1 Speer, Scott
From: Michael Summers <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2022 8:28 PM
To: CityManager; [email protected]; Erias, Chris; [email protected]; Speer, Scott
Subject: Important health & Safty concerns - The Manteca Crossing Project WARNING! This email originated from outside the city. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello
I'm very concerned about the health impacts on families and the community. I would hope that our elected officials would take the initiative to prohibit any possible effects on its residents' health and quality of life.
Based on the proposed development, I'm concerned if anyone is looking out for its residences. I hope it's not too late to protect its residents from these issues by stopping a Truck stop (Maverik Gas Station) from going 100 ft from a long-standing community and park where families gather.
From my quick research, most municipalities have stopped truck stops & large warehouses from going within 1,000 ft next to a residence, park, schools, & hospitals due to more research on the health concerns of diesel exhaust & fumes. The California South coast air quality management district said that warehouses of 100,000 sqft can affect the health of residents within .5 to 2. miles. This can be directly linked to truck stops. Locating facilities where diesel truck traffic will impact travel on our neighborhood streets and expose residents to excessive noise, air pollution, property value loss, and safety issues, according to ceds.org. Some of these issues were also outlined in the CEQA report.
CEQA:
On page 24:
Why weren't hazards & Hazardous materials checked? I believe gas & diesel fuel is considered hazardous. It is misleading in the report not to check this box as it affects the health of Manteca residents.
Noise levels should have also been checked. It was outlined in the report the noise levels would significantly increase and affect the surrounding neighborhoods.
How are Greenhouse gas emissions not checked for potentially affected? The proposal is a Truck stop and gas stations.
During the development, the report states that fugitive dust can substantially affect residents in the area. Due to the very close proximity of the development to the residence and park, this issue should have been heightened during the approval process. Fugitive dust can have significant health issues. Studies have found that lung damage and asthma caused by Fugitive dust can lead to cancer & death. In addition, cancer.org has said, "diesel engine exhaust as "carcinogenic to humans," based on sufficient evidence that it is linked to an increased risk of lung cancer." I don't know how you could say this is not a significate issue.
Lastly, I would like to know how you came up with the approximate figures. It was calculated based on January 2022, before large bay area companies started requiring employees to return to the office. The reopening after the pandemic significantly increase travel on our roads and refueling at gas stations. This would lead to increase pollution figures, road congestion, and noise. These should be recalculated.
ATTACHMENT 6
2
reported" The residents are direct to the South; I'm confused why it is "west" and not south. Can you please explain?
actuals come out higher? It says we can submit complaints, but would they get shut down? Biological Resources:
I also see it hunting in the field for gophers and other rodents. This development would remove its food sources.
I did not see that referenced in the report, which would be a significant issue.
exempt, but the non-development area should be required to pay its part.
Geology and Soils Page 59:
When grading so close to the development, the big earth movers (heavy construction equipment) can shake the ground and cause foundation issues & other issues related to the construction of the house. Does the developer have insurance for these items? Developers tend to create an LLC, so if they cause significant damage, they can walk away and leave the residence to deal with the issues that would cause considerable loss.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials page 79 (page 73)
"as a result, the proposed Maverik gas station could result in potentially adverse impacts to people and environment" How is this not a significant issue and stop the process? You have families & residences 100ft away from the Maverik gas station.
developments are going into place just west of the Maverik gas station. In addition, there is a park & playground well within .25 miles. This could be a significate safety issue for residents with families 100 ft away.
Noise page 96 (page 90)
At the 24-hour gas station & truck stop, there will be considerable noise from people and commercial trucks.
Project construction noise levels show the distance to be 275 feet to 300 feet, but the residence is well within 275 feet and said to be 100 feet from this development Page 108 (Page 102). Why is this table not reference the most impacted? This is not correct and should be redone.
