Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding
Consideration
HAT RANCH PROJECT
February 2023
Prepared for:
City of Manteca
Development Services Department
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8500
Prepared by:
Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive, Suite 1
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 372-6100
Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
1. Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) requires the City of Manteca (City), as the CEQA lead agency, to: 1) make written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified, and 2) identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code,
§ 21081.)
This document explains the City’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the Hat Ranch (Project) and the City decision-makers’ ultimate determinations of the feasibility of the project alternatives considered in the EIR. The statement of overriding considerations identifies the economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that the City decision-makers have determined should override any significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.
As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, and mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially reduce or avoid those impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment.
The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR) for the Project, examined the proposed Project and several alternatives to the Project including.
The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the City Council, as the City’s findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis, substantial evidence, and conclusions of this City Council regarding the Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project, as well as the overriding considerations, which in this City Council’s view, justify approval of the Project, despite its environmental effects.
2. DISCUSSION
Notice of Preparation Public Circulation
On January 22, 2021, the City issued a Notice of Preparation announcing the intended preparation of the Draft EIR and describing its proposed scope. The public review period for the Notice of Preparation complied with the required 30-day requirement, extending from January 22 until February 23, 2021. The City held a public scoping meeting for the Draft EIR on February 10, 2021 for the purpose of informing the public and receiving comments on the scope of the Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
environmental analysis to be prepared for the Project. The scoping meeting was held online, via Zoom.
The City received twenty (20) comment letters and emails during the comment period on the Notice of Preparation from public agencies and individuals, included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR.
Preparation of the EIR
The City completed the Draft EIR for the Project and, beginning on September 8, 2022, the City made the Draft EIR available for review and comment. A Notice of Availability was published and the period for receipt of comments on the Draft EIR remained open for 45 days, closing on October 24, 2022. Copies of the Draft EIR document were made available at the Community Development Department, 1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201, Manteca, CA 95337, and on the City’s website at:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/planning-divisiondocuments/-folder-328 The City received seven comment letters during the comment period, and two following the close of the comment period for the Draft EIR. The letters were authored by three State agencies, and the remaining comment letters were received from interested individuals.
The Final EIR was completed and available to commenting public agencies on or before June 23, 2023.
The Final EIR contains all of the comments received during and immediately after the public comment period, together with written responses to significant environmental issues raised in those comments, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The City Council finds and determines that the Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to all comments raising significant environmental issues.
Absence of Significant New Information
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR, but before certification of the Final EIR. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard, which include the following:
1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the Project (or any Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project (or an alternative), but the Project's proponents decline to adopt it.
4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Having reviewed all the information in the record, the City Council finds that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the Draft EIR. No new or substantial changes to the Draft EIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final EIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the Draft EIR. The minor changes, clarifications, or additions to the Draft EIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts, and do not include any new mitigation measures that would have a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the City Council finds that recirculation of the EIR is not required.
Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Project In making its determination to certify the Final EIR and to approve the Project, the City Council recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to certain environmental issues. The City Council acknowledges that it has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft EIR, the comments received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR, as well as testimony, letters, and reports regarding the Final EIR and its own experience and expertise in these environmental issues. The City Council acknowledges that it has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft EIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final EIR, the information submitted on the Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the EIR, by the City’s consultants, and by staff, addressing those comments. The City Council acknowledges that it has gained a comprehensive and wellrounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the Project. The City Council acknowledges that in turn, this understanding has enabled the City Council to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. The City Council accordingly certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final EIR.
Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Identified in the Final EIR The City Council acknowledges that these findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the environmental impacts of the Project and the mitigation measures identified by the Final EIR and adopted by the City Council as conditions of approval Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
for the Project.
The City Council acknowledges that in making these findings, the City Council has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis and significance thresholds used in the EIR. The City Council finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a judgment within the discretion of the City Council; the significance thresholds used in the EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion of the EIR preparers and City staff; and the significance thresholds used in the EIR provide reasonable and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse environmental effects of the Project.
In particular, the EIR relied on significance criteria for evaluating impacts that are tailored to this type of project. The criteria used in this EIR to determine whether an impact is or is not “significant” are based on (a) CEQA-stipulated “mandatory findings of significance” listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15065; (b) the relationship of the Project effect to the adopted policies, ordinances and standards of the City and of responsible agencies; and (c) commonly accepted practice and the professional judgment of the EIR authors and City staff.
