Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Responses to Comments chapter contains responses to each of the comment letters received during the Hat Ranch Project (proposed project) Draft EIR public review period.
2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Each bracketed comment letter is followed by numbered responses to each bracketed comment.
The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the Draft EIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information can be found. Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the project that are unrelated to its environmental impacts) are either discussed or noted for the record.
Where revisions to the Draft EIR text are required in response to the comments, such revisions are noted in the response to the comment, and are also listed in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR Text, of this Final EIR. All new text is shown as double underlined and deleted text is shown as struck through.
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 1
1-1
1-2
1-3
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 1 cont.
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 1 cont.
1-12 cont.
1-13
1-14
1-15
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 1 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 1: TOM DUMAS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 10
Response to Comment 1-1
The comment is an introductory statement and introduces requests for revisions that will be made in subsequent comments regarding the Transportation Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Fehr and Peers (see Appendix K of the Draft EIR).
Response to Comment 1-2
The electronic Synchro analysis files were submitted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for its use in reviewing the Draft EIR and Transportation Analysis prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix K of the Draft EIR). As detailed in the Intersection Analysis Methodology section, which starts on page 14 of the Transportation Analysis, the analysis used procedures and methodologies contained in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition. The aforementioned methodologies were applied using the Synchro 10 software, which considers traffic volumes, lane configurations, signal timings, signal coordination, and other pertinent parameters of intersection operations.
Response to Comment 1-3
In accordance with the requirements for analyzing potential transportation-related impacts under CEQA and guidance from the City of Manteca, the Transportation Analysis includes trip generation analysis (single-family detached housing and school-related vehicle trips), vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis (per single-family household), and intersection level of service (LOS) (AM and PM peak hour) analysis.
Furthermore, as part of the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) prepared by Fehr and Peers for the Project Approval/Environmental Document for the State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project, a detailed queueing analysis was submitted to Caltrans; however, the request for a queueing analysis for the proposed project is outside the scope of requirements for a CEQA Traffic Impact Study. Therefore, the discussions and analyses in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR are adequate.
Response to Comment 1-4
The VMT analysis, included in Tables 3 and 4 of the Transportation Analysis on pages 16 and 17, respectively, was derived from the City of Manteca Travel Demand Model that was developed for the City’s General Plan Update.
As detailed on page 11 of the Transportation Analysis, the Base Year Travel Forecasting Model (TFM) used as part of the study’s VMT forecasting incorporated base year land use data for dwelling units (single family and multi-family) and employment (food, retail, office, industrial, medical, government, and school), as well as the roadway network (lanes, speed, and capacity class), based on existing data (i.e., 2019). The TFM trip generation rates were derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual and include appropriate inbound/outbound trip generation rates for residential and employment land uses for AM and PM peak hour conditions. In addition, the Cumulative Year 2040 TFM used as part of the Transportation Analysis was developed based on expected future land uses and the future transportation network in the City of Manteca and adjacent areas in 2040. Similar to other cities in the Central Valley region, the City of Manteca is projecting a large amount of growth for both ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
housing and employment in the next 20 years. The Cumulative Year 2040 TFM scenario was developed in coordination with both the cities of Manteca and Lathrop to ensure that the TFM represents market-based demand for future growth in both housing (population) and employment, and therefore, does not underestimate or overestimate traffic demand volumes.
Response to Comment 1-5
As stated on page 7 of the Transportation Analysis prepared for the proposed project, “The established Cumulative VMT per single family household is 91.4. Therefore, single family residential projects that exceed 77.7 VMT per household (a 15 percent reduction compared to the cumulative 91.4 VMT) would be considered to have a significant transportation impact. Projects that generate less than 77.7 VMT per household would be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact.” Accordingly, the 77.7 VMT threshold was used in Table 4 on page 17 of the Transportation Analysis in order to determine if the Hat Ranch Project Cumulative (2040) VMT Per Single Family Household of 83.0 would result in a VMT transportation impact. As detailed on page 4.12-18 of the Draft EIR, because the proposed project would generate an estimated average of 83.0 VMT per single-family household under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, which represents an approximately 6.8 percent increase from the Cumulative VMT threshold conditions, the project would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below the established baseline, and a significant impact could occur. The Draft EIR requires that Mitigation Measure 4.12-4 be implemented to address the potential impact; however, even with implementation of the mitigation measure, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Response to Comment 1-6
Traffic count data collected in 2019 (pre-COVID) were adjusted (i.e., increased) to represent Existing AM and PM peak hour conditions (2021). Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c of the Transportation Analysis display the intersection turning movement counts at study intersections under Existing conditions. Figure 2a presents Intersections 1 through 9, Figure 2b presents Intersections 10 through 18, and Figure 2c presents Intersections 19 through 28.