Also, the gas station operation would be significantly above this 50 dba threshold with all the commercial trucks. This would cause significant quality of life issues. It would also impact children if they do not get adequate sleep; it impacts their development. According to the EPA, "Repeated exposure to noise during critical periods of development may affect a child's acquisition of speech, language, and language-related skills, such as reading and listening. IMPAIR LEARNING. The inability to concentrate in a noisy environment can affect a child's capacity to learn. IMPAIR HEARING." It seems the city is failing to protect our children with this proposal.
Table 19 operational noise levels: It says in table 17 that Trucks are 84 dba, but the reference level on chart 19 is only 61 dBA. Due to it being a commercial truck stop fueling station open 24 hours, it will have consistent commercial trucks exceeding 84 dba our higher throughout the night and over the noise standard in the chart.
Why is this table only show 61 dBA? Also, it says residences are 185 to 210, but note one says distance was calculated based on the property line; this would decrease the length to 100 ft if it were calculated based on the property line.
ATTACHMENT 6
3
significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level threshold." Your report says the noise levels would be significant; however, you failed to check the box that it's an important issue.
Recreation Page 121 (Page 115): Maverik gas station would be open 24 hours and allow the ability to buy alcohol until 2 am. Due to the proximity of residential development would increase crime, vandalism, and destruction of property. The city should be responsible for these issues if they approve this development.
Transportation page 123 (page 117): The current sidewalks adjacent to the property are damaged and need to be repaired to provide safe travel. Also, the sidewalks stop when walking west on the south side of Atherton. This would need to extend to provide safe travel for children. Also, the transportation study references two intersections; It should include the overpass and the 120 exits for the airport traveling west. This already significantly backs up, increasing the traffic for the exit that is already having issues due to Great Wolf Lodge and Costco. In addition, the study was done before business & people started to increase due to the pandemic.
The study should be redone now that companies and travel have significantly increased. Also, all the new homes built in the area and new communities approved would increase traffic above the study.
development's health risk for residents adjacent? We see wind speeds well above 2.7 m/s would increase the exposure to harmful containments.
In closing, significant issues have been identified with this proposed development that would cause health and harm to the long-standing residents in the close vicinity. The CEQA report also was inadequate and should be redone. By reading these concerns, I hope the city reconsiders the proposed development and protects its residences like many other municipalities that have already stopped allowing Truck stops like the proposed within 1000 sqft of residential developments.
Please contact me if you have any questions at [email protected] or phone 209-608-7157.
Thank you,
Michael Summers
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 1
Response to Letter A – Michael Summers
Response A-1: Comments and concerns regarding the merits of the project can be provided to the City of Manteca Planning Commission.
The project proposed project does not include any a large warehouse and does not propose to have the volume of large semi-trucks that are associated with a distribution or fulfillment warehouse. Page 35 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) contains the results of a Health Risk Analysis (HRA) prepared for the project.
The HRA evaluates the risk of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) on sensitive uses (including residences) in the area surrounding the project site. Using specialized modeling software, the HRA measured the concentrations of the Diesel Particulate Matter during both the construction and operational phases of the project. As shown in Table 5 (page 36) and Table 6 (page 37) of the IS/MND, project emissions would be below the maximum concentration thresholds established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). As such, potential impacts from project emissions are considered less than significant.
Response A-2: Hazardous materials, including gas and diesel fuel, were evaluated as part of the IS/MND.
proposed gas station. The analysis takes into account specific design features included in the project such as specifications from California OSHA, and federal, state, and local regulations that underground storage tanks must meet, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efficacy requirements for leak detection methods, vapor recovery systems, routine inspections, piping sensors, and automatic shutoffs. The IS/MND concluded that based on compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, and the incorporation of the proposed project design features, impacts associated with the handling, transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
Noise impacts are evaluated in the IS/MND beginning on page 90. Potential noise impacts were evaluated based on the City’s Municipal Code. Potential impacts were found to be less than significant. The comment does not state what noise impacts are associated with the project.
