City of Manteca
Development Services Department
Climate Action Plan Update
Initial Study/Negative Declaration
July 2025
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
ATTACHMENT 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 2 B. SOURCES ............................................................................................................. 3 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...................................... 3 D. DETERMINATION .................................................................................................. 4 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 5 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................... 6 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ........................................................................... 13 I. AESTHETICS. .....................................................................................................14 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES...................................................15 III. AIR QUALITY. .....................................................................................................17 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...............................................................................19 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES..................................................................................20 VI. ENERGY. ............................................................................................................21 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. .....................................................................................22 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. ....................................................................24 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS......................................................26 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...............................................................28 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING...............................................................................30 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.....................................................................................31 XIII. NOISE. ................................................................................................................32 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING...........................................................................33 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. ...........................................................................................34 XVI. RECREATION.....................................................................................................35 XVII. TRANSPORTATION. ..........................................................................................36 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. ...................................................................38 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. ...............................................................39 XX. WILDFIRE. ..........................................................................................................41 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE..................................................42 ATTACHMENT 3
INITIAL STUDY
July 2025
A. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Climate Action Plan Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Manteca
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Toben Barnum
Associate Planner
(209) 456-8517
4. Project Location: Manteca, CA
5. Project Applicant’s Name and Address: City of Manteca Development Services Department
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
6. Existing and Proposed General Plan Designation: Citywide (project not changing designations)
7. Existing and Proposed Zoning Designation: Citywide
(project not changing designations)
8. Required Approvals from Other Public Agencies: None
9. Project Description Summary:
The City of Manteca is committed to addressing climate change at the local level by updating the City of Manteca Climate Action Plan (CAP). The proposed CAP is intended to streamline future environmental reviews of development projects in the City of Manteca by assuring compliance with all relevant statewide regulations related to climate change.
The Draft CAP Update has been designed to effectively address State regulatory requirements by reducing citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Draft CAP Update includes a baseline inventory of GHG emissions, emission forecasts associated with growth of the City, and emissions reduction strategies in accordance with State requirements.
10. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:
In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21080.3.1), on June 23, 2025 the City provided formal notification letters to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of ATTACHMENT 3
the San Francisco Bay, Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. Responses were not received during the required consultation period.
B. SOURCES
The Draft CAP Update is available upon request at the City of Manteca Development Services, located at 1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201, Manteca. Office hours are Monday through Thursday, 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM. The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purposes of this Initial Study:
1. California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality.
November 16, 2022.
2. California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2019 Edition. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed April 2025.
3. California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. 2023.
4. California Department of Conservation. Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and Seismic Hazard Zone Maps. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information-warehouse. 2016. Accessed May 14, 2025.
5. California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed May 14, 2025.
6. California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/. Accessed June 2025.
7. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones. October 2, 2007.
8. City of Manteca. Environmental Impact Report – Volume I for the Manteca General Plan Update. November 2022.
9. City of Manteca. Final Water Master Plan. February 2024.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population and Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
ATTACHMENT 3
D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Toben Barnum, Associate Planner City of Manteca
Printed Name For
July 28, 2025
ATTACHMENT 3
E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
The following document is an Initial Study resulting in a Negative Declaration (IS/ND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the City of Manteca Draft CAP Update (Proposed Project). The IS/ND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. Pursuant to Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines, the IS/ND includes an environmental checklist used to describe the impacts of the Proposed Project.
The City of Manteca recognized the need to update the 2013 CAP to ensure accurate city-wide emissions data and up-to-date measures. Progress has been made to improve the methodology used for GHG emissions estimates. In 2020, the baseline GHG emissions were estimated for the City of Manteca. The CAP Update GHG inventory relies on information provided from various departments within the City of Manteca, as well as applicable external sources. Where updated information was not available, population growth estimates and per capita emissions rate were used to calculate changes in GHG emissions.
Regulatory Background
GHG emissions are monitored and regulated through the efforts of various international, federal, state, and local government agencies. Agencies work jointly and individually to reduce GHG emissions through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. The State of California considers GHG emissions to be a serious threat to the wellbeing of California citizens. In response, California has adopted a variety of regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions. One such regulation is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, adopted in 2006. AB 32 requires the reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop a Scoping Plan and regulations to meet the 2020 goal. Based on recent statewide emissions inventories, the CARB determined that the year 2020 emissions reductions goals were achieved four years ahead of the target, in the year 2016, and statewide emissions have continued to decline since 2016.1 Beyond the initial Scoping Plan, Scoping Plan updates have been adopted in 2008, 2014, 2017, and 2022 all setting the path for achievement of California’s reduction requirements.
