Manteca City Council
July 18, 2023

City of Manteca Planning Commission

AGENDA REPORT

MEETING DATE: June 29, 2023
PROJECT NAME: Manteca General Plan Update
PROJECT LOCATION: City-Wide
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Recommend that the City Council certify the Manteca General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report and make certain findings concerning significant impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives, and adopt a statement of overriding consideration and mitigation and monitoring and reporting program; and

2. Recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Manteca General Plan Update Amendment to replace the existing adopted 2023 General Plan and authorize staff to submit the Ultimate SOI to LAFCo.

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Manteca
Property Owner: City-wide
CEQA Determination Manteca General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The City adopted its current 2023 General Plan on October 6, 2003. This was an update to the 1988 General Plan. Subsequent amendments to the 2023 General Plan include the Housing Element Amendments in June 2010 and January 2016; the Circulation Element Amendment in April 2011; the Air Quality Element Amendment in October 2013; and the Safety Element Amendment in December 2013.

In 2016, the City of Manteca began the multi-year process to update the 2023 General Plan.

State law requires that every city and county in California prepare and maintain an allinclusive General Plan, which offers a comprehensive 20-year plan for the City. (Government Code Section 65300). A City’s General Plan is an in-depth policy document that informs both long-term and short-term decisions of the City Council and city departments. By establishing land use designations and developing an inclusive collection of goals and policies related to a multitude of aspects of community life, the General Plan identifies development options that can be applied to properties within the City limits and for land within the City’s Sphere of Influence.

ATTACHMENT 4

The General Plan provides the foundational guide for planning, outlining how land is used and how the City will grow and allocate its resources. The General Plan is not just the legal document that serves as the basis for local land use decisions. Rather, it is a comprehensive vision for how the City will evolve over a period of time, reflecting community priorities and values while shaping the future.

General Plans are required to address the mandated elements listed in Government Code Section 65302. The mandatory elements for all jurisdictions are Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Cities and counties in the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District must also address Air Quality. The jurisdiction may, at its discretion, combine elements within the General Plan or add optional elements relevant to that specific community. In addition to the required elements, the Manteca General Plan Update includes the additional elements of Growth Management, Community Design, and Community Facilities and Services.

In order to complete the comprehensive update, the City hired a consultant, DeNovo Planning Group (consultant). Over the course of several years, DeNovo, in conjunction with city staff and community members developed the document the General Plan Update document being presented to Planning Commission and City Council. This document will serve as a blueprint for the City’s growth for the next 20 years.

GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT
The General Plan is a policy document that contains the goals and policies that will guide future decisions within the city and identifies implementation measures to ensure the vision and goals of the General Plan are carried out. The General Plan also contains a land use diagram that serves as a guide to the distribution of land uses throughout the City.

According to State law, the General Plan is presented as a collection of “elements” or topic categories. These element can be combined at the City’s discretion, as long as they are discussed in detail in the overall plan. The Manteca General Plan Update has 10 elements that implement the State’s nine required elements, including the additional elements of Environmental Justice and Air Quality. The way the General Plan Update presents each State element is shown in the Table 1 below. The table below shows how the document integrates the required state elements with the optional elements chosen by the City. For example, the City’s Land Use element is a General Plan Update element as well as a state required element. However, the Manteca Land Use element also includes a discussion of Environmental Justice. In fact, per the table, Environmental Justice is incorporated into nine of the ten element chapters of the Manteca General Plan Update. There is overlap between several state-required elements and the City’s chosen elements. Shown in the last column are the City’s optional elements, Growth Management, Community Design, and Community Facilities and Services.

ATTACHMENT 4

Table 1: General Plan Land Elements
The following paragraphs briefly describe each element of the General Plan Update document. Each element is a dedicated chapter in the General Plan document complete with corresponding goals, policies, and implementation measures. • Land Use
The Land Use Element guides where growth and development will occur in the City and how to accommodate land uses to respond to the community’s changing needs, without compromising the integrity of the City’s family-oriented atmosphere and community values.

The goals, policies, and measures in this element address the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal, and open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, scenic areas and greenways. • Growth Management
The Growth Management Element provides the framework for pacing growth in the context of ensuring a high quality of life for the community’s residents and on-going provisions of community services and infrastructure that meet the community’s existing needs as well as increasing capacity necessary to accommodate growth.

ATTACHMENT 4

• Circulation
The Circulation Element provides the framework for decisions concerning the city’s multimodal transportation system, which includes roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of travel. The Circulation Element provides for coordination with the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), which serves as the coordinating agency for transportation funding for San Joaquin County.
• Community Design
The Community Design Element addresses the quality and character of Manteca’s urban form. The City’s existing urban form general is comprised of: the built environment, open spaces, and the natural landscaping.
• Economic Development
The Economic and Fiscal Vitality Element provides a framework to guide and support Manteca’s fiscal and economic development. Manteca has the opportunity to capitalize on its central location, affordable land, and accessibility to multiple state highways, railroads, and goods movement corridors. This element address providing appropriate and adequate sites and programs to support existing businesses as well as to promote diverse economic growth efforts to ensure that the City’s labor force is skilled and provided a broad range of employment opportunities, ensure that the City’s housing and quality of life are of a caliber to attract employers, ensure that infrastructure is in place or planned to support a successful commercial and industrial based, and providing a sustainable fiscal base for the City. • Community Facilities and Services
Policies in this element seek to ensure that community facilities and services are provided, maintained, and expanded so that Manteca can continue to grow and thrive. Topics in this section include: General Services, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Education, Domestic Water, Sewer, Drainage, Telecommunications, Electricity/Natural Gas, and Solid Waste. • Resource Conservation
This element establishes Manteca’s approach to the conservation and enhancement of natural resources: water, lands/soils, open space, ecosystem, approach to addressing air quality, energy conservation, and adaptation to climate change, conservation of agricultural and mineral resources, and preservation of the City’s cultural and historic heritage. • Safety
The goals, policies, and implementation measures in this element are designed to protect and enhance the public health and safety of Manteca residents, property, and environment.

This element also addresses emergency preparedness and critical facilities, geological and seismic hazards, flood hazards, hazardous materials, and noise.

ATTACHMENT 4

• Housing
The Housing Element was updated in January 2016. The current Housing Element is being updated separately from this update and will be complete by the end of 2023. The current Housing Element includes the community’s goals, policies, quantified objectives, and housing programs for the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. • Implementation
For the General Plan to serve as an effective guide to achieving the City’s vision for its future, it must be implemented and administered. The Action Items included in the General Plan Update provide direction for how the City will implement the goals and policies within the body of the General Plan. Generally, actions are spread throughout each of the elements, appearing immediately after the corresponding goals and policies.

How to Use the General Plan Document
Each element of the General Plan is organized into a set of goals, policies, and implementation actions. Each goal is supported by a particular set of policies and actions to implement and achieve that goal. Understanding the distinction between goals and policies and implementation is an important part of understanding the General Plan. • A goal is the broadest statement of community values. It is a generalized ideal which provides a sense of direction for action. They are overall statements of desired future conditions.
• Policies are statements which further refine the goals. The essence of the General Plan is really contained within these policies. Policies are guides for the decision makers, not the decisions themselves.
• Finally, implementation measures guide the course of action the City must take to achieve the goals in the plan.

It is important to note that the goals, policies, and implementation measures are limited to the extent that it is financially feasible and appropriate for the City to carry them out and to the extent legally permitted by Federal and State law. Where the language “provide”, “support”, and “ensure” do not indicate an irreversible commitment of City funds or staff resources to those activities. Rather, these words mean that the City will support them when the City deems that it is financially feasible and appropriate to do so. In some cases, the City will require that development infrastructure, and other projects be consistent with the policies and actions of the General Plan. Or the City may include General Plan items in the Capital Improvement program, annual budget, or other implementation mechanisms, as the City deems appropriate.

MANTECA’S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Manteca’s prior Sphere of Influence (SOI) and previous Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the City was adopted in 2015. Immediately after the adoption of this MSR plan, the City ATTACHMENT 4

began the General Plan Update process, assuming that the update would be complete prior to the expiration of the City’s MSR in 2020. However, the General Plan update process exceeded the life of the 2015 MSR and LAFCo tasked the City with updating the MSR in 2020 per state law.

Since the City was four years into the General Plan Update and had several annexation proposals under review, the City requested that LAFCo update the 2015 SOI with an "Interim SOI" that could be used immediately by LAFCo to consider annexations in the near term. The Interim SOI represents those lands that are ripe for immediate development, which also corresponds to those lands in the existing SOI plus those lands that had pending development applications. The parcels that occur in the existing 30-year planning horizon would remain as such in the Interim SOI.

LAFCo agreed and adopted the City’s current MSR on July 14, 2022 with the understanding that an “Ultimate SOI” would be approved by LAFCo once the General Plan Update was approved.

The Ultimate SOI would establish a 10- and 30-year planning horizon supportive of the newly adopted General Plan Update. As such, in conjunction with the adoption of the General Plan Update, the City Council will also authorize staff to take the Ultimate SOI back to LAFCO for confirmation.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PARTICIPATION
Robust and inclusive community engagement is a vital component of the General Plan update process. State law requires that the municipality provide opportunities for community involvement throughout the entire process. A General Plan update affects every aspect and member of the community, and broad participation is key to help achieve desired outcomes.