Response A-3: Greenhouse gas emissions are evaluated in the IS/MND beginning on page 58.
Greenhouse gas emissions were based on the thresholds established by SJVAPCD for construction and the City’s Climate Action Plan for operation. Potential impacts were found to be less than significant. The comment does not state what greenhouse gas impacts are associated with the project.
Response A-4: Construction emissions, including fugitive dust, are evaluated on page 31 of the IS/MND.
Per SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, Rule 9510 the project will be required to undergo an indirect source review by SJVAPCD staff. As part of that review, the applicant will have to demonstrate compliance with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, Rule 8021 in which fugitive dust ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 2
control measures pursuant to Table 8021-1 have been implemented. 1 Table 8021-1 is
provided below.
TABLE 8021-1 – CONTROL MEASURE OPTIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION, EXCAVATION, EXTRACTION, AND
OTHER EARTHMOVING ACTIVITIES
A. PRE-ACTIVITY:
A1 Pre-water site sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity, and A2 Phase work to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time.
B. DURING ACTIVE OPERATIONS:
B1 Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity; or
B2 Construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity. If utilizing wind barriers, control measure B1 above shall also be implemented.
B3 Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants to unpaved haul/access roads and unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas sufficient to limit VDE to 20% opacity and meet the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road surface.
C. TEMPORARY STABILIZATION DURING PERIODS OF INACTIVITY:
C1 Restrict vehicular access to the area; and
C2 Apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, sufficient to comply with the conditions of a stabilized surface. If an area having 0.5 acres or more of disturbed surface area remains unused for seven or more days, the area must comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area as defined in section 3.58 of Rule 8011.
Source: SJVAPCD, Rule 8021
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/CLEAN%20VERSION%20OF%20RULE%208021.pdf Therefore, potential impacts from fugitive dust are considered less than significant.
Please see Response A-1 regarding diesel particulate matter.
Response A-5: The air quality analysis related to auto emission is based upon a traffic technical memo that included traffic counts from February 2021 and a traffic trip generation calculation based on all of the retail and hotel components of the project. These traffic generation rates we input into air quality modeling software that calculated the predicted air quality emissions from the project. Based on the adopted thresholds used in the IS/MND document, potential impacts on air quality, roadway congestion, and noise were found to be less than significant.
Response A-6: From the center of the project site, the closest residences are to the west of the project site.
Response A-7: Some of the proposed uses would operate under the approval of a use permit issued by the City. A violation of conditions of approval or development standards in the City’s Municipal Code could result in a revocation of the permit or other code enforcement
1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/CLEAN%20VERSION%20OF%20RULE%208021.pdf ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 3
actions by the City. A violation of standards set by other local or regional agencies such as the SJVAPCD could result in enforcement actions by those agencies.
Response A-8: Page 40 of the IS/MND notes:
While The Crossings area may have provided habitat for special-status wildlife species at some time in the past, historical farming and urban development have substantially modified natural habitats in the greater project vicinity.
Nonetheless the project site contains potentially suitable habitat for both Swainson’s Hawk and burrowing owl; therefore, the project could have potentially significant impacts on these species.
As such, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (page 40) which required the developer to implement Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs) for both Swainson’s Hawk and burrowing owl. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce project impacts on special-status species to a level that would be less than significant.
Also, noted on page 40 of the IS/MND, the project would not be required to pay fees as the project site is classified as Urban Habitat by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and the conversion of open space has already occurred. Although the project would not be required to pay SJMSCP fees, the project would need to participate in the SJMSCP, as required by City policy and specified in the Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Response A-9: Groundbourne vibration is discussed on pages 107 and 108 of the IS/MND. The analysis concluded that the potential groundbourne vibration by construction equipment would be below thresholds established by the Federal Transit Administration. As such, potential impacts are considered less than significant. Developers of the project site would be responsible for damage to any offsite public or private property.
