential structures.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for the Project to result in construction noise will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

G. UTILITIES

1. IMPACT 3.14-6: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the proposed Project to require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects is discussed on pages 3.14-45 through 3.14-47 of the Draft EIR.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 33
(b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.14-1.
(c) Findings. Because the Project site could increase runoff significantly, and create downstream drainage problems; Project impacts to stormwater are considered potentially significant. The following mitigation measure requires the Project applicant to submit a drainage plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. The plan will include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release at the outlet canal and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-1 requires the Project applicant to submit a drainage plan to the City of Manteca for review and approval. This measure would ensure drainage impacts are less than significant.

2. IMPACT 3.14-7: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL WITH SUFFICIENT PERMITTED CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT’S SOLID WASTE

DISPOSAL NEEDS AND COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO SOLID WASTE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the proposed Project to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs and comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste is discussed on pages 3.14-58 and 3.14-59 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented as provided by the Mitigation Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure

3.14-2.
(c) Findings. The Development Area is estimated to generate roughly 10 pounds per day per household. It is estimated that the proposed 827 residential units would generate 8,270 pounds per day of solid waste. The total solid waste generated by the proposed Project is estimated to be 4.14 tons per day. The following mitigation measure requires the payment of a solid waste connection fee prior to issuance of grading permits. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.14-2, potential solid waste impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

In accordance with Public Resources Code, § 21081, Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this City Council, this City Council finds that the potential for proposed Project to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
34 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
needs and comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS

WHICH ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN

CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE
Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than significant as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.1-2.

Agricultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant:

3.2-2.

Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.3-3, 3.3- 4, and 3.3-5.

Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:

3.4-1, 3.4-2, 3.4-4, 3.4-5, 3.4-6, 3.4-7, 3.4-8, 3.4-9, and 3.4-10.

Cultural and Tribal Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.5-4.

Geology and Soils: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.6-

5. Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.7-2.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5, and 3.8-6.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.9-1, 3.9-3, 3.9-4, 3.9-5 and 3.9-7.

Land Use, Population, and Housing: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.10-1, 3.10-2, 3.10-3, 3.10-4, and 3.10-5.

Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.12-1, 3.12-2, 3.12-3, 3.12-4, 3.12-5, and 3.12-6.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.13-1, 3.13-2, and 3.13-3.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 35
Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.14-1, 3.14- 2, 3.14-3, 3.14-4, and 3.14-5.

Wildfire: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.15-1.

The Project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.1 and 4.3.

Biological Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.6.

Cultural and Tribal Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.7.

Geology and Soils: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.8.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.10.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14.

Land Use, Population and Housing: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.15 and 4.16.

Noise: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.17. Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.18.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.19 and 4.20.

Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, and 4.24.

Wildfire: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.25. The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the following reasons:
• The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project; ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
36 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
• The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact; or
• The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.

VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of potential alternatives to the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1).) The principal objective of the proposed Project is the approval and subsequent implementation of the Lumina at Machado Ranch Project (the proposed Project). The quantifiable objectives of the proposed Project include annexation of 183.46 acres, including the proposed 161.19-acre Development Area, 19.11-acre Non-development area on 15 inhabited residential lots, and 3.16 acres of existing right-of-way. The quantifiable objectives include the development of the subdivision of 161.19 acres into 827 residential lots (100.46 acres), a centralized park totaling 10.87 acres (Lot F), plus 1.28 acres of levee access and pocket park (Lot G). Total parkland is 12.15 acres.

In addition, there is open space provided in the form of frontage landscaping strips and a well site (Lots A, B, C, D, I, L, M and N - 38,864 sf frontage landscaping, and Lot J – 28,049 sf for a well site and frontage landscaping).

The proposed Project identifies the following objectives:
• Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Manteca.
• Establish a mixture of Low-Density Residential project types that collectively provide for local and regional housing and that take advantage of the area’s high level of accessibility. • Provide infrastructure and park space that meets City standards, is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections, and increases recreation opportunities for existing and future residents of the City.
• Establish a logical phasing plan designed to ensure that each phase of development would include necessary public improvements required to meet City standards.

B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN EIR
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact levels of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental analysis for each of the alternatives is included in Chapter 5.0.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 37

1. NO PROJECT (NO BUILD) ALTERNATIVE:

The No Project (No Build) Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3, and 5.0-4 through 5.0-1 of the Draft EIR. Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would remain in its current existing condition. It is noted that the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the Project objectives identified by the City of Manteca.

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction of impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Population, and Housing, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, Utilities, and Wildfire. No impacts would be increased under this alternative.

While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the No Project (No Build) Alternative, this alternative would not achieve any of the Project objectives. Specifically, this alternative would not: provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Manteca; establish a mixture of Low-Density Residential project types that collectively provide for local and regional housing and that take advantage of the area’s high level of accessibility; provide infrastructure and park space that meets City standards, is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections, and increases recreation opportunities for existing and future residents of the City; or establish a logical phasing plan designed to ensure that each phase of development would include necessary public improvements required to meet City standards.