The most recent update to the Scoping Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan Update) was adopted by the CARB in December 2022.2 The 2022 Scoping Plan Update builds upon previous efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is designed to continue to shift the California economy away from dependence on fossil fuels. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update, the most comprehensive and far-reaching Scoping Plan developed to date, identifies a technologically feasible and cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 while also assessing the progress California is making toward reducing its GHG emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as called for in SB 32 and laid out in the 2017 Scoping Plan.
The 2030 target is an interim but important steppingstone along the critical path to the broader goal of deep decarbonization by 2045. In addition to SB 32 and AB 32, the State has adopted various pieces of legislation related to climate change and GHG emission reductions. An extensive list of GHG-related legislation can be found at the CARB website (https://www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/mandates.html). 1 California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory – 2019 Edition. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed April 2025. 2 California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 3
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project Description section of this IS/ND includes a general overview of the contents of the Draft CAP Update. Such contents include the project location and setting, the purpose of the Proposed Project, local influence of climate change, summaries of the emissions inventories conducted for the City, projected GHG emissions, and GHG emissions reduction targets and measures.
Project Location and Setting
The City of Manteca is located along the intersection of State Route (SR) 99 and State Route (SR) 120 in California’s Central Valley, between the cities of Stockton and Modesto (see Figure 1). The City of Manteca is approximately 30 minutes away from the Sierra Foothills and the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. Folsom Lake, San Francisco, and the California Coast are all within a two-hour drive. Manteca is continuously growing and is now home to approximately 89,000 residents. The CAP Update pertains to all areas of the City including within the City of Manteca’s General Plan Boundary, as shown in Figure 2 below. Generally, the General Plan Boundary extends from West Ripon Road and Sedan Road in the south, French Camp Road in the north, Prescott Road and unnamed roads in the east, and the Union Pacific Railway in the west.
Purpose of the Draft CAP Update
In recognition of the State’s existing regulations regarding GHG emissions reductions, and that climate change poses a risk to the constituents and community of the City of Manteca, the City is acting to reduce the GHG emissions, or “carbon footprint,” of both its government operations and the general operations of the City through the creation of a Draft CAP Update. With the creation of an updated baseline inventory of GHG emissions, emissions forecasts associated with buildout of the City, and reduction strategies necessary to meet mandatory State requirements, the Draft CAP Update is intended to significantly reduce GHG emissions, as well as yield economic and other benefits. The benefits would be seen in cleaner air, reduced traffic, less dependence on fossil fuels, improved quality of life, greater resilience to the effects of climate change, and financial savings to the City and residents of Manteca. The Draft CAP Update also identifies how the City would achieve consistency with the statewide emissions limits and the 2022 Scoping Plan Update prepared by the CARB.
As part of the scope for the preparation of the Draft CAP Update, the City performed public outreach through meetings open to the City of Manteca as well as the Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee (CAPAC). CAPAC meetings allowed staff to obtain direction from the committee members and the public regarding the community’s interests and goals related to emission reduction measures. Based upon the directions received during the Committee meetings, the Draft CAP Update was prepared.
GHG Emissions Inventory
Since the preparation of the 2013 CAP, the City of Manteca recognized the need for up-to-date and accurate emissions data. Significant progress has been made to refine and improve the methodology for emissions estimation since the previous CAP. In 2020, the baseline GHG inventory was prepared for the City of Manteca. The most recent 2020 GHG inventory relied on the most up-to-date methodology provided by the Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative (SEEC). SEEC is an alliance of private companies, public utility companies, and nongovernmental organizations that provide information and technical assistance to California cities and counties to aid in the reduction of GHG emissions and increase in energy efficiency.
ATTACHMENT 3
Figure 1
Regional Project Location
City of Manteca
ATTACHMENT 3
Figure 2
City of Manteca General Plan Boundaries and Land Use Map ATTACHMENT 3
To facilitate such goals, the SEEC prepared ClearPath California. ClearPath California is a suite of tools designed to measure and track GHG emissions within communities in California. Based on user-provided data such as community energy use, vehicle use, water consumption, wastewater treatment, and solid waste generation, ClearPath provides GHG inventories for both the operation of municipal governments and the larger community that such municipalities serve.