Response A-10: This intent of this discussion (page 75 of the IS/MND) is to acknowledge that Maverik gas station would include the use, transport and handling of hazardous materials and does have a potential for impacts on the environment. However, the discussion continues with a listing of all the design and regulatory requirements included in the project design (please see Response A-2) to contain and minimize releases of hazardous materials. With the incorporation of these design measures, potential impacts are considered less than significant.
Response A-11: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) threshold discussed in this section is specific to schools. There are not existing or proposed schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. As noted in the discussion (page 78). The project would be in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. As such, all preventive measures would be in place to limit the hazardous emissions and waste in such a way that would not impact the closest school. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.
Response A-12: The comment references construction noise. The noise analysis on page 99 of the IS/MND concludes that:
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 4
…Section 17.58.050(D) of the municipal code states that construction activities are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance during allowable hours, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., when conducted as part of an approved Building Permit. Considering project construction activities would be required to comply with the City’s regulations, construction activities would be exempt from the General Plan noise level limits. As a result, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to creation of a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
As construction of the project would be in compliance with City building permits, temporary, and build out over time, potential construction noise impacts are considered less than significant.
Response A-13: The City does not concur that the project would result in significant noise issues.
Operational noise, including gas station operations is discussed on pages 102 to 105 of the IS/MND. As shown in Table 19: Operational Noise Levels (page 106) the project would not exceed the City noise threshold established by Section
17.58.050 of the City Municipal Code. The comment does not provide any credible evidence that the gas station activities would exceed 50 dBA nor result in a lack of developmental growth of nearby residents. Potential impacts are considered less than significant.
Response A-14: Table 17 references construction equipment and provides a maximum noise level at 50 feet. The sound level represents a maximum noise level that may last a few seconds or a few minutes. Table 19 lists operational noise levels and the sound levels listed here represent an average noise level over a period of time. The use of 61 dBA is a conservative reference level compared to the existing noise levels at the site. As shown in Table 15, the sound levels measured at South Airport Way and West Atherton Drive are 67.9 dBA and 69.9 dBA, respectively. As such, the analysis is assuming a reference noise level that is lower than the existing conditions. Footnote 1 in Table 19 states that the noise measurements are taken at the property line of the sensitive receptor, in the case the homes across West Atherton Way. Using the property line is a more conservative approach because it represents a shorter distance compared to a measurement that extends to the house or building structure. A shorter distance is a more conservative analysis because the noise has less area to attenuate between the noise source and the receptor.
Potential impacts from operational noise are considered less than significant.
Response A-15: The City does not concur that the project would result in cumulative noise impacts. The analysis on page 109 of the IS/MND states that potential noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. The comment does not provide any credible evidence that the project would result in cumulative noise impacts. Potential cumulative noise impacts would not be cumulatively significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 5
Response A-16: The City notes that the comment provides background information and commenters opinion and does not raise any environmental issue within the meaning of the CEQA. The City will include the comment as part of the staff report for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the project. No further response is required because the comment does not raise any environmental issues.
Response A-17: The project will be responsible for constructing and improving existing sidewalks along the project frontage.
The traffic analysis is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines that require jurisdictions to stop using a Level of Service (LOS) measurement for CEQA transportation analysis. The State’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued guidelines for jurisdictions to consider using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) instead.
VMT, measures the amount and distance people drive by personal vehicle to a destination. Typically, development projects that are farther from other, complementary land uses (such as a business park far from housing) and in areas without transit or active transportation infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) generate more driving than development near complementary land uses with more robust transportation options.
The analysis on pages 120 to 124 demonstrates that the project would reduce VMT as a result of introducing new services into an area and introducing new retail opportunities in the area with little to no overlap within a one-mile radius, and therefore, reducing the distance users have to travel to find similar services.
Potential impacts related to trip generation are considered less than significant.