Response to Comment 1-7
Traffic count data collected in 2019 (pre-COVID) were adjusted (i.e., increased) based on growth factors derived from the City of Manteca General Plan Update Travel Forecasting Model and ranged from two to five percent per year, from 2019 to 2021.
Response to Comment 1-8
Figures 2a, 2b, and 2c display the Existing Year 2021 intersection turning movement counts at the study intersections.
Response to Comment 1-9
The Synchro signal timings used for the State Route (SR) 120/Main Street interchange intersections are based on the Existing signal timings from Caltrans District 10 Signal and Ramp Meter Unit.
Response to Comment 1-10
The analysis of Austin Road/SR 99 Northbound Ramps (Intersection 11) was revised from side street stop control to all-way stop control in Table 5 and Table 8 of the Transportation Analysis.
Minor changes to the delay and LOS would not modify the conclusion that the City of Manteca is working with the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and Caltrans to improve the SR ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
120/SR 99 freeway-to-freeway interchange, which would result in LOS C conditions or better during both AM and PM peak hour conditions.
Response to Comment 1-11
With 738 single family dwelling units and a K-8 school located within the project site, a reduction for school-related trips was incorporated to represent students walking/biking and parents dropping off and picking up kids on their way to work or other activities (i.e., a linked vehicle trip).
During the AM peak hour, this represented a 30 percent reduction. During the PM peak hour, this represented a nine percent reduction. On a daily basis, this represented a 10 percent reduction.
Reductions are assumed based on trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition.
Response to Comment 1-12
The City of Manteca Engineering Division will coordinate with Caltrans District 10 in the review and approval of improvements at the following four Caltrans intersections:
1. SR 120 Eastbound Ramps/Main Street;
2. SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Moffat Boulevard;
3. Moffat Boulevard/Austin Road/SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp; and
4. Austin Road/SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp.
The interim improvement for the SR 120 Eastbound Ramps/Main Street intersection will be determined in coordination with the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10.
The timeline for construction for the proposed project and the Phase 1A improvements of the State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project will be coordinated with the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10; however, the improvements are anticipated to be open to traffic by 2024.
If the proposed project is constructed before the Phase 1A State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project, interim improvements for the following intersections will be identified and coordinated with the City of Manteca and Caltrans District 10:
1. SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp/Moffat Boulevard;
2. SR 99 Southbound On-Ramp/Moffat Boulevard/Austin Road; and
3. SR 99 Northbound Off-Ramp/Austin Road.
If the proposed project is constructed after the State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project Phase 1A improvements, then project traffic that would have used the SR 99 Southbound Off-Ramp and SR 99 Northbound On-Ramp would use the SR 120/Main Street interchange.
Response to Comment 1-13
The VMT-reducing measures listed in MM-TRA-1 on page 53 of the Transportation Analysis were extracted from and are consistent with the City of Manteca 2040 General Plan Update. The City of Manteca is implementing citywide goals and policies to reduce VMT through increasing land use density and increasing multi-modal accessibility to key destinations. Both of the aforementioned VMT-reducing options have been incorporated into the proposed project by increasing the density of the single-family dwelling units per acre, incorporating pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and including a K-8 school site for the 738 dwelling units.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 1-14
Both of the interchange improvement projects are identified as Tier 1 Projects in SJCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The SR 120/Main Street interchange will be open to traffic by 2033. The State Route 99/State Route 120 Improvement Project Phase 1A improvements will be open to traffic by 2024. The Phase 1B improvements will be open to traffic by 2026, and the Phase 1C improvements will be open to traffic by 2040.
Response to Comment 1-15
The City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan and the Manteca General Plan Update policies are consistent with Caltrans’ recommendation for the establishment of programs or methods to reduce VMT and support appropriate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure. The comment is noted for the record and will be forward to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 2
2-1
2-2
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
2-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
2-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
2-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
2-2 cont.
2-3
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 2: PETER MINKEL, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
Response to Comment 2-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 2-2
The comment lists various regulatory and permitting requirements set forth and administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); however, the comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Please see Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, which includes discussions and evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable regulations and standards set forth by the RWQCB.
Response to Comment 2-3
The comment is a conclusion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 3
3-1
3-2
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
3-2 cont.