The below findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about the Project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation. This summary does not describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, it provides a summary description of each significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and recommended for adoption by the City Council, and states the City Council’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures.
A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
The City Council adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of the Project, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project. The City Council acknowledges that in adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended for approval by the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted from the MMRP, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language describing a mitigation measure set forth in the MMRP fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control, unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
The City Council hereby finds that the adopted mitigation measures are changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Mitigation Measures 4.6-3, 4.10-1(a) and 4.10-1(b), 4.10-2, and 4.12-2, underwent staff-initiated revisions. The revisions are for clarification purposes only, and do not alter the analysis or conclusion presented in the EIR. Modifications were not made to any other mitigation measures in response to comments.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Identified in the Final EIR Even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, the Project would nonetheless cause a direct significant and unavoidable impact related to the following:
1. Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland to non-agricultural use.
2. Impacts related to compliance with the policies of San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land.
3. Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Existing Plus Project Conditions.
5. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
Specific economic, environmental, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR to reduce the above impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Summary of Discussion of Alternatives in the Final EIR
The Final EIR evaluates three potential alternatives to the Project. The EIR examines the environmental impacts of each alternative in comparison with the Project and the relative ability of each alternative to satisfy project objectives.
Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the Draft EIR and the responses to those comments in the Final EIR.
The Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the Final EIR is incorporated in these findings by reference.
The Final EIR briefly considers but dismisses an Off-Site Alternative, as well as describes and evaluates in detail three alternatives to the Project. The City Council acknowledges that the reasons for the City Council’s decision to approve the Project instead of the remaining alternatives are presented below. The City Council finds that the Project would satisfy the Project Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
Objectives, and the remaining alternatives are unable to satisfy the Project Objectives to the same degree as the Project. The City Council further finds that, on balance, none of the remaining alternatives has environmental advantages over the Project that are sufficiently great to justify approval of such an alternative instead of the Project, in light of each such alternative’s inability to satisfy the Project objectives to the same degree as the Project. As such, the alternatives are found to be infeasible for environmental reasons and/or because they fail to satisfy most of the basic Project objectives. Accordingly, the City Council has determined to approve the Project instead of approving one of the remaining alternatives.
Description of Project Objectives
The project objectives are:
1. Establish a 184.7-acre, well-planned community, which incorporates152.4 acres of LowDensity Residential Land to accommodate approximately 634 single-family homes and 104 half-plex units, a 16.1-acre elementary/middle school site, and two neighborhood parks totaling 16.2 acres.
2. Design a land use plan with uses complementary to existing surrounding Low Density Residential neighborhoods and in symmetry with the larger Manteca community including approximately 634 single-family homes and 104 half-plex units.
3. Provide housing opportunities responsive to the needs of Manteca, the region and market conditions, to serve a range of family incomes and household types.
4. Provide a pedestrian-friendly community that provides connections and access between the existing communities and Hat Ranch to the recreational areas within the public parks within the project.
5. Provide a land use plan, design standards, and guidelines consistent with Manteca General Plan goals and policies for Low Density Residential neighborhoods, incorporate marketacceptable design features, and foster an attractive, well-maintained community.
6. Establish a land use and circulation system that promotes convenient mobility, completes the extension of Pillsbury Road to Antone Raymus Parkway, and provides a setting that is safe, accessible, and convenient for all modes of travel.
7. Provide offsite improvements for Atherton Drive and Antone Raymus Parkway to complete the circulation routes as planned in the Circulation Element of the City of Manteca’s General Plan.
8. Provide a comprehensive infrastructure system, including parks, open space, storm water quality facilities, roadways, and utilities infrastructure sized to serve the project and adjacent properties.
Discussion and Findings Relating to the Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR evaluates the following three alternatives, which are summarized below:
1. No Project (No Build) Alternative;
2. Reduced Density Alternative; and
Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
3. Agricultural Character Alternative.
No Project (No Build) Alternative
Under CEQA, a “No Project (No Build) Alternative” compares the impacts of proceeding with a proposed project with the impacts of not proceeding with the proposed project. A No Project (No Build) Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
The No Project (No Build) Alternative is defined in the Draft EIR as the continuation of the existing conditions of the Project site, which is currently planted with vineyards and contains a large barn, an office structure, a tree-lined driveway, and a 20,000-square-foot residence.
Because implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in the site remaining under current conditions, physical environmental impacts would not occur, and none of the project objectives would be met.
On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve any of the project objectives, and the City Council rejects this Alternative.