With the understanding of the importance of community outreach, a series of public meeting, Visioning Workshops, Community Workshops, and stakeholder meetings were held. A list of the public input opportunities is listed below:

Visioning
Workshops:

GPAC
Meetings:

Community
Open House
Community
Workshops
City Council and
Planning Commission
Enviro.

Justice
Stakeholder
Meeting
Scoping
Meeting
March 23, 2017 August 7, 2017 March 14, 2019 May 27, 2021 PC/CC Workshop: April 27, 2021 April 21, 2021 Jan. 27, 2020 April 6, 2017 Oct. 2, 2017 June 2, 2021 PC/CC Workshop: May 11, 2021 April 20, 2017 Nov. 6, 2017 Dec. 7, 2022 PC: September 22, 2020 Dec. 4, 2017 PC: March 26, 2019
Feb. 5, 2018 Joint Meeting: May 14, 2019
March 5, 2018 CC: July 30, 2019
April 2, 2018
August 6, 2018
Sept. 10, 2018
Nov. 5 2018
Dec. 3, 2018
Dec. 10, 2018
Feb. 4, 2019
March 4, 2019
Table 2: Public Participation Opportunities
ATTACHMENT 4

Vision Workshops
Vision Workshops kicked off the General Plan update process. The purpose of these three meetings was to identify the community’s vision for the future and to develop principles to guide the General Plan Update. Through this early participation, a baseline of existing conditions in the City was established and captured through an Existing Conditions Report, as well as an Opportunities and Constraints Report, and a Land Use Alternatives Report.

These three reports identified the challenges facing the community, provided an opportunity for citizens and policymakers to come together in a process of developing a common vision for the future, and identified a range of options available to the City as the General Plan Land Use Map was modified and updated.

The Guiding Principles of the General Plan Update were a direct result of the Visioning process, and each chapter of the General Plan references policies to implement and realize each stated Guiding Principle.

General Plan Advisory Committee
To ensure that a myriad of people impacted by the General Plan had representation in the creation of the General Plan, the City Council appointed a 15-member General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), which consisted of local business owners, stakeholders in the development community, residents, and the community at large. The GPAC met 14 times between August 2017 and March 2019 to identify key issues and challenges that Manteca faces for the next 20-30 years, and to develop the comprehensive set of goals, policies, and implementation measured contained in the General Plan. The GPAC meetings were open to the public, and various members of the community and local interested agencies were able to attend.

Community Open House
The Community Open House was an opportunity for the FPAC to present their preferred land use map alternative to the community. At this meeting the public was able to ask questions of staff and the consultant and provide feedback on the preferred land use map.

Community Workshops
At these workshops, staff and the consultant presented the public review Draft General Plan Update and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. A presentation was provided which can be accessed here:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/582f3c2a59cc689c8da65127/t/60b90196a7b9f72fd 2776a47/1622737303919/CommunityWorkshop_5-27-21.pdf
ATTACHMENT 4

City Council and Planning Commission Public Meetings
The City Council and Planning Commission held a series of public workshops and hearings to consider the goals and policies of the General Plan, review input from the Visioning Workshops, receive information relevant to the specific topics addressed at the GPAC meetings and provide specific direction and guidance to staff and the consultant team regarding how goals should be achieved, how to address current issues, and land use preferences.

Environmental Justice Stakeholder Meeting
The Environmental Justice Stakeholder Meeting was an opportunity to present the Draft General Plan’s approach to addressing environmental justice to those organizations that service disadvantaged communities. The video from that meeting is available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ezP3C8geU.

The presentation is available here:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/582f3c2a59cc689c8da65127/t/60872d17b499e606 9792b2d5/1619471641222/EnvironmentalJustice_Stakeholders_4-21-21.pdf.

Scoping Meeting
The City hosted a scoping meeting to receive input from the community and interested agencies on the scope of the draft Environmental Impact Report that was prepared from the project. The presentation is available here:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/582f3c2a59cc689c8da65127/t/5e2f63b4e2ef3c5ec7 ec2467/1580164064409/NOP_Scoping.pdf
Other Outreach Tools
Newsletters
Two newsletters were published in March 2017 and March 2021. These newsletter were sent to the individuals who asked to be on the City’s outreach list, and provided an overview of the General Plan Update process, highlighted opportunities for public participation, provided important contact information for the project team so people knew who to ask questions to, and identified the different land use alternatives and asked the public to weighin on them.

Survey
City staff also developed an online survey to gather additional information from the public to develop the community’s vison and land use preferences. The online survey was available through the General Plan Update website here: https://manteca.generalplan.org/. This site ATTACHMENT 4

is still active today and contains the relevant documents, meeting dates, FAQs, drafts, and a way to connect with the City and consultant team.

Draft Documents
In addition to the meetings listed above, the City circulated the Draft General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact report for public input twice, first in spring 2021, and then again in winter 2022. Both circulation periods were 45 days long and the public had the opportunity to submit comment on the documents. The responses to these comments are contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Future Public Hearings
Government Code Section 65353(a) requires that the city hold at least two public hearings before adopting the General Plan: one by the Planning Commission and one by the City Council (or other legislative body, depending on the government entity). These meetings will provide two additional public comment opportunities. The Planning Commission meeting will be June 29, 2023, and the City Council meeting will be July 18, 2023.

ZONING CONFORMANCE
Zoning is one of the primary means of implementing a General Plan. The success of a General Plan, especially the Land Use element, rests in part upon the effectiveness of a consistent zoning ordinance in translating the long-term objectives and policies contained in the plan into every day decisions. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the General Plan creates problems for residents and staff, and is prohibited by the State. As such, the City will complete a comprehensive zoning code update after the adoption of the General Plan Update to ensure that the zoning ordinance does not conflict with the new General Plan.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONFORMANCE
On October 15, 2013, the Manteca City Council approved and adopted the Air Quality Element Update and Climate Action Plan in response to the passing of Assembly Bill AB32.

The intent of this plan is to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in both private and public sector development. The Climate Action Plan is going to be updated this year, and the General Plan Update states in Implementation measure RC-4a, the Climate Action Plan will now be updated every five years going forward to be consisted with State-adopted GHG reduction targets, including revisions to GHG reeducation measures to ensure effective implementation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City determined that a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for the proposed General Plan Update (General Plan or Project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project which may have a significant impact on ATTACHMENT 4

the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term “Project” refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. A Program EIR is an EIR which examines the environmental impacts of an agency plan, policy, or regulatory program, such as a General Plan Update. Program EIRs analyze broad environmental impacts of the program, such as a General Plan Update. Program EIRS analyze broad environmental impacts of the program, with the acknowledgement that site-specific environmental review may be required for particular aspects of the program or particular development projects that may occur in the future.

The EIR is available for review on the Manteca General Plan Update website here:
https://manteca.generalplan.org/.

Comment Periods
Manteca circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for the proposed project on January 6, 2020 to trustees and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. 11 public comments were received. A scoping meeting was held on January 27, 2020 at the Manteca Council Chambers. The Notice of Availability (NOA) was published for the Draft EIR (SCH# 2020019010) on March 22, 2021, opening the public comment period from March 22, 2021 through May 6, 2021. The City received over 200 oral and written comments on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. In response to the comments, the City Council directed staff to revise the draft General Plan to address removal of the truck route, make land use modifications, and the include an additional alternative.

The Recirculated Draft EIR and the Revised Draft General Plan removed the truck route, refined policies and implementation actions, and reduced potential for conflicts between intensive uses and potentially sensitive uses. The NOA for the recirculated Draft EIR was published on November 22, 2022 (SCH# 2020019010), which opened the public comment period from November 22, 2022 through January 6, 2023. The Recirculated Draft incorporated the comments received by the public during the first circulation period. 22 comments were received on the Recirculated Draft Plan and EIR.

The Recirculated Draft EIR was inadvertently not posted to the State Clearinghouse during the November 22, 2023- January 6, 2023 recirculation period. This was realized the day the project was scheduled for the April 20, 2023 meeting. As such, staff made the decision to pull the item from the Public Hearing calendar and chose to recirculate the item for State and public review. The Recirculated Draft EIR was again circulated for review from April 26, 2023 to June 12, 2023 for 45 days. The documents circulated were the same documents that were circulated for the 45-day review period starting November 22, 2022. The City received four additional comment letters during this second circulation period, bringing the total of comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR to 26. All 25 comments are responded to in the FEIR posted to the City’s website at the link provided above.