This alternative would not realize the project benefits of increased housing stock or new tax revenue. For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

2. INCREASED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:

The Increased Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3 and 5.0-10 through 5.0-16 of the Draft EIR. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same components as described in the Project Description, but density of the residential uses would be increased. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the same number of residential units as the proposed project (827 units) would be constructed within the Development Area. The residential areas would be clustered throughout the Project site at increased densities to allow for an increase in park/open space areas. The residential density under the Increased Density Alternative would fall within the allowed density for the City’s General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (2.1 to

8.0 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]). Under the proposed Project, the residential density would be

5.1 units per gross acre. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the residential density would be ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
38 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch

8.0 units per gross acre. The 12.15-acres of total park/open space uses would be increased to 20.0 acres.

Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction of impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Public Services and Recreation. The remaining resources areas would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.

On balance, the alternative is less desirable than the Project and does not lessen the majority of the environmental impacts nor provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of this alternative, this alternative would not achieve all of the Project objectives to the same extent as the proposed Project. All of the Project objectives are achieved by this objective, but some are achieved to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. For example, the increased density of the residential uses under this alternative would result in less varied housing types. To accommodate the increase in park areas under this alternative, the lot sizes of the lower density unit would likely decrease, and the number of higher density units would likely increase.

In conclusion, this alternative would not provide the variety of new residential opportunities for the City. For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

3. AGRICULTURE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVE:

The Agriculture Protection Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3 and 5.0-16 through 5.0-23 of the Draft EIR. The reasoning behind the Agriculture Protection Alternative is to present an alternative to protect some of the farmland on the Project site. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 10.3 acres of Prime Farmland and 148.0 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same components as described in the Project Description, but the residential areas would be reduced resulting in an increase of undeveloped land beyond the Increased Density Alternative. Residential units would be reduced from 827 to 620. The total Development Area acreage dedicated to proposed Project would be reduced by approximately 25 percent. The total acreage developed would be 118.15 acres, with 39.38 acres remaining in its current state. The 39.38 acres that would remain undeveloped would include the agricultural land only.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 39
Alternative would reduce impacts to these environmental topics to a greater extent than the Agriculture Protection Alternative.

On balance, the alternative is less desirable than the Project and does not provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. This alternative would not achieve all of the Project objectives. Residential units under this alternative would be reduced from 827 under the proposed Project to 620. This would result in reduced housing opportunities and the property tax revenue generation as compared to the Project.

This alternative is also potentially economically unfeasible due to the elimination of approximately 25 percent (by approximately 39.38 acres) of the Project site. This landowner, or landowners, would be left with fully or partially undeveloped parcels. For all of these foregoing reasons and any one of them individually, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

6. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE:

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.

As shown on Table 5.0-2 of the Draft EIR (on page 5.0-24), a comparison of alternatives is presented.

The No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, as required by CEQA, when the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified.

Therefore, the Agricultural Protection Alternatives would be the environmentally superior alternative because all environmental issues would have reduced impacts compared to the proposed Project.

It should be noted that the Agricultural Protection Alternative does not meet all of the Project objectives. This alternative would provide fewer residential units, which would result in fewer opportunities for Manteca residents to buy or rent. This would also reduce the property tax revenue generation as compared to the Project. While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the Agricultural Protection Alternative, this alternative would not result in the mix of residential uses that are identified in the Project objectives under full buildout of the Project site.

For the reasons provided above, this alternative is determined to be infeasible and rejected.

VII. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE

LUMINA AT MACHADO RANCH FINDINGS
As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable impacts could occur with implementation of the Project:

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
40 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
• Impact 3.1-1: Project implementation may result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character; • Impact 3.2-1: The proposed Project has the potential to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses;
• Impact 3.3-1: Project operation would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, or conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan; • Impact 3.7-1: Project implementation would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases;
• Impact 4.2: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region; • Impact 4.4: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Resources; • Impact 4.5: Cumulative Impact on the Region's Air Quality; and, • Impact 4.9: Cumulative Impact on Climate Change from Increased Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The adverse effects listed above, and described in detail in Section III, are substantive issues of concern to the City. However, the City of Manteca has a General Plan that provides for an array of land uses throughout the City that are intended to accommodate the City’s needs for growth over the foreseeable future. The proposed Project has been designated with land uses that are intended to generate tax revenue for the City, while providing recreational facilities and housing opportunities. Additionally, development of the Project would provide short-term employment opportunities within the construction, engineering, and design field, among others.

The Project would also provide housing opportunities for current and future residents.

Implementation of the Project would increase and diversify the housing supply in the City, which could spur development, economic growth, and property tax generation within the area.

Additionally, the proposed Project would generate tax revenue that the City would not otherwise benefit from if the Project was not developed. The additional housing opportunities and tax benefits discussed above would ultimately improve the overall quality of life in the City of Manteca.

Based on the entire record and the EIR, the City Council has determined that the economic and social benefits of the Project in Manteca outweigh and override the significant unavoidable environmental effects that would result from future Project implementation as more fully described in Section III, Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The City Council has determined that any environmental detriment caused by the proposed Project has been minimized to the extent feasible through the mitigation measures identified herein, and, where mitigation is not feasible, has been outweighed and counterbalanced by the significant social, environmental, and land use benefits to be generated within the region. The City Council finds that any one of the benefits set forth above is sufficient by itself to warrant approval of the Project. This determination is based on the findings herein and the evidence in the record. Having balanced the unavoidable adverse ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch 41
environmental impacts against each of the benefits, the City Council hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the above reasons.

ATTACHMENT 3

CEQA FINDINGS
42 CEQA Findings – Lumina at Machado Ranch
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT 3

Manteca City CouncilJune 7, 2022

Manteca City Council
June 7, 2022