Reduced Density Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site with standard R-1 lots on 168.6 acres, as well as 16.2 acres of parkland. The standard R-1 lots would be built out at a maximum density of 2.1 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for a total of 354 residential units.
As such, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of approximately 385 less units than the proposed project. In addition, the 16.4 acres of Public/Quasi-Public land would not be included as part of the Reduced Density Alternative. Nonetheless, the Reduced Density Alternative would still require approval of an Annexation, a General Plan Amendment, Prezone, a Tentative Map, a Development Agreement, and Design Review Guidelines, similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Density Alternative would also require on- and off-site roadway and utility improvements, similar to the improvements considered for the proposed project.
The Draft EIR determined that the Reduced Density Alternative would achieve only half of the Project’s objectives. The Alternative would result in similar or fewer impacts to most resource areas, but would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation.
On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve a majority of the project objectives and its inability to avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation, and the City Council rejects this Alternative.
Agricultural Character Alternative
The Agricultural Character Alternative would consist of buildout of the western half of the project Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
site as proposed under project conditions, while the eastern half of the site, which includes the existing vineyards, large barn, office structure, tree-lined driveway, and 20,000-sf residence, would remain as is. The Agricultural Character Alternative would develop 281 single-family detached units, as well as 48 half-plex units for a total of 329 residential units. In addition, a total of 6.9 acres of parkland would be developed under the Alternative. As such, the Agricultural Character Alternative would result in the development of approximately 410 less residential units, and approximately 9.3 acres of parkland less than the proposed project. In addition, the
16.4 acres of Public/Quasi-Public land proposed under project conditions would not be included as part of the Alternative.
The Agricultural Character Alternative would still require approval of an Annexation, a General Plan Amendment, Prezone, a Tentative Map, a Development Agreement, and Design Review Guidelines, similar to the proposed project. On- and off-site roadway and utility improvements would still be required under the Agricultural Character Alternative, similar to the improvements considered for the proposed project.
The Draft EIR determined that the Agricultural Character Alternative would achieve only half of the Project’s objectives. The Alternative would result in fewer impacts to most resource areas, but would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation.
On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this Alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve a majority of the project objectives and its inability to avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources and transportation, and the City Council rejects this Alternative.
Findings Regarding Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The City Council finds that the range of alternatives evaluated in the EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most but not all of the project objectives. The City Council finds that the alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the City Council and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the City’s ability to achieve the project objectives.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15092, the City Council finds that in approving the Project it has eliminated or substantially reduced all significant and potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment where feasible, as shown in the EIR and described in these findings.
Even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, the Project would nonetheless cause a direct significant and unavoidable impact related to the following:
1. Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland to non-agricultural use.
Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
2. Impacts related to compliance with the policies of San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land.
3. Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
4. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Existing Plus Project Conditions.
5. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.
In the City Council’s judgment, the Project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The following Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies the reasons why, in the City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the Project, as approved, outweigh its unavoidable significant effects.
Any one of the stated reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason set forth in this Statement is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council finds that any individual reason is separately sufficient. This Statement is supported by the substantial evidence in the record of proceedings, including but not limited to, the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, the findings set forth above, and the documents incorporated by reference.
The following considerations support approval of the Project:
1. The Project would provide citywide and regional economic benefits through tax revenues and project fees.
2. Considering the nature and size of the Project, a substantial amount of construction workers would likely be needed in construction of the proposed residential uses and other proposed improvements, thereby creating jobs for local residents. Additionally, building materials would likely be purchased in the area, stimulating the local economy and businesses.
3. The Project would provide additional housing opportunities in the City of Manteca. Based on the City’s 2016 Housing Element Update, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the years 2023-2031 would require 5,120 residences. The Project would contribute an additional 738 residential units to increase the City’s housing supply, which would help the City satisfy its RHNA goals, as well as the goals of the California Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Senate Bill No. 330).
4. The Project would provide off-site improvements to Antone Raymus Parkway to help complete the circulation routes as planned in the Circulation Element of the City of Manteca’s General Plan.
The City Council has considered these benefits and considerations and has considered the significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project. The City Council has determined that the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project outweigh the identified impacts. The City Council has determined that the Project benefits set forth above override the significant and unavoidable environmental effects associated with the Project.
Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2
The City Council adopts the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, incorporated by reference into these findings, and finds that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from the Project, identified as significant and unavoidable in the Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits set forth in this Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines in support of approval of the Project.
Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT 2