Thus, ClearPath was used for the emissions inventory and emissions forecasting prepared for the City of Manteca. The CAP Update relies on information provided by various departments within the City of Manteca, including regarding the City’s vehicle fleet, solid waste division, water and wastewater infrastructure, and facilities. Further information used in drafting this CAP Update was provided by Cal-Waste, Medical and Transportation Management (MTM) Transit, and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). For sources that specific updated information was not available, changes in emissions were estimated based on population growth within the City of Manteca between 2013 and 2020 and per capita emissions rates. The estimated Citywide GHG emissions for the year 2020 are presented in Figure 3. The emissions levels in Figure 3 are presented in the common unit of measurement for GHG emissions, which is annual metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e). GHG emissions for the year 2020 totaled approximately 730,202 MTCO2e.
Figure 3
City of Manteca 2020 GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)
Source: City of Manteca. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan Update. April 2025.
Mobile emissions sources, related to transportation (such as on-road vehicles as well as off-road equipment), represent the majority of emissions on a communitywide basis and were estimated from existing GHG emissions, growth rates, and data from the Emission Factor (EMFAC) model.
All emissions were calculated using ClearPath California and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) recommended methodologies. 72%
523,215
9%
65,272
8%
56,157
6%
45,578
5%
33,715
1,310, 0.18%
Transportation
Residential Energy
Solid Waste
Process & Fugitive
Emissions
Commerical Energy
Water & Wastewater
ATTACHMENT 3
GHG Emissions Forecasting
The City’s 2043 General Plan established a vision for growth within the City’s Planning area.
Using both data from the City of Manteca as well as San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), the City of Manteca is anticipated to grow from 83,498 to 114,934 residents by the year 2030, and 165,302 residents by the year 2045.
Based on the existing emissions levels and anticipated growth within the City of Manteca, future emissions were forecasted. Emissions forecasts were conducted under two forecasting scenarios. The first emissions forecast scenario, hereinafter referred to as the Business As Usual (BAU) forecast scenario, does not include any statewide or local actions that may reduce GHG emissions. Thus, the BAU forecasts present a worst-case emissions scenario predicting the emissions that could occur, under the growth scenarios discussed above, should the City of Manteca and State fail to act sufficiently to control future GHG emissions. However, statewide emissions reductions strategies are in place related to electricity generation and demand, transportation, and various other emissions sources, and such strategies will work to reduce GHG emissions from activities within the City of Manteca even in the absence of a City adopted CAP.
Therefore, a second emissions forecasting scenario has been prepared that depicts Citywide emissions that would occur in the absence of specific City policies to reduce GHG emissions, but with implementation of statewide programs that would work to reduce emissions from activities in the City. The emissions forecast presented under the second scenario is considered more likely to occur because statewide programs have been legislated and are currently being enacted, but the worst-case emissions forecast provided by the BAU forecast scenario is useful for analysis purposes and required for qualified CAPs.
Business As Usual Forecast
Under the BAU assumptions that neither the City’s CAP nor statewide emissions reductions policies were to be implemented, as shown in Table 1, the communitywide GHG emissions would rise from the inventoried level of 730,202 MTCO2e per year to 798,932 MTCO2e per year by 2030 and 1,126,290 MTCO2e by the year 2045.
Table 1
City of Manteca Community BAU Emissions Estimates
2020 2030 2045
Population 83,498 114,934 165,302
Total Community
Emissions 730,202 798,932 1,126,290
Per Capita Emissions
Rate 8.75 6.95 6.81
Source: City of Manteca. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan Update. April 2025.
Statewide Programs Forecast
Full implementation of currently adopted statewide policies would result in substantial reductions to existing sources of emissions while also reducing the amount of emissions that would be anticipated from future development. As a result, due to the continued growth of the City of Manteca, GHG emissions are anticipated to rise from the 2020 inventory level of 730,202 MTCO2e per year to 798,932 MTCO2e per year by 2030. Additionally, as growth intensifies within the City of Manteca past the year 2030, emissions are anticipated to rise to a buildout level of 1,126,290 MTCO2e per year in 2045. Estimated population, emissions level, and per capita emissions rates with inclusion of statewide programs are presented in Table 2.
ATTACHMENT 3
The emissions reductions between the BAU forecast and the forecast with state programs are due to a number of factors. The most prominent factors are reductions in the GHG emissions intensity of electricity consumed in the City, and the reduction in vehicle emissions per mile, both of which would result from full implementation of existing State legislation.