ATTACHMENT 4

Land Use Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which would reduce or avoid significant impacts, and which could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives of the proposed project. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR are briefly described below. Staff’s preferred land use alternative is Alternative D.
• Alternative A: No Project Alternative. Under Alternative A, the City would not adopt the General Plan Update. The existing Manteca General Plan would continue to be implemented and no changes to the General Plan, including the Land Use Map, Major Street Master Plan, Proposed Truck Route, goals, policies, or actions would occur. Subsequent projects, such as amending the Municipal Code (including the zoning map) and the City’s Design Guidelines, would not occur. The existing General Plan Land Use Map is shown on Figure 5.0-1 in Chapter 5.0. • Alternative B: Residential and Balanced Employment Growth. Alternative B continues to provide for a balance of job-creating and residential development land uses. Alternative B would continue to encourage infill development throughout the City, as well as new growth in greenfield areas that extend the City’s existing development pattern. Figure 5.0-2 in Chapter 5.0 shows the Land Use Map for Alternative B. This alternative emphasizes an increase in residential development, including multifamily, uses and a decrease in commercial and employmentgenerating industrial and professional land use designations to reduce total vehicle miles travelled. This alternative was developed to potentially reduce the severity of significant impacts associated with transportation and circulation and also to reduce the severity of impacts associated with air quality and greenhouse gases. • Alternative C: Increased Intensity Residential and Balanced Employment Growth. Alternative C would revise the General Plan Land Use Map to place more emphasis on identifying specific areas for residential growth, including medium and high-density residential land uses and encouraging the distribution of these uses throughout residential neighborhoods. Alternative C continues to provide for a balance of job-creating and residential development land uses, but would reduce commercial and other employee-generating uses in order to reduce vehicle miles travelled. Alternative C would continue to encourage infill development throughout the City, as well as new growth in greenfield areas that extend the City’s existing development pattern. Figure 5.0-3 in Chapter 5.0 shows the Land Use Map for Alternative C. This alternative emphasizes an increase in residential development, with an emphasis on increasing high and medium density residential development within neighborhoods, and a decrease in retail and other jobs to reduce total vehicle miles travelled. This alternative was developed to potentially reduce the severity of significant impacts associated with transportation and circulation and also to reduce the severity of impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gases, and noise.

ATTACHMENT 4

• Alternative D: Previous Proposed Project (March 2021). Alternative D is identical to the previously-proposed Draft General Plan which is analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Manteca General Plan Update (dated March 2021). Alternative D continues to provide for a balance of job-creating and residential development land uses.

Alternative D would continue to encourage infill development throughout the City, as well as accommodate new growth in greenfield areas that extend the City’s existing development pattern. Figure 5.0-4 in Chapter 5.0 shows the Land Use Map for Alternative D. This alternative emphasizes an increase in residential development, including multifamily, and a decrease in commercial and employment-generating industrial and professional land use designations to reduce total vehicle miles travelled. Alternative D would provide for approximately 20 more acres of residential uses and 102 fewer acres of mixed use development when compared to the Proposed Land Use Map. Additionally, Alternative D would provide for 770 more acres of employment-generating commercial, professional, and industrial uses, when compared to the Proposed Land Use Map.

Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
There is no Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the General Plan, as the General Plan is a self-mitigating document. This means that policies and actions provided in the General Plan ultimately reduce the potentially significant and significant environmental impacts to the extend feasible when the City and projects implement them. The City will use the annual General Plan report as a status check pursuant to Government Code to monitor and report on the status of the General Plan and its impact on reducing potential impacts.

However, there are impacts that can ultimately not be mitigated through monitoring and the Council will have to consider these impacts as significant and unavoidable.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to discuss unavoidable significant environmental effects, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. The below impacts are significant and unavoidable:
• Impact 3.2-1: General Plan implementation would result in the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non-agricultural use;
• Impact 3.2-2: General Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract;
• Impact 3.3-1: General Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants;
• Impact 3.12-1: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to significant traffic noise sources;
• Impact 3.14-1: General Plan implementation may result in VMT per dwelling unit and VMT per employee increases that are greater than 85 percent of Baseline conditions; ATTACHMENT 4

• Impact 3.14-2: General Plan implementation may conflict with a program, plan, policy or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
• Impact 3.14-3: General Plan implementation may increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access; • Impact 4.2: Cumulative impact to agricultural lands and resources; • Impact 4.3: Cumulative impact on the region's air quality; • Impact 4.12: Cumulative impacts related to noise;
• Impact 4.14: Cumulative impacts on the transportation network; • Impact 4.17: Irreversible and adverse effects.

If the EIR determines that the project would result in significant adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, the City Council is required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations as well as written findings in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration The adverse effects listed above are substantive issues of concern to the City. However, the Manteca General Plan 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, and the CEQA EIR process allows the City to examine these impacts against the benefits the Project provides to the City and determine if the benefits outweigh the impacts. By making findings related to economic, social, and other benefits, the Council is able to override any significant environmental impacts that would result in the approval of the General Plan.

Report prepared by: Lea C. Simvoulakis, Deputy Director- Planning Attachments:

Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1625
Attachment 2a: Exhibit A- Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration Reviewed and Approved by:
\s\ Chris Erias June 20, 2023
Chris Erias, Development Services Director Date
ATTACHMENT 4
June 29, 2023
City of Manteca
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1625

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MANTECA,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY

COUNCIL CERTIFY THE GENERAL PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERIDING CONSIDERATION, AND

AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT THE ULTIMATE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI)

MAP TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMTTEE (LAFCO) FOR REVIEW

AND APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the Manteca Planning Commission, at its duly noticed public hearing on June 29, 2023, considered the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update and the General Plan Update document; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.08.060 of the Manteca Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is the recommending body to the City Council for the certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the adoption of the General Plan update; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 requires each city to prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan document that contains certain elements, describes city-wide goals, and lists policies and implementation measures to achieve those goals; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan was comprehensively updated in 2003; and WHEREAS, in 2016 the City Council initiated a multi-year process to update the City’s General Plan by working with a consultant, DeNovo Planning Group, to produce a document that accurately reflects the vision and goals of the City Council and community for the next twenty years; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update will supersede the 2003 General plan text and maps; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan on January 19, 2016, which shall remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, the City Council created the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and appointed its members to oversee the preparation of the General Plan and provide recommendations to the City Council; and
ATTACHMENT 4
June 29, 2023
WHEREAS, The City has sought to proactively engage the public in the update of the General Plan in over 40 public meetings which included three Visioning Workshops, fourteen GPAC meetings, one Community Open House, three Community Workshops, six City Council and/or Planning Commission study sessions, one Environmental Justice meeting, and one Scoping meeting; and
WHEREAS, The City as Lead Agency determined that the proposed General Plan Update were a “Project” under the California Environmental Quality Act and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was warranted; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation on January 6, 2020 to trustees and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public and 11 public comment letters were received; and
WHEREAS, a scoping meeting was held on January 27, 2020 at the Manteca City Council Chambers; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Availability (NOA) was published for the Draft EIR (SCH# 2020019010) on March 22, 2021, opening the public comment period from March 22, 2021 through May 6, 2021, and the City received over 200 oral and written comments on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, in response to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the City Council directed staff to revise the draft General Plan to address removal of the truck route, make land use modifications, and the include an additional alternative; and WHEREAS, the NOA for the Recirculated Draft EIR was published on November 22, 2022 (SCH# 2020019010), which opened the public comment period from November 22, 2022 through January 6, 2023 and 22 comments were received; and WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR was not posted to the State Clearinghouse website, requiring the Recirculated Draft EIR to be reposted for a second 45-day review period; and
WHEREAS, the NOA for the second circulation of the Recirculated Draft EIR was published on April 26, 2023 (SCH#2020019010), which again opened the comment period from April 26, 2023 through June 12, 2023 and four additional comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the Recirculated Draft EIR and the Revised Draft General Plan removed the truck route, refined policies and implementation actions, and reduced potential for conflicts between intensive uses and potentially sensitive uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all information related to this matter, as presented at a public meeting, including any supporting reports by City Staff, and any information provided during public meetings.

ATTACHMENT 4
June 29, 2023
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2022, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) adopted the City’s 2020 Municipal Service Review (MSR) and approved an Interim Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City so that LAFCo could consider annexations in the near term as the General Plan Update was being processed; and WHEREAS, LAFCo adopted the City’s MSR and Interim SOI with the understanding that an Ultimate SOI would be approved by LAFCo once the General Plan Update was approved; and
WHEREAS, the Ultimate SOI is reflected in the Preferred Land Use Map of the General Plan Update being considered by City Council, and by approving the General Plan Update, the Council authorizes City staff to submit this Ultimate SOI to LAFCo for approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Manteca Planning Commission, pursuant to the Manteca Municipal Code, upon evidence in the staff report and project file, makes the following findings to support the recommendation for certification of the Final General Plan EIR:

1. That the above recitals are true and correct.

2. That the Planning Commission does hereby find and recommend that the FEIR be certified as it has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA.

3. The Planning Commission was presented with, and has independently reviewed and analyzed, the FEIR and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, including the written and oral comments received at the public hearings on the FEIR and the Project, prior to acting upon or approving the Project, and has found that the FEIR represents the independent judgment of the City of Manteca (“City”) as lead agency for the Project, and designates the Director of Development Services, at his office at 1215 W. Center Street, Manteca, California 95337, as the custodian of documents and record of proceedings on which the decision of the City is based.

4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend and recognize that the FEIR contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other information in its response to comments on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR or obtained by the City after the Draft EIR and Recirculated EIR was issued and circulated for public review and does hereby find that such changes and additional information are not significant new information as that phrase is described under CEQA because such changes and additional information do not indicate that any of the following would result from approval and implementation of the Project: (i) any new significant environmental impact or substantially more severe environmental impact not already disclosed and evaluated in the Draft EIR, (ii) any feasible mitigation measure considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented, or (iii) any feasible alternative considerably different from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that ATTACHMENT 4
June 29, 2023
would lessen a significant environmental impact of the Project has been proposed and would not be implemented.

5. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend and determine that recirculation of the FEIR for further public review and comment is not warranted or required under the provisions of CEQA.

6. The Planning Commission does hereby make the findings attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, with respect to the significant effects of the environment of the Project, as identified in the FEIR, with the understanding that all of the information in this Resolution is intended as a summary of the full administrative record supporting the FEIR, which full administrative record should be consulted for the full details supporting these findings. Exhibit A is fully incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

NOW BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Manteca Planning Commission, pursuant to the Manteca Municipal Code, upon evidence in the staff report and project file, makes the following findings to support the recommendation of approval of the General Plan Update:

1. The proposed General Plan Update contains a thorough and adequate treatment of land use, economic, environmental, and development issues within the realm of the next 20 years. The General Plan contains elements the state required elements of Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety as well as the additional elements of Growth Management, Community Design, and Community Facilities and Services. The existing Housing Element, adopted January 19, 2016 by City Council and remains in full effect.

2. The proposed General Plan Update is internally consistent and is not a detriment to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare of the City.

3. The proposed General Plan Update encourages appropriate land uses, preservation of neighborhood character and natural resources, infill of vacant land, new multi-family residential development, provisions of urban services and utilities, pedestrian facilities and enhancement of the property tax base.

4. The proposed General Plan Update includes a wide variety of objectives, policies, and implementing programs designed to enhance the public health, safety, and welfare, including the Safety Element which addresses soil limitations, flood hazard, potable water supplies, emergency preparedness, fire protection, and police protection. The Plan further protects the public health by and safety through reliance on mitigation measures and policies requiring the adoption of impact fees

5. The proposed General Plan Update addresses the issue of climate change and contains numerous policies designed to reduce the impact of future development on climate change.

ATTACHMENT 4
June 29, 2023

6. The General Plan Update was prepared in accordance with the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act.

I hereby certify that Resolution No. 1625 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Manteca at a regularly scheduled public hearing held on June 29, 2023, by the following vote:

Roll Call:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Ron Laffranchi, Chairman Date
Exhibits:

Exhibit A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration ATTACHMENT 4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 1

FINDINGS FOR THE

MANTECA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 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.

These findings explain how the City, as the lead agency, approached the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the General Plan Update (General Plan, or Project). The statement of overriding considerations identifies economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project that override any significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

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

The Final EIR (which includes the Recirculated Draft EIR, comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, and any revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR) for the Project, examined several alternatives to the Project that were not chosen as part of the approved project (Alternative A: No Project Alternative, Alternative B:

Residential and Balanced Employment Growth, Alternative C: Increased Intensity Residential and Balanced Employment Growth, and Alternative D: Previous Proposed Project [March 2021]).

The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below (“Findings”) are presented for adoption by the City Council (Council) as the City’s findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, § 15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this Council regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
2 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
overriding considerations, which in this Council’s view, justify approval of the Manteca General Plan, despite its environmental effects.

II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW
State law requires the City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of its planning area. The Plan must include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements, as specified in Government Code Section 65302, to the extent that the issues identified by State law exist in the City’s planning area.

Additional elements that relate to the physical development of the City may also be addressed in the Plan. The degree of specificity and level of detail of the discussion of each Plan element need only reflect local conditions and circumstances. The Plan has been prepared to address the requirements of State law and the relevant items addressed in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.

A. Procedural Background
In April of 2016, the City issued a request for proposals (RFP) inviting bids from qualified consulting firms to assist the City in the preparation of a comprehensive update to the General Plan. The process to update the Manteca General Plan began in August 2016. The Manteca General Plan Update (General Plan Update or proposed General Plan) was developed with extensive community input and reflects the community’s vision for Manteca.

The City of Manteca circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project on January 6, 2020 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and the public. A scoping meeting was held on January 27, 2020 at the City of Manteca City Hall. No public or agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were presented or submitted during the scoping meeting. During the 30-day public review period for the NOP, which ended on February 5, 2020, eleven written comment letters were received on the NOP. A summary of the NOP comments is provided later in this chapter. The NOP and all comments received on the NOP are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

On May 7, 2021, the City released the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR for public review.

The City provided multiple opportunities for community engagement, including a series of workshops with the City Council and Planning commission, community workshops, and outreach to stakeholders. In May and June 2021, the city hosted two workshops to present the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report to the community. The workshops included an overview of the components of the Draft General Plan, including the Land Use Map and Major Streets Circulation, and the Draft EIR, including alternatives to the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 3
The City received over 200 oral and written comments on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. In response to the comments, the City Council directed that the General Plan Draft EIR be revised to address removal of the truck route, land use modifications, and the inclusion of an additional alternative. The proposed project addressed in the Recirculated Draft EIR is the Revised Draft General Plan which has been modified to reduce the potential for conflicts between intensive uses and potentially sensitive uses, to remove the truck route, and to refine policies and implementation measures.

The Revised Draft General Plan was modified based on direction from the decisionmakers and comments received on the May 2021 Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. The Plan is intended to be an expression of the community’s vision for the City and Planning Area and constitutes the policy and regulatory framework by which future development projects will be reviewed and public improvements will be implemented. The City will implement the Plan by requiring development, infrastructure improvements, and other projects to be consistent with its policies and by implementing the actions included in the Plan. The key components of the General Plan will include broad goals for the future of Manteca, and specific policies and actions that will help implement the stated goals.

The City of Manteca published a public NOA for the Recirculated Draft EIR on November 22, 2022, inviting comments from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH# 2020019010) and was published in the Manteca Bulletin pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA.

The Recirculated Draft EIR was available for public review from November 22, 2022 through January 6, 2023. The Revised Public Draft General Plan was also available for public review and comment during this time period.

The Recirculated 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 Recirculated Draft EIR.

The City received 21 comment letters during the 45-day review period for the Recirculated Draft EIR and one late comment letter after the 45-day review period ended. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this Final EIR responds to the written comments received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. The Final EIR also contains minor edits to the Draft EIR, which are included in Chapter 3.0 (Errata). The Final EIR document and the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR, constitute the Final EIR.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
4 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
B. 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, Notice of Availability, and all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Manteca General Plan Update EIR. • The Manteca General Plan Update Recirculated Draft EIR, associated appendices in the Recirculated Draft EIR, and technical materials cites in the Recirculated Draft EIR. • The Manteca General Plan Update Final EIR, including comment letters and technical materials cited in the document.
• All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City of Manteca and consultants in relation to the EIR.
• Minutes and/or recordings of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings held by the City.
• Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council meetings on the Project.
• Those categories of materials identified in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6.

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 Legislative Offices/City Clerk at 1001 West Center Street, Manteca, California 95337.

D. Consideration of the Environmental Impact Report
In adopting these Findings, this Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to this Council, the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Manteca General Plan. 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 the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

E. 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 ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 5
provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Manteca General Plan, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE

IMPACTS
A. Agricultural and Forest Resources

1. General Plan implementation would result in the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non-agricultural use (EIR Impact 3.2-1)
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non-agricultural uses is discussed at pages

3.2-16 through 3.2-20 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 3.2-16 through 3.2-20 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes numerous policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible. The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that are intended to reduce the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to nonagricultural uses. These include policies that encourage the development of vacant lands within City boundaries prior to conversion of agricultural lands and ensure that urban
development near existing agricultural lands will not
unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations. Overall, the policies and actions included in the proposed General Plan are intended to support and preserve the agricultural heritage of Manteca as development continues to occur within the Planning Area. However, the General Plan does allow for urbanization of agricultural lands. The only mitigation available to fully avoid this impact would be to restrict growth to occur only on nonATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
6 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
agricultural lands and to not allow agricultural-support operations on agricultural lands; this limitation of growth would not be consistent with the Project goals and objectives as identified in the EIR and stated throughout the Project. Therefore, this would represent a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. (2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conversion of farmlands.

2. General Plan Implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (EIR Impact 3.2-2) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract, is discussed on pages 3.2-21 and 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 3.2-21 and 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan includes policies which would reduce the impact of development resulting in the conversion of existing farmland. This includes policies which encourage coordination LAFCO on issues of the conservation of agricultural land; promote the enrollment in Williamson Act contracts; promote the establishment of adequate buffers between agricultural and urban land uses; prohibit the redesignation of Agricultural lands to other land use designations unless specific findings are made; and require future development projects to reduce impacts on agricultural lands through the use of buffers, such as greenbelts, drainage features, parks, or other improved and maintained features. However, proposed General Plan would allow new urban uses that have the potential to conflict with existing agricultural operations, regardless of whether the operations are conducted on
Williamson Act lands and lands zoned for agricultural use as discussed under Impact 3.2-2 above. The only mitigation available ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 7
to fully avoid this impact would be to restrict growth to occur only on non-agricultural lands; this limitation of growth would not be consistent with the Project goals and objectives as identified in the EIR and stated throughout the Project. Therefore, this would represent a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project. (2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act Contract conflicts.

B. Air Quality

1. General Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (EIR Impact 3.3-1)
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants is discussed at pages 3.3-23 through 3.3-42 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 3.3-23 through 3.3-42 of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan would assist the city in achieving a more balanced jobs to housing ratio, and would increase opportunities for transit ridership in Manteca and the surrounding areas. The General Plan includes policies and actions that would work to further reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including reviewing projects for conformance with applicable air quality plans and regulations, reducing energy demands, and implementing methods to reduce VMT. The General Plan policies ensure that individual projects will be reviewed for compliance and adherence to SJVAPCD standards.