Response A-18: The comment refers to the Air Quality Modeling Data located in Appendix A of the IS/MND. The wind speed input is a generally accepted default value of the Emissions Factor (EMFAC) Model. This model is used to estimate the official emissions inventories of onroad mobile sources in California. This wind speed used in this model is a default value inserted by the model based on the climate zone. It should be noted that the air modeling dispersion analysis is based on the AERMOD model (Environmental Protection Agency model). AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Surface and upper air meteorological data was provided by the SJVAPCD (IS/MND page 36). Potential impacts related to air quality are considered less than significant.
Response A-19: The City does not concur that significant issues have been identified with the proposed development and that the CEQA document is inadequate. While the commenter asserts that the IS/MND is inadequate, the comment letter provides no details or technical analysis to substantiate this claim. The IS/MND has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the 2022 CEQA Guidelines. Its impact analysis and conclusions are supported by technical studies and computer ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 6
modeling of air quality, greenhouse gases, and noise effects of the project. All potential impacts associated with the project are considered less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 1
Response to Letter B – Don and Crystal Quinly
Response B-1: The City does not concur that the project would result in significant noise issues.
Operational noise, including gas station operations is discussed on pages 102 to 105 of the IS/MND. As shown in Table 19: Operational Noise Levels (page 106) the project would not exceed the City noise threshold established by Section 17.58.050 of the City Municipal Code. Page 103 of the IS/ND states that traffic on adjacent roadways would have to triple in order to achieve a 5 dBALdn noise increase. The project does not triple the traffic volumes nor result in a 5dBALdn increase. As such, the proposed increase in traffic noise will not be perceptible compared to the existing noise levels in the area. Once the project is constructed the proposed retail shops (please see Figure 4) will shield some of the noise from the interior parking lot from the residential uses to the west. As such, these buildings will serve as intervening structures that will help attenuate operation noise from the project site.
Response B-2: Some of the proposed uses would operate under the approval of a use permit issued by the City. A violation of conditions of approval or development standards in the City’s Municipal Code could result in a revocation of the permit or other code enforcement action by the City. Please see Response B-1 regarding the intervening structures proposed by the project.
The project will submit a landscape plan to the City to review for consistency with the City’s landscaping requirements. The comment does not provide any credible evidence that taller trees would reduce noise or vehicle emissions.
Response B-3: Project air quality emissions were evaluated in Section 5.3 of the IS/MND. Potential impacts were found to be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The proposed project would be responsible for the installation of a traffic signal at the W. Atherton Drive/Langum Way intersection. The proposed project would also install a traffic signal at the intersection of W. Atherton Drive and Airport Way. This signal would control the movements of cars at this existing four-way intersection that is currently controlled with stop signs. Both raised and painted medians are proposed within Airport Way to guide traffic coming southbound into the intersection and into the right-in and right-out project driveway on Airport Drive. Any connected signal timing with other existing traffic signals would not be a part of the proposed project and would require a separate review by the City.
Response B-4: The Maverik sign will be a monument style sign at the southeast corner of the Maverik site. The sign will be approximately 8 feet high and 12 feet wide. The sign will be internally illuminated. The Crossing Signage will be designed once the tenants for the retail area have been contracted. All business identification or advertising signs must receive review and approval of the Development Services Department, and all proposed advertising signs shall comply with Section 20.14.20 of the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in Section 5.1 of the IS/MND (page 21) addresses nighttime lighting:
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 2
The City of Manteca’s Municipal code Section 15.50.060 General Lighting Standards outlines outdoor lighting standards. This includes nuisance prevention which would require all lighting to be directed downward, toward structures, and shielded to prevent glare and light pollution, maintenance, shielding which would reduce light trespass, level of illumination, max height, energy efficient fixtures, etc. The project would adhere to these standards.
As such, potential impacts are from nighttime lighting are considered less than significant.