Letter 3 cont.
3-3
3-5
3-4
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
3-5 cont.
3-6
Letter 3 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
3-6 cont.
3-7
Letter 3 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
3-8
3-9
Letter 3 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 3: KEVIN THOMAS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND
WILDLIFE
Response to Comment 3-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 3-2
The comment provides background information on the regulatory role of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and cites applicable sections of State codes that provide CDFW with regulatory authority to ensure the State’s plant, wildlife, and habitat resources are conserved, protected, and managed properly. The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 3-3
The comment summarizes the project components and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 3-4
The commenter introduces primary concerns about specific special-status species, which are discussed further in subsequent comments below.
As detailed on page 4.4-24 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is required through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 to seek coverage under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) and to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered species through applicable SJMSCP requirements, including compliance with the adopted Incidental Take and Minimization Measures (ITMMs). As such, the proposed project will comply with California Endangered Species Act (CESA) take requirements for special-status species.
Response to Comment 3-5
In response to the comment, the second paragraph under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) subheading on page 4.4-15 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:
CESA prohibits the taking of State-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species. The CDFW exercises authority over mitigation projects involving State-listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. Taking may be authorized by CDFW if an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy is implemented. In addition, CDFW requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines. CDFW may authorize the take of any such species if certain conditions are met. CESA take coverage options include, but are not limited to, an Incidental Take Permit (CFGC Section 2081[b]), Consistency Determination (CFGC Section 2080.1), and/or Safe Harbor Agreement (CFGC Sections 2089.2-2089.26).
With respect to take coverage through an Incidental Take Permit, CFGC Section 2081(b) provides that CDFW may authorize, by permit, the take of an endangered species, threatened species, and candidate species, if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity;
2. The impacts of the authorized take shall be minimized and fully mitigated. The measures required to meet this obligation shall be roughly proportional in extent to the ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
impact of the authorized taking on the species. Where various measures are available to meet this obligation, the measures required shall maintain the applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible. All required measures shall be capable of successful implementation. For purposes of this section only, impacts of taking include all impacts on the species that result from any act that would cause the proposed taking; and
3. The applicant shall ensure adequate funding to implement the measures required by paragraph (2), and for monitoring compliance with, and effectiveness of, those measures.
Pursuant to CFGC Section 2081(c), an Incidental Take Permit may not be issued as established by Section 2081(b) if issuance of the permit would jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered species, threatened species, and/or candidate species. CDFW determines issuance based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available. As part of the determination, CDFW considers a species’ capability to survive and reproduce, and any adverse impacts of the taking on those abilities in light of known population trends, known threats to the species, and reasonably foreseeable impacts on the species from other related projects and activities.
In addition, as established by CFGC Section 2800 et seq., a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is the State counterpart to the federal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An NCCP provides a means of complying with the Natural Community Conservation Plan Act and securing take authorization at the State level. The Natural Community Conservation Plan Act is broader than FESA and CESA. The primary objective of the NCCP program is to conserve natural communities at the ecosystem scale while accommodating compatible land uses. To be approved by CDFW, an NCCP must provide for the conservation of species and protection and management of natural communities in perpetuity within the area covered by permits.
The above changes clarify the CESA take coverage options and do not alter the analyses or conclusions of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 3-6
The proposed project is required through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 (see page 4.4-24 of the Draft EIR) to seek coverage under the SJMSCP and to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered species through applicable SJMSCP requirements, including compliance with the adopted ITMMs. As required by SJMSCP Section 5.2.2, project proponents must complete preconstruction surveys prior to ground-disturbing activities to determine if SJMSCP Covered Species have been successfully relocated and/or to determine if other ITMMs have been implemented. Thus, preconstruction surveys would be completed for burrowing owl, as well as other ground-nesting birds. Additionally, as required by SJMSCP Section 5.2.4.15, project proponents must prevent ground squirrels from occupying a project site early in the planning process through employing at least one of several practices set forth by the SJMSCP. If the aforementioned practices were not attempted or were attempted but failed, the SJMSCP further requires that burrowing owls, if onsite during the non-breeding season, must be passively relocated in accordance with the protocol described in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If on-site during the breeding season, the SJMSCP prohibits occupied burrows from being disturbed and requires a 75-meter protective buffer unless specific conditions are met.