Table 2
City of Manteca Community Emissions Estimates with State Programs
2020 2030 2045
Population 83,498 114,934 165,302
Total Community
Emissions 730,202 756,627 790,265
Per Capita Emissions
Rate 8.75 6.58 4.78
Source: City of Manteca. City of Manteca Climate Action Plan Update. April 2025.
GHG Emission Reduction Targets
California’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, which was adopted by the CARB on December 15, 2022,3 establishes goals for local communities that GHG emissions should not exceed 40 percent below 1990 levels, and for Statewide emissions to reach carbon neutrality by 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update builds upon and remains consistent with the Statewide emissions limits established by AB 32, SB 32, SB 391, and EO S-3-05 and EO B-55-18.
Considering the implementation of currently adopted statewide emissions reductions measures, as shown in Table 2, activities within the City of Manteca are anticipated to result in per capita emissions of 6.58 in the year 2030 and 4.78 in the year 2045. Compared to the Scoping Plan’s emissions targets, the City of Manteca is on track to achieve the emissions targets by the year 2030. Although emissions are anticipated to continue to decrease, emissions would remain above the Scoping Plan’s year 2045 goal. In order for the City of Manteca to meet the year 2045 target, the City of Manteca must adopt reduction measures to reduce estimated future emissions in the year 2045 by a total of 790,265 MTCO2e, which represents 70 percent of the forecasted emissions in 2045.
GHG Emission Reduction Measures
The Draft CAP Update includes emission reduction strategies intended to reduce communitywide emissions in-line with the Scoping Plan’s per capita emissions target for the year 2045. Emission reduction strategies are separated into five categories: transportation, land use, energy, solid waste, and water. Although the Draft CAP Update does not demonstrate compliance with the per capita emissions goals for the year 2045 of carbon neutrality, the emissions reduction measures included in the Draft CAP Update represent the maximum feasible emissions reductions that can be achieved by the City under current conditions. In order to ensure that Citywide GHG emissions comply with statewide per capita emissions goals for the year 2045, the Draft CAP Update requires that the City prepare future updates to the CAP. The reduction strategies associated with each category are briefly described below.
Transportation
Transportation-related GHG emission reduction measures proposed in the Draft CAP Update include improvements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, increased use of public transit, 3 California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 15, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 3
promotion of safe routes to schools, optimization of City-owned vehicles, support for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, congestion management, and promoting alternative modes of transportation within the City. For example, Transportation Measure 1 directs the City to improve bicycle infrastructure through implementation of the City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan, which is available for public viewing at the City, as well as at the following webpage:
https://www.manteca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/active-transportation-plan.
Transportation Measure 2 aims to implement traffic congestion management, thus reducing vehicle speeds within the City and promoting alternative transportation. Transportation Measure 3 improves the City’s infrastructure related to alternative transportation, therefore reducing the Citywide VMT. Furthermore, Transportation Measure 4 focuses on promoting alternative transportation through updated parking standards. Related to Municipal operations, Transportation Measure 5 aims to optimize the City’s vehicle fleet. Transportation Measure 6 supports the adoption of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and alternative fuels within the City. Transportation Measure 7 is specifically designed to reduce VMT through participation in Transportation Management Associations. In addition, Transportation Measure 8 seeks to reduce mobile and area sources emissions from construction and landscaping equipment. Finally, Transportation Measure 9 plans to work with the local school district to improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and implement safe routes to school for new developments.
Land Use
The Draft CAP Update proposes measures that would help the City of Manteca reduce GHG emissions related to land uses within the City. If implemented, Land Use Measure 1 of the Draft CAP Update would encourage reuse of existing buildings for new projects, which can result in increased energy efficiency in existing buildings and reduce the need for new development outside of the City’s existing footprint. In addition, Land Use Measure 2 discusses compliance with the State Affordable Housing Requirements and the resulting increase in density would reduce emissions. The Draft CAP Update also includes Land Use Measure 3, which presents a variety of approaches to sustainable growth within the City, namely encouraging mixed use and infill development, as increasing density can lead to increased uses of alternative means of transportation. Furthermore, the Draft CAP Update includes Land Use Measure 4 which directs the City to create an Urban Tree Program to include maintenance of existing trees, the planting of new trees, and tree protection guidelines. Increased tree canopy cover reduces energy demand, encourages alternative modes of transportation, sequesters carbon, and reduces municipal government operational costs through benefits related to stormwater reduction and reduced pavement maintenance.