Response B-5: Page 40 of the IS/MND notes:
While The Crossings area may have provided habitat for special-status wildlife species at some time in the past, historical farming and urban development have substantially modified natural habitats in the greater project vicinity.
Nonetheless the project site contains potentially suitable habitat for both Swainson’s Hawk and burrowing owl; therefore, the project could have potentially significant impacts on these species.
As such, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (page 40) which required the developer to implement Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs) for both Swainson’s Hawk and burrowing owl. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce project impacts on special-status species to a level that would be less than significant.
Also, noted on page 40 of the IS/MND, the project would not be required to pay fees, as the project site is classified as Urban Habitat by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and the conversion of open space has already occurred. Although the project would not be required to pay San Joaquin Multiple Species Conservation Program (SJMSCP) fees, the project would need to participate in the SJMSCP, as required by City policy and specified in the Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
The project site is located within the SJMSCP, and is consistent with all policies, fees, and mitigation measures associated with that program. The SJMSCP was developed to address cumulative impacts on biological resources (including Swainson’s Hawk) on a region wide basis. Therefore, the project’s compliance with the plan reduces potential cumulative impacts to less than significant.
No further mitigation for biological resources is required.
ATTACHMENT 6
1 Speer, Scott
From: Carmen Mendez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 3:17 PM
To: Speer, Scott
Cc: Carmen
Subject: The Crossing Project
Importance: High
WARNING! This email originated from outside the city. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mr. Speer:
I am the owner of 2419 Donatello Street, Manteca, CA. I received the notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for the Crossings Manteca Project.
This email will serve as my written objections to the below-referenced project:
The proposed project, called The Crossings, proposes a 17 .6 acre mixed commercial use development, including 11 buildings, parking, and pocket park. The proposed development includes four major components: The Hotel site is approximately 2.41 acres with 117 hotel rooms and 121 parking stalls, Major Tennant Building 1 is approximately 55,000 square feet with 220 parking stalls, Commercial Shops A-H total approximately 42,700 square feet with 291 parking stalls, and Maverik Gas Station is approximately 6,140 square feet with 38 parking stalls.
I am making this objection for the following reasons:
This proposal would create vandalism in our community, this proposal will attract prostitution, drugs, human trafficking, gangs, homeless, etc. Not to mention the traffic for us to get home.
Also, a lot of us commute so we are gone from our homes for long hours leaving our homes open to vandalism which will be attracted with this proposal. I really hope this does not go through.
Please advise when the hearing will be on this proposal so that I may attend and object there too. Also if I need to mail this somewhere else or email it to someone else please advise.
Thank you,
Carmen Mendez
ATTACHMENT 6
2 (408) 712-5664.
Carmen Mendez
Legal Assistant to Richard B. Gullen and Eric A. Gravink 1960 The Alameda, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95126
Direct Dial: (408) 261-4218 | Fax: (408) 261-4292
Email: [email protected]
Visit RHRC’s website | Get RHRC's latest legal updates on Facebook The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such is privileged and confidential. Please be advised that an attorney-client relationship exists only AFTER a prospective client signs a written fee agreement with an attorney in our firm.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 1
Response to Letter C – Carmen Mendez
Response C-1: The comment summarizes the project description and does not raise any environmental issues within the meaning of the CEQA. No further response is required because the comment does not raise any environmental issues.
Response C-2: With regard to vandalism, The City notes that the comment provides background information and commenters opinion and does not raise any environmental issues within the meaning of the CEQA. The City will include the comment as part of the staff report for review and consideration by the decision-makers prior to a final decision on the project.
No further response is required because the comment does not raise any environmental issues.
With regard to traffic impacts, the IS/MND evaluated traffic impact in Section 5.17 (beginning at page 117). Potential impacts were found to be less than significant.
Response C-3: Please see Response C-2 above.