Nevertheless, since implementation of the General Plan may result in population growth, and an increase in vehicle miles traveled, that exceed the growth projections assumed in the applicable air quality plans, the proposed Project has the potential ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
8 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
to conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Mitigation measures that would limit population or VMT growth to the levels assumed in the applicable air quality plans in order to ensure consistency would conflict with the proposed General Plan’s goals to encourage high quality housing types and a variety of housing for all income levels and to provide and promote high-paying, local employment opportunities and retain and attract high-quality businesses and industry so that residents can live, shop, and work in Manteca.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with air quality and criteria pollutant emissions.

C. Noise

1. General Plan implementation may result in exposure to significant traffic noise sources (EIR Impact 3.12-1)
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in exposure to significant traffic noise sources is discussed on pages 3.12-20 through

3.12-34 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 3.12-20 through 3.12-34 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible. General Plan Policies S-6.1 through S-6.4, S-6.7 through S-6.12, S-6.15 and Implementation measure S-5 are intended to minimize exposure to excessive noise, including noise associated with traffic. Specifically, Policies S-6.1, S-6.2, S-6.4, and S-6.7 support noise-compatible land uses in the vicinity of traffic noise sources and require that new development and infrastructure projects be reviewed for consistency with the noise standards established in Tables S-1. The proposed General Plan standards required under Policy S-6.4, for exposure to traffic ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 9
noise shown in Tables 3.12-14 and 3.12-15, meet or exceed the noise level standards of the adopted General Plan shown in Table

3.12-8. Policy S-5.7 and Implementation measure S-5 would ensure that new development mitigates potential noise impacts through incorporating the noise control treatments necessary to achieve acceptable noise levels. Implementation measure S-6d sets criteria for evaluating future increases in traffic noise levels.

Implementation measure S-6c would ensure that the Municipal Code, including the updated noise ordinance, is consistent with the noise standards established in the General Plan. Action S-5i would encourage working with Caltrans to ensure that adequate noise studies are prepared and that noise mitigation measures are considered in State transportation projects. Implementation of the proposed policies and actions of the General Plan will reduce noise and land use compatibility impacts from vehicular traffic noise sources and would ensure that new development is
designed to include noise-attenuating features. However, there are no mitigation measures that can eliminate significant traffic noise exposure while still allowing the City’s economy to grow through new development, particularly residential, industrial, and commercial uses. This would represent a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with transportation noise sources.

D. Transportation and Circulation

1. General Plan implementation may result in VMT per dwelling unit and VMT per employee increases that are greater than 85 percent of Baseline conditions (EIR Impact 3.14-1)
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in VMT impacts is discussed at pages 3.14-28 through 3.14-36 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
10 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 3.14-28 through 3.14-36 of the Draft EIR, updated General Plan includes policies designed to reduce vehicle travel and vehicle miles traveled. The Circulation Element addresses providing adequate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and opportunities, promoting non-vehicle travel modes, requiring development projects that accommodate or employ 50 or more employees to implement TDM programs, and ensuring regional coordination on trip and VMT reduction efforts. General Plan policies and actions that contribute to VMT reductions are identified below. These policies and actions minimize VMT impacts to the greatest extent feasible. However, reductions in VMT per employee from 15 to 51 percent would be required to achieve thresholds. The City at this time cannot demonstrate that VMT will be reduced to the degree that it meets these thresholds.

This would represent a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with transportation VMT impacts.

2. General Plan implementation may conflict with a program, plan, policy or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (EIR Impact 3.14-2)
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing the circulation system is discussed on pages 3.14-36 through 3.14-42 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 3.14-36 through 3.14-42 of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan contains policies and implementing actions that support access to and the performance of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These applicable policies and implementing ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 11
actions are listed below. Further, the Plan includes mixed-use development that is supportive of non-automotive modes. The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that support implementation of applicable bicycle and pedestrian plans and ensure new transportation infrastructure includes adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The proposed General Plan includes implementation actions to promote roadway safety, including preparation of a Vision Zero Action Plan or Local Road Safety Plan that prioritizes systems-based approach to preventing traffic fatalities (Implementing Action 2n), updating the PFIP to address recommended safety improvements by the Vision Zero Action Plan or Local Road Safety Plan (Implementing Action 2o), and creation of an surveillance program of above average vehicle, bicyclist, and pedestrian collisions with an emphasis on early detection and correction of conditions that create safety issues for users (Implementing Action 2k). The City cannot demonstrate definitively at this time that implementation of these policies would maintain the number of collisions for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at current or lower levels. Therefore, the plan may conflict with policies for safe travel, including by transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Therefore, this impact is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with a conflict with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

3. General Plan implementation may increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access (EIR Impact 3.14-3) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access is discussed at pages 3.14-41 through 3.14-48 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
12 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 3.14-41 through 3.14-48 of the Draft EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible. The General Plan contains policies and actions in support of safe circulation by all modes and adequate emergency access. Policy 2.8 requires traffic
management, calming, and safety techniques to be applied according to industry standards at residential and collector street intersections to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to travel more safely from one neighborhood to another. Policy C-2.18 prohibits the creation of traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian hazards and prohibits conflicts with vehicular traffic movements, thereby ensuring that development and infrastructure projects are designed to avoid conflicting uses or design hazards that would result in traffic, bicycle, or pedestrian hazards. Policy C-6.2 ensures emergency access is provided in development and infrastructure projects. Actions C-1k, C-2n, and C-2o require the preparation of a Vision Zero Action Plan or Local Road Safety Plan that focuses on prevention of traffic fatalities, with the plan to be completed within four years of General Plan adoption. These measures also include updating the PFIP to address
recommended safety improvements, and ongoing identification, surveillance, and correction of high vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian collision locations. Although the General Plan policies and actions related to circulation, hazards, and emergency access would reduce the impacts to emergency circulation and access associated with implementation of the General Plan Update, increased vehicle traffic may increase the number of collisions on Manteca roadways, and therefore result in an increase in hazards.

Therefore, this impact is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the Project.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with increased hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 13
F. Cumulative Impacts

1. Cumulative impact to agricultural lands and resources. (EIR Impact 4.2) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative loss of agricultural land and resources, including important farmlands, significant farmlands, land under the Williamson Act, and other farmlands, is discussed on pages 4.0-7 and 4.0-8 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 4.0-7 and 4.0-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible. However, even with implementation of adopted policies and actions, the General Plan has the potential to considerably contribute to permanent conversion of agricultural land and resources. No feasible mitigation is available to fully reduce the cumulative effect on these resources, or to mitigate the contribution to a less-than-significant level. This would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution by the Project to the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts to agricultural lands and resources.

2. Cumulative impact on the region's air quality (EIR Impact 4.3) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact on the region's air quality is discussed on page 4.0-8 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
14 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on page 4.0-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible. However, even with implementation of adopted policies and actions, the General Plan has the potential to considerably contribute to an impact on the region's air quality. No feasible mitigation is available to fully reduce the cumulative effect, or to mitigate the contribution to a less-than-significant level. This would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution by the Project to the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on the region's air quality.

3. Cumulative impacts related to noise (EIR Impact 4.12) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a considerable contribution to the cumulative noise impacts is discussed on pages 4.0-15 and 4.0-16 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on pages 4.0-15 and 4.0-16 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible. However, it may not be feasible to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level in all instances, particularly in areas where existing development is located near proposed
development and existing roadways. Although the policy and regulatory controls for noise related impacts are in place in the cumulative analysis area, subsequent development projects may result in an increase in ambient noise levels at specific project locations, which may subject surrounding land uses to increases in ambient noise levels. No feasible mitigation is available to fully reduce the cumulative effect on noise, or to mitigate the proposed project's contribution to a less-than-significant level.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 15
This would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution by the Project to the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. (2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative increases in noise levels.

6. Cumulative impacts on the transportation network (EIR Impact 4.14) (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a considerable contribution to the cumulative impacts on the transportation network is discussed on pages 4.0-17 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on page 4.0-17 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible.

However, it may not be feasible to mitigate this impact to a lessthan-significant level in all instances as the General Plan would result in VMT increases exceeding the threshold for employmentrelated land uses. No feasible mitigation is available to fully reduce the cumulative effect on VMT, or to mitigate the proposed project's contribution to a less-than-significant level. This would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution by the Project to the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on the transportation network.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
16 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
G. Significant Irreversible Effects

1. Irreversible and adverse effects (EIR Impact 4.17)
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a significant irreversible effect associated with the consumption of nonrenewable resources and irretrievable commitments/irreversible physical changes is discussed on page 4.0-29 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Minimized to the greatest extent feasible through General Plan Policies and Actions. No feasible mitigation is available. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before this Council, this Council finds that:
(1) Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As described on page 4.0-29 of the Draft EIR, the Project includes policies and actions that would reduce the severity of this impact to the extent feasible. In summary, the proposed General Plan includes an extensive policy framework that is designed to address land use and
environmental issues to the greatest extent feasible, while allowing growth and economic prosperity for the City. However, even with the policies and actions that will serve to reduce potential significant impacts, the proposed General Plan will result in significant irreversible changes and has the potential to result in adverse effects as described above. This impact is considered a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA.
(2) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project, as stated more fully in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VI, override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with irreversible effects.

IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS WHICH ARE

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, LESS THAN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE, OR HAVE

NO IMPACT
A. 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.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 17

1. Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.1-1: General Plan implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
b. Impact 3.1-2: General Plan implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway c. Impact 3.1-3: General Plan implementation would not, in a nonurbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, or in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality
d. Impact 3.1-4: General Plan implementation would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area

2. Agricultural and Forest Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.2-3: General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use b. Impact 3.2-4: General Plan implementation would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use

3. Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.3-3: General Plan implementation would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)

4. Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.4-1: General Plan implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
b. Impact 3.4-2: General Plan implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
18 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
c. Impact 3.4-3: General Plan implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means
d. Impact 3.4-4: General Plan implementation would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites
e. Impact 3.4-5: The General Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
f. Impact 3.4-6: General Plan implementation would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan

5. Cultural and Tribal Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.5-1: General Plan implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
b. Impact 3.5-2: General Plan implementation would not lead to the disturbance of any human remains
c. Impact 3.5-3: General Plan implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or a resource determined by the lead agency

6. Geology and Soils: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.6-1: General Plan implementation would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 19
known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides b. Impact 3.6-2: General Plan implementation would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil
c. Impact 3.6-3: General Plan implementation would not result in development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse
d. Impact 3.6-4: General Plan implementation would not 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
e. Impact 3.6-5: General Plan implementation does not have the potential to have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water f. Impact 3.6-6: General Plan implementation would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature

7. Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.7-1: General Plan implementation would not generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment
b. Impact 3.7-2: General Plan implementation would not conflict with adopted plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
c. Impact 3.7-3: General Plan implementation would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.8-1: General Plan implementation would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
20 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
b. Impact 3.8-2: General Plan implementation would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
c. Impact 3.8-3: General Plan implementation would not have projects located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 d. Impact 3.8-4: The General Plan would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within an area covered by an airport land use plan, or two miles of a public airport or public use airport e. Impact 3.8-5: General Plan implementation would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
f. Impact 3.8-6: General Plan implementation would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires

9. Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.9-1: General Plan implementation would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan
b. Impact 3.9-2: General Plan implementation would not result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge or conflict with a groundwater management plan
c. Impact 3.9-3: General Plan implementation would not alter the existing drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding, impeded flows, or polluted runoff
d. Impact 3.9-4: General Plan implementation would not release pollutants due to project inundation by flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche

10. Land Use, Population and Housing: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant or to have no impact:
a. Impact 3.10-1: General Plan implementation would not physically divide an established community
b. Impact 3.10-2: General Plan implementation would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 21
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect
c. Impact 3.10-3: General Plan implementation would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) d. Impact 3.10-4: General Plan implementation would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere

11. Mineral Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.11-1: General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state
b. Impact 3.11-2: General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan

12. Noise: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.12-2: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to excessive railroad noise sources
b. Impact 3.12-3: Implementation of the General Plan could result in the generation of excessive stationary noise sources
c. Impact 3.12-4: General Plan implementation may result in an increase in construction noise sources
d. Impact 3.12-5: General Plan implementation may result in construction vibration
e. Impact 3.12-6: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to groundborne vibration

13. Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.13-1: General Plan implementation would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment associated with the need for new governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts
ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
22 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
b. Impact 3.13-2: General Plan implementation would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities or the construction of new parks and recreation facilities

14. Utilities and Service Systems: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant:
a. Impact 3.15-1: General Plan implementation would result in sufficient water supplies available to serve the City and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years
b. Impact 3.15-2: General Plan implementation would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects
c. Impact 3.15-3: General Plan implementation would not have the potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments
d. Impact 3.15-4: General Plan implementation may require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects
e. Impact 3.15-5: General Plan implementation would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects
f. Impact 3.15-6: General Plan implementation would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and would not exceed of the capacity of local infrastructure

15. Wildfires: The following specific impact was found to have no impact:
a. Impact 3.16-1: General Plan implementation would not have a significant impact related to wildfire risks associated with lands in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones
ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 23
B. 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.
a. Impact 4.1: Cumulative degradation of the existing visual character of the region
b. Impact 4.4: Cumulative loss of biological resources, including habitats and special status species
c. Impact 4.5: Cumulative impacts on known and undiscovered cultural resources
d. Impact 4.6: Cumulative impacts related to geology and soils e. Impact 4.7: Cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy
f. Impact 4.8: Cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials and human health risks
g. Impact 4.9: Cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality h. Impact 4.10: Cumulative impacts related to local land use, population, and housing
i. Impact 4.11: Cumulative impacts related to mineral resources j. Impact 4.13: Cumulative impacts to public services and recreation k. Impact 4.15: Cumulative impacts related to utilities l. Impact 4.16: Cumulative impact related to wildfire
C. The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the following reasons:

1. The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project.

2. The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact.

V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. Identification of Project Objectives
An EIR is required to identify a “range of potential alternatives to the project [which] 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.” Chapter 2.0 of the Draft EIR identifies the Project’s goals and objectives. The Project objectives include:

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
24 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
• Reflect the current goals and vision expressed by city residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders;
• Address issues and concerns identified by city residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders;
• Provide for logical, orderly growth from the city’s compact, historic center extending to well-delineated residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and community amenities;
• Maintain Manteca’s family-oriented community character with gathering places, activities, and parks/recreation opportunities for all ages located in attractive, sustainable, and safe neighborhoods and throughout the community;
• Preserve access to the area’s agricultural and natural characteristics, including green space, farmland, and orchards;
• Revitalize and enhance the Downtown;
• Provide and encourage high-quality housing options and a variety of housing types for all income levels;
• Provide and promote high-paying, local employment opportunities and retain and attract high-quality businesses and industry so that residents can live, shop, and work in Manteca;
• Maintain strong fiscal sustainability that ensure efficient and adequate public services and amenities and supports improved multimodal transportation opportunities, and, through promoting land uses that increase local revenues and ensuring development pays its fair-share; • Provide a basis for City decision-makers, City departments, other public agencies, and private developers to design projects that enhance the character of the community and achieve the City’s desired growth, safety, and conservation objectives; and
• Address requirements of State law, including addressing environmental justice, safety, climate adaptation and resilience, and transportation, including complete streets and VMT.

B. Alternatives Analysis in EIR

1. Alternative A: No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-3 through 5.0-7 and pages 5.0-19 through 5.0-39 of the Draft EIR.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 25
Under Alternative A, the City would not adopt the General Plan Update. The existing Manteca General Plan would continue to be implemented and no changes to the General Plan, including the Land Use Map, Major Street Master Plan, goals, policies, or actions would occur. Subsequent projects, such as amending the Municipal Code (including the zoning map) and the City’s Design Guidelines, would not occur. The existing General Plan Land Use Map is shown on Figure 5.0-1.

As shown in Table 5.0-1, when compared to the Proposed General Plan, Alternative A offers fewer opportunities to develop by providing a more focused area for development within the Planning Area through committing over 5,000 acres for urban reserve uses. As shown in Table 5.0-1, Alternative A would provide for a decrease in residential uses by 757 acres, a decrease in commercial/industrial/professional uses by 1,034 acres, and a decrease in mixed uses by 264 acres. Additionally, public land uses would also decrease by 354 acres. Alternative A would result in increased housing and job growth within the Manteca city limits when compared to existing conditions, but substantially less overall growth than all other alternatives. Under Alternative A at full buildout, there would be an increase over existing conditions in residential growth (approximately 26,152 dwelling units) and non-residential growth (approximately 24,541,050 square feet) within City limits. Under cumulative conditions, development in the Planning Area combined under Alternative A would result in a population of 172,998 and 42,457 jobs.

Under Alternative A, the existing General Plan policy framework would still be in effect, which would constitute a status quo approach to land use regulation in the City. As shown in Table 5.0-1, the proposed General Plan Land Use Map consolidates a number of existing land use designations, as well as establishes new land use designations (i.e., Downtown and Agricultural Industrial). The proposed General Plan, along with the policy framework proposed by the General Plan Update, encourages and aims to provide the framework and land use pattern for logical, orderly growth from the City’s compact, historic center extending to well-delineated residential neighborhoods, employment centers, and community amenities to meet the City’s long-term housing, employment, and civic needs. The land uses allowed under the proposed General Plan provide opportunities for cohesive new growth at in-fill locations within existing urbanized areas of the city, as well as new growth adjacent to existing urbanized areas. A mix and balance of uses to provide an improved ratio of local jobs to population, would ensure that development pays its fair-share of necessary roadway, public service, and other infrastructure improvements, and that provides for increased protection of natural resources would occur. The proposed General Plan was prepared in conformance with State laws and regulations associated with the preparation of general plans, including requirements for environmental protection.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
26 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
a. Findings: The No Project Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it would not achieve the Project’s objectives.

b. Explanation: This alternative would not realize the benefits of the Project and fails to achieve some of the Project objectives. Alternative A would not include updated policies, particularly those related to greenhouse gases, community health, equity/environmental justice and complete streets policies to address safety, access, and mobility for all roadway users, as required by State law. This alternative would not include various policies proposed in the General Plan update to ensure protection of environmental resources, both at a project level and under cumulative conditions, consistent with the objectives of CEQA.