Thus, through compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, the proposed project would be subject to sufficient requirements to prevent the take of burrowing owls. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 3-7
As detailed under Impact 4.4-3 on page 4.4-25 of the Draft EIR, the majority of the project site is planted with grapes, with the only exception being where a large residence exists and landscape vegetation is planted. Pursuant to the Biological Resource Analysis (BRA) prepared for the proposed project by Monk & Associates, Inc., the project site does not include areas that would constitute farmed wetlands or would otherwise suggest agricultural activities converted waters of the U.S. into cropland. Similarly, areas designated for off-site improvements also do not include farmed wetlands or converted waters of the U.S., as locations for the proposed project’s off-site improvements consist of unpaved roadways adjacent to neighborhood communities and agricultural land uses. Based on the project existing setting, the Draft EIR concludes the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.
Furthermore, the Draft EIR discloses on page 4.4-2 that according to the 1972 USGS Manteca quadrangle, a dashed blue-line drainage cuts through the northwestern corner of the project site, exits the site, and then re-enters the northern end of the northeastern side of the site. However, as detailed in the discussion, the drainage appears to have been historically channelized and current evidence of the drainage does not exist on-site. Agricultural activities on- and off-site have likely changed the natural drainage patterns, resulting in the removal of this feature sometime in the distant past. As such, the Draft EIR does not identify heavily modified and potentially isolated aquatic features on the project site, as suggested by the commenter.
Response to Comment 3-8
The proposed project is subject to all applicable requirements set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will, therefore, comply with the provisions cited by the comment, including those pertaining to reporting of special-status species and payment of fees.
The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 3-9
The comment is a conclusion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. As requested, the City of Manteca in its role as Lead Agency will notify CDFW in writing of the proposed actions and pending decisions related to the proposed project. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4
4-1
4-2
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 4 cont.
4-2 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 4: MIKE AZEVEDO
Response to Comment 4-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
However, the comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 4-2
The comment recommends modifications to the City of Manteca Standards and Specifications for Landscape Development, to which the commenter indicates future development projects, including the proposed project, should be subject. The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project. Please see the analyses and discussions in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, and Chapter 4.11, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities, and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR regarding the proposed project’s consistency with applicable regulations and standards related to visual quality and recreational facilities.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 5
5-1
5-2
5-3
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
5-3 cont.
5-4
5-5
5-6
Letter 5 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 5 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 5 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 5: KAI LIU
Response to Comment 5-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 5-2
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Please see the discussions and analyses in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 5-3
The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
For informational purposes, the commenter is referred to Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, which details the proposed design of Antone Raymus Parkway. As discussed on page 3-12 of the Draft EIR, Antone Raymus Parkway would feature an east-to-west layout from Manteca Road to the Atherton Drive extension and would be constructed over two phases, interim condition and ultimate condition. The proposed project would be responsible for development of only the road’s interim condition. Under the interim condition, the project applicant would be required to dedicate right-of-way (ROW) to the City of Manteca to accommodate a 65.5-foot halfwidth street section. The project would construct a new street structural section, curb, gutter, an eight-foot-wide meandering sidewalk parallel to the north of the road, landscaping with trees and an automatic irrigation system, street lights, signage, and striping. The improvements would be constructed from Main Street to the Atherton Drive extension. The Antone Raymus Parkway/Pillsbury Road intersection would be stop-controlled.
Response to Comment 5-4
The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR details potential impacts related to vehicle safety under Impact
4.12-3, which starts on page 4.12-16. As discussed therein, during project construction, equipment would be staged on-site. In addition, construction within the project site would not be anticipated to result in substantial road closures or otherwise interfere with citywide vehicle circulation. As a result, the Draft EIR concludes that impacts related to hazards and vehicle safety would not occur.
The comment regarding the timing of roadway construction is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 5-5
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
For informational purposes, the commenter is referred to Chapter 4.11, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities, and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, which evaluates potential impacts related to substantial adverse physical impacts that could occur through the provision of or need ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. As detailed therein, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Ripon Unified School District (RUSD) and, thus, would be under the RUSD’s jurisdiction.
Response to Comment 5-6
The comment is a conclusion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 6
6-1
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 6: PENNY MCNEALY
Response to Comment 6-1
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
From: David Rashe; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Simvoulakis, Lea <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hat Ranch Project -SCH# 2013112049
WARNING! This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Lea,
Thank you. I’m concerned that other notified neighbors will not find the document either as the link provided in the letter does not even give the option to go to “Environmental" if the page they get to is the same as what I copied and pasted below.