Response C-4: The project will be heard a regularly noticed Planning Commission hearing. At the time of this writing, that hearing is scheduled for August 18, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 1
Response to Letter D – Patrice Olsen
Response D-1: Construction will be planned once the project is approved and development begins. Loss of power and natural gas during construction is not anticipated. No further response is required because the comment does not raise any environmental issues.
Response D-2: Page 6 of the IS/MND states the hotel will be a four-story hotel. A tenant for the hotel will be announced once a lease agreement has been reached. No planned uses for the hotel to serve the homeless population have been identified. No further response is required because the comment does not raise any environmental issues.
Response D-3: Construction and operation noise are discussed in Section 5.13 of the IS/MND (page 90).
Potential impacts were found to be less than significant.
Response D-4: No neon signs are proposed. The sign for the Maverik property will be a monument style sign at the southeast corner of the Maverik site. The sign will be approximately 8 feet high and 12 feet wide. The sign will be internally illuminated. The Crossing Signage for the retail portion will be designed once the tenants for the retail area have been contracted. All business identification or advertising signs must receive review and approval of the Development Services Department, and all proposed advertising signs shall comply with Section 20.14.20 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Response D-5: No impacts from delivery trucks have been identified in the environmental analysis. The Air Quality, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic analysis in the IS/MND found potential impacts to be less than significant.
Response D-6: Please see Response A-4.
Although not a direct air pollutant, valley fever (coccidioidomycosis) fungal spores can cause infections to develop through inhalation of airborne fungal spores contained in windblown dust. During the proposed ground disturbing activities associated with the project, the potential exists that such activities could disturb dust particles and, if present, Coccidioides immitis (CI) spores, which could then be released into the air and potentially be inhaled by on‐site workers and nearby sensitive receptors; exposure to these spores can cause an illness in some individuals known as Valley Fever. Because dust can be an indicator that increased efforts are needed to control other airborne particulates (including CI spores, if any), the project is required to control dust as required by San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Regulation VIII, Rule 8021.
With the implementation of dust control as required by SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, Rule 8021., the potential for the release of CI spores, if present, and the associated potential for workers or nearby residents to contract Valley Fever would be minimized; accordingly, the project would not add significantly to the existing exposure level of construction workers or nearby residences to the CI fungus. Adherence to the Dust Control Plan would prevent the project from substantially increasing windblown dust concentrations compared to background level. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 6
The Crossings
The City of Manteca IS/MND Responses to Comments
August 2022 Page 2
Response D-7: The proposed project would install a traffic signal at the intersection of W. Atherton Drive and Airport Way. This signal would control the movements of cars at this existing fourway intersection that is currently controlled with stop signs. Both raised and painted medians are proposed within Airport Way to guide traffic coming southbound into the intersection and into the right-in and right-out project driveway on Airport Drive. The improvements would occur along the project frontage of Airport Drive.
Response D-8: The project is required to install a traffic signal at the W. Atherton Drive/Langum Way intersection. This traffic signal would control traffic coming in and out of the main driveway of the retail center. Street median improvements on W. Atherton Way include both raised and painted medians to guide traffic into appropriate turns lanes at the driveways and traffic signal. The improvements would occur along the project frontage of W. Atherton Drive. As shown in Table 21 of the IS/MND (page 118) the intersection is anticipated to operate at a Level of Service A.
Response D-9: Property values are not an environmental issue within the meaning of the CEQA.
No further response is required because the comment does not raise any environmental issues.
Response D-10: The duration of construction activities associated with the project are estimated to last approximately 16 months. Construction of the Maverik portion of the site is expected to start in the first quarter of 2023 and the remaining portions of the project site are anticipated to start in the second half of 2023.
Response D-11: Tenants for the individual retails shops have not been identified at this time. The tenants are anticipated to be those typically located in a major retail center anchored by a large grocery store chain.
Response D-12: Maverik Inc., is the developer of the Maverik portion of the site. The remainder of the retail site is represented by Reynolds and Brown, Commercial Real Estate Developers.
ATTACHMENT 6