Alternative A fails to meet several of the basic project objectives, including addressing new requirements of State law; and addressing emerging transportation, housing, and employment trends. Therefore, Alternative A (No Project) is rejected from further consideration.

2. Alternative B: Residential and Balanced Employment Growth The Residential and Balanced Employment Growth Alternative is discussed on pages

5.0-7 through 5.0-9 and pages 5.0-19 through 5.0-39 of the Draft EIR.

Alternative B continues to provide for a balance of job-creating and residential development land uses. Alternative B would continue to encourage infill development throughout the City, as well as new growth in greenfield areas that extend the City’s existing development pattern. Figure 5.0-2 shows the Land Use Map for Alternative B, which includes the following major changes from the Proposed General Plan:

1. The Urban Reserve overlay is applied in the area north of Roth Road and West of Airport Way to identify long-term desires for future industrial and employment-generating growth in this area and to promote efficient delivery of City services (same as Alternative C).

2. A residential/commercial node with High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Commercial uses is created east of Airport Way between Lovelace Road and the future Roth Road extension and Low Density Residential uses are extended to Airport Way.

3. In the majority of the Planning Area, the Urban Reserve overlay is removed and replaced with the Agriculture designation.

4. An underutilized infill site northeast of Union Road and W. Alameda Street is changed from High Density Residential to Commercial and Public/QuasiPublic.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 27

5. Policy Area 1 is revised to support the relocation of the Lovelace Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station through envisioning the facility and surrounding area for Commercial Mixes Use and residential use.

6. Policy Area 2 is revised to focus on jobs- and employment-generating uses in the vicinity of future transit uses.

7. Policy Area 5 is revised to increase Medium Density Residential uses and include a Park site.

8. An unincorporated island between Moffat Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive is changed from Commercial Mixed Use to Industrial.

9. The Urban Reserve overlay is removed from the Oakwood Lakes area.

10. Infill opportunities in the select areas in the City southwest of Atherton Road and Main Street are changed from Commercial to residential designations, Low, Medium, and High Density Residential, from High Density Residential to Commercial southwest of the Highway 120/Union Road interchange (same as Alternative C).

Alternative B would adopt most of the goals, policies, and actions of the proposed General Plan Update policy document, which would apply to subsequent development, planning, and infrastructure projects under this alternative, except for the changes to address the Land Use Map revisions as previously described. As shown in Table 5.0-2, Alternative B would provide for approximately 279 more acres of residential uses; however, this alternative would provide 66 fewer acres of land designated for medium density residential uses and 88 fewer acres designated for mixed use development.

Additionally, Alternative B would provide for 145 more acres of employment-generating commercial, professional, and industrial uses, when compared to the Proposed Land Use Map.
a. Findings: The Modified Project Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it would not achieve the Project’s objectives.

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

As discussed in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR and summarized in Table 5.0-26 of the Draft EIR, Alternative B (Residential and Balanced Employment Growth Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative when looked at in terms ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
28 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
of all potential environmental impacts. While Alternatives C and D are also superior to the proposed General Plan, Alternative B is slightly superior in several categories, including air quality, greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy, and transportation and circulation impacts resulting in a higher overall score for Alternative B. Overall, Alternative B is the environmentally superior alternative as it is the most effective in terms of overall reductions of impacts compared to the proposed General Plan and all other alternatives. It is noted that, when compared to the proposed General Plan, Alternative B would slightly increase the severity of impacts related to noise, public services and recreation, and utilities.

This alternative would achieve all of the Project objectives, but some objectives would be met to a lesser extent than the Project. Alternative B would provide for fewer opportunities for multifamily residential land uses and fewer opportunities new jobs-generating land uses, which provide employment opportunities and revenues to the City, which are used to fund public services and infrastructure improvements. Under this alternative, the amount of new residential growth in the multi-family category would decrease from 17,212 units to 11,453 units. The seventh Project objective aims to provide and encourage high-quality housing options and a variety of housing types for all income levels. This alternative would not meet this objective to the same extent as the Project as this alternative would result in a decrease in lands to accommodate medium and higher density housing opportunities, as shown by the decrease in lands designated for medium density residential and mixed use, which would decrease the range of housing types and income levels accommodated under this alternative. Additionally, the reduced residential densities under this alternative would promote urban sprawl and a less orderly growth pattern. For these economic and social reasons, the Project is considered superior to Alternative 2.

3. Alternative C: Increased Intensity Residential and Balanced Employment Growth
The Increased Intensity Residential and Balanced Employment Growth Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-9 through 5.0-13 and pages 5.0-19 through 5.0-39 of the Draft EIR.

Alternative C would revise the General Plan Land Use Map to place more emphasis on identifying specific areas for residential growth, including medium and high density residential land uses and encouraging the distribution of these uses throughout residential neighborhoods. However, this alternative would provide 66 fewer acres of land designated for medium density residential uses and 88 fewer acres designated for ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 29
mixed use development Alternative C continues to provide for a balance of job-creating and residential development land uses, but would reduce commercial and other employee-generating uses in order to reduce vehicle miles travelled. Alternative C would continue to encourage infill development throughout the City, as well as new growth in greenfield areas that extend the City’s existing development pattern. Figure

5.0-3 shows the Land Use Map for Alternative C, which includes the following major changes from the Proposed General Plan:

1. The Urban Reserve overlay is applied to an expansion of the Planning Area in the area north of Roth Road and West of Airport Way to identify long-term desires for future industrial and employment-generating growth in this area and to promote efficient delivery of City services (same as Alternative B).

2. A residential/commercial node with High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use Commercial uses is created east of Airport Way between Lovelace Road and the future Roth Road extension with Low Density Residential uses extending south from the future Roth Road extension. Alternative C differs from Alternative B in this location as Alternative C includes extended Commercial designation along the future Roth Road extension and includes a narrow swath of the Park land use designation between Airport Way and the proposed Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential uses.

3. The Urban Reserve overlay is placed on a portion of lands north of the future Roth Road extension and east of Union Road and this area, including both the Urban Reserve area as well as future growth areas, is designated Business Industrial Park, increasing the potential for industrial and employment-generating uses in this area (same as Alternative B).

4. The Urban Reserve overlay is removed from a portion of Industrial and Business Industrial Park identified in the northern portion of the Planning Area east of Highway 99.

5. An underutilized infill site northeast of Union Road and W. Alameda Street is changed from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential.

6. Policy Area 1 is revised to support the relocation of the Lovelace Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station through envisioning the facility and surrounding area for Commercial Mixes Use and residential use.

7. Policy Area 2 is revised to focus on jobs- and employment-generating uses in the vicinity of future transit uses.

8. Policy Area 5 is revised to increase Medium Density Residential uses and include a Park site.

9. An unincorporated island between Moffat Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive is changed from Commercial Mixed Use to Industrial.

10. The Urban Reserve overlay is removed from the Oakwood Lakes area.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
30 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update

11. Infill opportunities in the select areas in the City southwest of Atherton Road and Main Street are changed from Commercial to residential designations, Low, Medium, and High Density Residential, from High Density Residential to Commercial southwest of the Highway 120/Union Road interchange (same as Alternative C).

12. Lands south of Graves Road are revised to replace a portion of the proposed Mixed Use and Business Industrial Park designations with Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and a narrow Parks strip separating residential designations from Industrial uses and Highway 99.

This alternative emphasizes an increase in residential development, with an emphasis on increasing low and high density residential development within neighborhoods, a decrease in mixed uses, and an increase in business professional and business industrial parks uses to improve the jobs/housing balance. This alternative was developed to potentially reduce the severity of significant impacts associated with transportation and circulation and also to reduce the severity of impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gases, and noise.

Alternative C would provide for approximately 238 more acres of residential uses overall; however, there would be a decrease of 60 acres of medium density residential uses and 87 fewer acres of mixed use development within the Planning Area, when compared to the Proposed Land Use Map. Additionally, Alternative B would provide for 189 more acres of employment-generating commercial, professional, and industrial uses, when compared to the Proposed Land Use Map. As shown in Table 5.0-3, Alternative C would allow for more residential growth than the proposed General Plan, less mixed uses, and more job growth. Compared to Alternative B, Alternative C would provide for slightly more nonresidential and multi-family residential growth, but slightly less overall residential growth. Additionally, Alternative C would facilitate more residential and nonresidential growth than Alternative A, the existing General Plan. a. Findings: The Increased Intensity Residential and Balanced Employment Growth Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it would not reduce many of the significant impacts under the proposed Project to a less than significant level.

b. Explanation: This alternative would result in slightly worse impacts in eight resource areas, and would result in slightly better impacts in two resource areas. This alternative would not reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would achieve the basic Project objectives. However, the seventh Project objective aims to provide and encourage high-quality housing options and a variety of ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 31
housing types for all income levels. This alternative would not meet this objective to the same extent as the Project as this alternative would increase in low density residential land uses and decrease lands designated to accommodate medium and higher density housing opportunities, as shown by the decrease in lands designated for medium density residential and mixed use, which decreases the range of housing types and income levels accommodated under this alternative.

Additionally, the reduced residential densities under this alternative would promote urban sprawl and a less orderly growth pattern For these reasons, the Project is considered superior to Alternative C.