Why do you suppose I got to the page I copied and pasted below and it is different than what you provided in the link below. This is a problem if you want the prescribed public comment period to follow law. If the public cannot access the information from the letter that was sent out in the notice then, it is essentially not posted and cannot be defended in court if the public comment period is challenged. It may be required for you to re-notice and provide the entire link, thus starting the public comment period over.
I’m going through the document and will forward my comments to you at a later date.
Thank you again for providing me the full link.
David J. Rashé
On Sep 14, 2022, at 10:56 AM, Simvoulakis, Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi David,
The link you pasted below takes you to the main Planning Division Documents Pages. From there you click Environmental, and the first item there is Hat Ranch.
The longer link is here:
https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/planning-divisiondocuments.aspx?RootFolder=%2FCommunityDevelopment%2FPlanning%20Division%2FPlanning%20Division%20Documents%2FEnvironmental %2FHat%20Ranch%20EIR&FolderCTID=0x012000C1D839DE3D407540A4D0E9B464C9237D&View=%7BC6EEA1A9%2D842B%2D49CD%2D94D1 %2DE0D08910FEFD%7D
From: David Rashe; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Simvoulakis, Lea <[email protected]>
Subject: Hat Ranch Project -SCH# 2013112049
WARNING! This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I received the mailing regarding the draft /EIR for the above mentioned project. I have attempted to find the document at the https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning%20Division/Pages/planning-division-documents.aspxper the letter but there is no such document posted at that web page address. Here are the documents posted to date 9.14.2022 <image001.gif> Name
<image002.png>
File Size
<image002.png>
Modified
<image002.png>
<image003.png> Union Crossing Planned Development 6330 KB 8/10/2020 5:24 PM <image001.gif> July 1 2020 Truck Route Video 445306 KB 7/20/2020 5:34 PM <image003.png> Residential Accessory Structure Development Std 444 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Title 17 Zoning Rev May 5 2017 2753 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Manteca Municipal Services Review July 2015 10834 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM Letter 7
7-1
7-2
7-3
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
<image003.png> Growth Management Point Rating Criteria 174 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Manteca Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inv 224 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Great Wolf Economic Opportunity Report 1254 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Great Wolf Lodge Economic Development Subsidy Report 429 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> 2000 Manteca Census Data 99 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM <image003.png> Approved Street Trees List - Updated May 9, 2016 734 KB 4/23/2019 10:27 AM Please provide me with the document or a revised web page address that allows me access to the draft EIR.
Thank you.
David J. Rashé
7-3 cont.
Letter 7 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 7: DAVID RASHÉ
Response to Comment 7-1
As established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15203, a Lead Agency must provide adequate time for other public agencies and members of the public to review and comment on a Draft EIR that it has prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), when a Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by State agencies, the public review period must not be less than 45 days, unless a shorter period that is not less than 30 days is approved by the State Clearinghouse.
As detailed in Chapter 1, Introduction and List of Commenters, of this Final EIR, on September 8, 2022, the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State and local agencies, resulting in a 45-day public review period from September 8, 2022 to October 24, 2022.
On September 8, 2022, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was posted to the City’s website, and mailed to local agencies and interested members of the public. A physical copy of the Draft EIR was made available for review at the City of Manteca Community Development Department at 1215 West Center Street, Suite 201, Manteca, California 95337. The Draft EIR was also made available for online review by navigating from the City of Manteca Planning Division’s Documents website at https://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/CommunityDevelopment/Planning %20Division/Pages/Planning-Division-Documents.aspx. In addition, the Draft EIR was made available for online review through the CEQA website at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/201311 2049/5.
Based on the above, in accordance with the requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15105(a) and 15203, the City of Manteca provided adequate time for other public agencies and members of the public to review and comment on the Draft EIR. However, the comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 7-2
The comment is a response to the commenter’s initial concerns related to accessing the Draft EIR. As demonstrated by the comment, the Draft EIR was made available for online review by navigating from the City of Manteca Planning Division’s website. Please see Response to Comment 7-1. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 7-3
Please see Reponses to Comments 7-1 and 7-2. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 8
8-1
8-2
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 8 cont.
8-3
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 8 cont.
8-3 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 8 cont.
8-4
8-5
8-6
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 8: DAVID AND JACKIE RASHÉ
Response to Comment 8-1
With respect to the figures cited by the commenter from Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR incorporates the most current plan sheets in effect at the time of the start of the public review period for the Draft EIR. As such, the figures included in the Draft EIR correctly depict the layout of the proposed residences and are consistent with the project components.