4. Alternative D: Previous Proposed Project (March 2021) The Previous Proposed Project (March 2021) Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-13 through 5.0-16 and pages 5.0-39 through 5.0-251 of the Draft EIR.

Alternative D is identical to the previously proposed Draft General Plan, including the Land Use Map, which was analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Manteca General Plan Update (dated March 2021). Alternative D is included to ensure transparency in the General Plan Update process by providing for a comparison between the previously proposed Draft General Plan that was circulated for public review and analyzed in the May 2021 Draft EIR and the Revised Draft General Plan, as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description.

Alternative D continues to provide for a balance of job-creating and residential development land uses. Alternative D would continue to encourage infill development throughout the City, as well as accommodate new growth in greenfield areas that extend the City’s existing development pattern. Alternative D includes the proposed Truck Route from the previously proposed Draft General Plan. Figure 5.0-4 shows the Land Use Map for Alternative D, which includes the following major changes from the Proposed General Plan:

1. The Planning Area is expanded in the area north of Roth Road and West of Airport Way to identify long-term desires for future commercial, industrial, and employment-generating growth in this area and to promote efficient delivery of City services (similar to Alternatives B and C), with the Urban Reserve overlay applied to the northern portion of the extension.

2. East of Airport Way and north of the Roth Road extension, Business Industrial Park uses are added with the Urban Reserve overlay applied to the northern ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
32 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
portion to focus growth in the northwest portion of the Planning Area closer to the Roth Road extension.

3. The Villa Ticino policy area reverts from the approved land use plan to establish an area for Industrial growth.

4. West of Airport Way and south of Lathrop Road, Industrial uses are added between Lathrop Road and the UPRR railroad tracks, increasing the Industrial designation along Airport Way.

5. Policy Area 1 is reduced to support the relocation of the Lovelace Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station through envisioning the facility and surrounding area for a range of residential uses, with Commercial Mixed Use located along Airport Way to buffer residential uses from more intensive uses.

The area south of Policy Area 1 along Lovelace Road is changed to Low Density Residential to be consistent with the modifications north of Lovelace Road.

6. Policy Area 2 is revised to focus on jobs- and employment-generating uses in the vicinity of future transit uses.

7. Policy Area 5 is revised to increase Medium Density Residential uses and include a Park site.

8. An underutilized infill site northeast of Union Road and W. Alameda Street is changed from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential.

9. The Commercial designation is applied to the area southwest of the Union Road and Highway 120 interchange, reducing the potential for high density residential uses in this area.

10. The area west of the intersection of Moffat Boulevard and Industrial Park Drive is designated Industrial to promote employment-generating uses and increase compatibility with adjacent uses designated Industrial.

11. The Commercial designation is applied to the area southwest of the Main Street and Highway 120 interchange, reducing residential uses adjacent to Highway 120.

12. The Urban Reserve overlay is removed from the Oakwood Lake area in the southwest portion of the Planning Area outside of the City limits.

As shown in Table 5.0-4, Alternative D would provide for approximately 20 more acres of residential uses and 102 fewer acres of mixed use development when compared to the Proposed Project. Additionally, Alternative D would provide for 770 more acres of employment-generating commercial, professional, and industrial uses, when compared to the Proposed Project.
a. Findings: The Previous Proposed Project (March 2021) Alternative is rejected as an alternative because it would not reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 33
b. Explanation: This alternative would achieve the basic Project objectives, but to a lesser extent than the Project. Alternative D includes the proposed Truck Route from the previously proposed Draft General Plan.

Because of this, the Previous Proposed Project (March 2021) Alternative does not reflect the current goals and vision expressed by city residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders. Additionally, by including the Truck Route, this alternative does not address issues and concerns identified by city residents, businesses, decision-makers, and other stakeholders. Further, this alternative would result in slightly worse impacts in 13 resource areas and would not reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant level. Further, the seventh Project objective aims to provide and encourage high-quality housing options and a variety of housing types for all income levels. This alternative would not meet this objective to the same extent as the Project as this alternative would result in an increase in low density residential land uses to support primarily single family residential development while decreasing lands designated to accommodate medium and higher density housing opportunities, as shown by the decrease in lands designated for medium density residential, high density residential, and mixed use, which decreases the range of housing types and income levels accommodated under this alternative.

For these economic, social, market conditions, and other reasons, the Project is considered superior to Alternative D.

VI. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Manteca has balanced the benefits of the proposed General Plan against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed General Plan and has included all feasible mitigation measures as policies and action items within the General Plan. Manteca has also examined alternatives to the proposed project, and has determined that adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action. The other alternatives are rejected as infeasible, failed to meet project objectives, were not able to reduce any significant impacts to a less than significant levels, or increased the severity on significant impacts based on consideration of the relevant factors discussed in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR.

A. Significant Unavoidable Impacts
ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
34 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
Based on the information and analysis set forth in the EIR and reiterated in Section III of these Findings, implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in the following project-specific significant impacts related to: agricultural resources, air quality, noise, transportation and circulation, and irreversible effects. These impacts are identified below:
• Impact 3.2-1: General Plan implementation would result in the conversion of farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, to non-agricultural use;
• Impact 3.2-2: General Plan implementation would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract;
• Impact 3.3-1: General Plan implementation would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants;
• Impact 3.12-1: General Plan implementation may result in exposure to significant traffic noise sources;
• Impact 3.14-1: General Plan implementation may result in VMT per dwelling unit and VMT per employee increases that are greater than 85 percent of Baseline conditions;
• Impact 3.14-2: General Plan implementation may conflict with a program, plan, policy or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
• Impact 3.14-3: General Plan implementation may increase hazards due to a design feature, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access; • Impact 4.2: Cumulative impact to agricultural lands and resources; • Impact 4.3: Cumulative impact on the region's air quality; • Impact 4.12: Cumulative impacts related to noise;
• Impact 4.14: Cumulative impacts on the transportation network; • Impact 4.17: Irreversible and adverse effects.

B. Benefits of the Proposed General Plan/Overriding Considerations The City of Manteca has (i) independently reviewed the information in the EIR and the record of proceedings; (ii) made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially lessen the impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan to the extent feasible by including policies and actions in the General Plan that effectively minimize or reduce potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible; and (iii) balanced the project’s benefits against the project’s significant unavoidable impacts.

Adoption and implementation of the Manteca General Plan would provide the following economic, social, legal, and other considerable benefits:

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update 35

1. The General Plan promotes compact and environmentally sustainable development through goals and policies that balance the need for adequate infrastructure, housing, and economic vitality with the need for resource management, environmental protection, and preservation of quality of life for Manteca residents.

2. The General Plan provides a land use map and policy document that accounts for existing development, physical constraints, economic development, flood and other hazards, and incompatible uses and assigns densities and use types accordingly to enhance the safety, livability, and economic vitality of Manteca.

3. The General Plan improves mobility options through the development of a multimodal transportation network that enhances connectivity, supports community development patterns, limits traffic congestion, promotes public and alternative transportation methods, and supports the goals of adopted regional transportation plans.

4. The General Plan directs the preservation and environmental stewardship of the vast array of natural, cultural, and historic resources that uniquely define the character and ecological importance of the City and greater region.

5. The General Plan addresses adverse environmental effects associated with climate change by facilitating sustainable development, promoting energy efficiency, and promoting development that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

6. The General Plan enhances the local economy and provides opportunities for future jobs and business development growth by planning for commercial and industrial development near existing urbanized areas and transportation corridors.

7. The General Plan supports accommodating a variety of housing types and housing costs, through identifying lands that increase housing opportunities for lower density residential development through the very low and low density land use designations, and increasing opportunities for higher density development, including triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments, through the medium density and high density residential land use designations, and opportunities for townhomes, condominiums, apartments, mixed use, and live-work housing, through the mixed use and downtown land use designations. These designations support a range of housing densities and mixed use development opportunities and will increase the variety of housing types and costs by providing opportunities to expand the variety of housing options available.

8. The General Plan is the product of a comprehensive public planning effort driven by members of the public, the General Plan Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council through a series of public meetings, hearings and workshops that resulted in a thoughtful balance of community, economic, and environmental interests.

VII. CONCLUSION
ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4

CEQA FINDINGS
36 CEQA Findings – Manteca General Plan Update
After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the Council finds that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified may be considered “acceptable” due to the specific considerations listed above which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project.

The Manteca City Council has considered information contained in the EIR prepared for the proposed General Plan as well as the public testimony and record of proceedings in which the project was considered. Recognizing that significant unavoidable agricultural resources, air quality, noise, transportation and circulation, and irreversible effects impacts may result from implementation of the proposed General Plan, the Council finds that the benefits of the General Plan and overriding considerations outweigh the adverse effects of the Project. Having included all feasible methods to reduce environmental impacts at the programmatic, General Plan level as policies and actions in the General Plan, and recognized all unavoidable significant impacts, the Council hereby finds that each of the separate benefits of the proposed General Plan, as stated herein, is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants adoption of the proposed General Plan and outweighs and overrides its unavoidable significant effects, and thereby justifies the adoption of the proposed General Plan.

Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record, the Council hereby determines that:

1. All significant effects on the environment due to implementation of the proposed General Plan have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible;

2. There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed General Plan which would fully mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts to a less than significant level; and

3. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above.

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A4