With respect to proposed Lots 356, 357, and 358, the northern portion of the aforementioned lots is currently an undeveloped parcel identified by the City as Manteca Parcel ID 22637062 that is currently planted with landscaping vegetation. However, pursuant to the Manteca Zoning Portal, the parcel is zoned One-Family Dwelling Zoning District (R-1) and single-family dwellings are permitted by right at the location. As such, development of the parcel with single-family residences is consistent with the parcel’s zoning district.
Finally, Figures 3-4 and 3-7 on pages 3-9 and 3-14 of the Draft EIR, respectively, do not identify Mono Street as Woodward Park. Rather, the references to Woodward Park indicate that the existing Woodward Park single-family residential community is located immediately to the north of the parcel to be developed to the east of Pillsbury Road. As such, the figures cited by the commenter are correctly labeled.
Based on the above, the discussions and analyses included in the Draft EIR, including the incorporated project plan sheets, are adequate.
Response to Comment 8-2
Pursuant to the requirements set forth by CEQA Guidelines Section 15121, the Draft EIR assesses all potential project impacts that could occur to all environmental issue areas required for analysis under CEQA. As part of such assessment, the Draft EIR evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with applicable policies, regulations, and standards that are currently adopted at the federal, State, and local levels. Therefore, the Draft EIR’s analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the currently adopted 2019 California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is adequate. The proposed project will be required to comply with the edition of the CBSC in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The 2022 CBSC builds upon, and is more stringent than, the 2019 CBSC. As such, through compliance with the 2022 CBSC, potential impacts related to energy consumption associated with the proposed project would be further reduced from the levels identified in the Draft EIR. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 8-3
As discussed in Chapter 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR under Impact 4.1-3, which starts on page 4.1-15, the proposed project would be consistent with the proposed Planned Development standards, including standards related to setbacks, as well as applicable General Plan policies and Manteca Municipal Code development standards for the R-1 zoning district. As such, Impact
4.1-3 is concluded to result in a less-than-significant impact.
The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and, instead, addresses the design of the subdivision. The comment will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Response to Comment 8-4
As detailed in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of the Draft EIR on page 4.12-1, any project that did not initiate CEQA public review prior to July 1, 2020 must use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than LOS as the metric to analyze transportation impacts. As such, the analysis in the Transportation chapter focuses on VMT. Thus, potential LOS effects that could occur from projectgenerated traffic, in conjunction with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) operations, are not required to be discussed in the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR includes analysis of potential impacts related to vehicle safety under Impact 4.12- 3, which starts on page 4.12-16 of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, during construction equipment would be staged on-site and construction within the site would not be anticipated to result in substantial road closures or otherwise interfere with citywide vehicle circulation.
Adequate emergency access would be provided, and following development of the proposed project, geometric hazards would not exist on-site. Finally, with respect to potential safety impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project related to the UPRR tracks parallel to Moffat Boulevard in the project vicinity, as discussed on page 4.12-17 of the Draft EIR, the existing UPRR track crossings located nearest to the project site are along Woodward Avenue and Austin Road.
Each crossing currently consists of crossing arms and lights to warn drivers of an approaching train. Neither are located along roadways that provide short driver sight distance of the crossing.
The proposed project would not result in changes to either crossing. Therefore, project-generated traffic would not result in safety impacts associated with the existing UPRR track crossings along Woodward Avenue and Austin Road. Based on the above, the Draft EIR concludes that the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards and a less-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, potential impacts related to project construction and the UPRR are addressed in the Draft EIR.
Response to Comment 8-5
The comment does not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The commenter’s opinions on the project design and recommendations for project revisions will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
Response to Comment 8-6
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. As discussed within the Introduction section of each technical chapter of the Draft EIR, the comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) related to the scope of the CEQA analysis and were carefully reviewed and considered by the City of Manteca and are reflected in the analysis of each technical chapter. Please see Responses to Comments 8-1, 8-3, and 8-5. The comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
Letter 9
9-1
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
9-1 cont.
Letter 9 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
9-1 cont.
Letter 9 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
9-1 cont.
Letter 9 cont.
ATTACHMENT 19
Final EIR
Hat Ranch Project
February 2023
Chapter 2 – Responses to Comments
LETTER 9: JASON AND THERESA HENDERSON
Response to Comment 9-1
Letter 9 is a duplicate of Letter 8. Please see Responses to Comments 8-1 through 8-6.
ATTACHMENT 19