Building Efficiency
The Draft CAP Update includes several measures related to Citywide building efficiency that would contribute to the overall goal of reducing GHG emissions. Building Efficiency Measure 1 aims to identify and apply renewable energy production, such as solar projects. Furthermore, Building Efficiency Measure 2 establishes Citywide goals of reducing municipal energy demands through energy audits and infrastructure improvements. Building Efficiency Measure 3 aims to apply the most recent California Building Code and encourage homeowners to participate in Home Energy Score programs. Building Efficiency Measure 4 encourages property owners to participate in energy programs. Building Efficiency Measure 5 ensures consistency with applicable CALGreen Codes. Building Efficiency Measure 6 supports energy efficient building design to reduce energy demand. Building Efficiency Measure 7 evaluates, during the design of new municipal structures, compliance with CALGreen and the reduction of fossil fuel use. Finally, ATTACHMENT 3
Building Efficiency Measure 8 aims to save energy by improving streetlights and encourages implementation of off grid lighting for future developments.
Solid Waste
The Draft CAP Update includes solid waste reduction measures that would reduce emissions related to solid waste disposal within the City. In order to reduce emissions from solid waste disposal in the City, Solid Waste Measure 1 encourages increased recycling within the City, while Solid Waste Measure 2 encourages expanded yard waste and organics collection. In addition, Solid Waste Measure 3 directs the City to investigate the feasibility of improving the landfill gas system and continuing the development of composting/digestion facilities.
PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS OR MAY BE REQUIRED:
(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) The City of Manteca has sole approval authority over the Draft CAP Update. The project does not require the approval of any other public agencies.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the Proposed ProjectProject. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.
No Impact: The project would not have any impact.
ATTACHMENT 3
I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
Discussion
a-d. The City of Manteca is located in San Joaquin County along SR 99. The Draft CAP Update evaluated in this IS/ND is a policy level document intended to ensure that the City is compliant with applicable regulations and guidelines related to GHG emissions. The Draft CAP Update would not directly result in new development or redevelopment of existing properties within the City. Because the Draft CAP Update would not result in any direct construction or physical changes within the City, degradation of the visual character or quality of any sites within the City would not occur. Additionally, the Draft CAP Update would not result in additional sources of light or glare within the City. While some of the measures presented in the Draft CAP Update may promote the development of features that could result in new sources of light or glare or that could have the potential to affect the visual character of the City, such as new bike paths or solar panels, the Draft CAP Update would not directly result in the construction of new infrastructure. In addition, future developments within the City would be subject to existing City regulations in addition to the City’s CAP Update. For instance, development within the City is subject to General Plan Policy CD-2.10 and Policy CD-2.11, both of which would reduce the potential for development related to CAP policies to result in impacts related to light or glare.
Furthermore, the Draft CAP Update could indirectly improve the aesthetic qualities of the City by adding trees and vegetation to the landscape. Overall, impacts related to aesthetics would be less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 3
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. Although the City of Manteca includes areas identified on the California Important Farmland Map as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, the Proposed Project would not result in direct development which would result in the conversion of such farmland.4 The Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document intended to reduce the City’s GHG emissions and would not directly result in new development or the conversion of any agricultural land to non-agricultural land.
Furthermore, the Draft CAP Update specifically encourages infill development and the reuse of existing development, which would reduce the conversion of farmland on the edges of the City, by focusing on development within the previously developed portions of the City. For example, the Draft CAP Update includes Land Use Measure 1, which is intended to promote the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and underutilized portions of the City. Although the Draft CAP Update would encourage sustainable growth and associated infrastructure, because the Draft CAP Update would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use, no impact would occur. b. The City of Manteca contains various portions of land zoned for agricultural uses; however, only a few parcels of land throughout the City are under a Williamson Act contract.5 Nonetheless, the Draft CAP Update would not involve any changes to zoning or Williamson Act contracts, as the Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur. 4 California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed May 14, 2025. 5 California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/. Accessed June 2025.
ATTACHMENT 3
c-e. The City does not contain land that is considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact with regard to the conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.
ATTACHMENT 3
III. AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion
a-d. The City of Manteca is within San Joaquin Valley, which is within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and under the jurisdiction of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). California and the federal government have established air quality standards for various pollutants. SJVAPCD has adopted thresholds of significance for various pollutants to maintain attainment of federal and State air quality standards. SJVAPCD air quality standards are health based and have been adopted to assist in attaining and maintaining the ozone and particulate matter standards.
The Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not propose direct development or other physical changes within the City of Manteca. While the proposed measures of the Draft CAP Update may encourage various development and improvements that may require construction activities, such as improvements to transportation infrastructure, emissions and impacts associated with any future activities would be subject to subsequent environmental review and would be required to comply with the General Plan and relevant federal, State, and local air quality goals and plans.
The Draft CAP’s intention is to propose measures to reduce GHG emissions to target levels set by the State of California. Direct construction or operations that could deteriorate air quality would not occur as a result of the implementation of the Draft CAP. In addition, many of the measures proposed by the Draft CAP Update have the secondary benefit of reducing pollutants in the air. For example, promoting alternative modes of transportation within the City would not only result in GHG emission reductions but criteria pollutants reductions as well.
Typical development projects can involve other emissions, such as dust or those leading to odors. The Draft CAP Update does not propose direct development and would not directly result in activities that would lead to other emissions such as emissions of dust resulting from land clearing. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative or formulaic methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist. Typical odor-generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composting facilities. The Draft CAP Update is a policy level document that would not result in such activities and would not include any odor-producing operations. Although the Draft CAP Update would not directly result in the development of odor producing facilities, the Draft CAP Update does include measures that would promote the use of composting facilities and other forms of organic waste disposal. For instance, Solid Waste Measure 3 of the Draft CAP Update encourages the ATTACHMENT 3
City to investigate the increased use of biodigesters, while Waste Measure 2 directs the City to expand the collection of organic wastes. Organic waste collected under Solid Waste Measure 2 would be composted in accordance with all existing regulations for composting facilities. Waste Measure 3 directs the City to investigate the feasibility of expanding the capacity for organic waste and improvements to existing biodigesters but would not directly result in the installation and operation of a biodigester. Rather, any potential future changes to biodigesters would be implemented in compliance with the City’s existing land use regulations. In particular, any future developments regarding biodigesters would be subject to the land use regulations contained within the City of Manteca’s Municipal Code, and additional development of biodigesters within the City would likely require special review under Section 18.68.090 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Improvement of biodigesters would likely result in the reduction of methane emissions from landfills. Considering that the Draft CAP Update would not directly result in development of uses that would produce odors or other emissions, and that activities encouraged in the Draft CAP, such as increased composting and future improvements of biodigesters would be subject to existing City regulations, the Draft CAP Update would not result in impacts related to the emission of odors.
Consequently, the Draft CAP Update would indirectly result in a long-term beneficial effect related to air quality and would not result in impacts related to odors or other emissions.
Therefore, the Draft CAP Update would have a less-than-significant impact related to air quality.
ATTACHMENT 3
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. 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. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
a-e. The Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document intended to assist the City of Manteca in meeting GHG emission reduction targets established by the State of California. The Draft CAP Update does not include plans for any site-specific developments, designs, or proposals that would result in direct disturbance of wildlife habitat in the area, including any special-status species habitats, riparian habitat, or federally protected wetlands. While the Draft CAP Update includes measures that, if implemented, could result in development or construction, any such improvements would be subject to additional environmental review and would be required to adhere to all federal, State, and local regulations as they apply to biological resources. Because the Draft CAP Update would not result in disturbance of any biological resources, the Proposed Project would result in a less-thansignificant impact. f. The City of Manteca is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The SJMSCP is intended to ensure the preservation of species, natural communities, and aquatic resources in the Plan Area. The Draft CAP Update would not result in any direct development, and, thus, would not conflict with policies or provisions set forth in the SJMSCP. However, any future development resulting from the Draft CAP Update would comply with SJMSCP. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact related to a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
ATTACHMENT 3
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Discussion
a. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, Manteca does not contain buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Resources. However, within the planning area, 95 previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and six built resources have been identified by the San Joaquin County Historic Property Data File Directory.6 The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include specific development proposals, nor does the CAP Update grant any entitlements for development that would disturb historical resources in the City. Although the Draft CAP Update encourages reuse of existing developments within the City, such reuse would be required to comply with all existing regulations related to historic resources including the California State Historical Building Code. Compliance with State regulations related to the reuse of historic structures would ensure that should such structures be proposed for reuse, reuses would not diminish the historic nature of such structures, while supporting the goals of the Draft CAP.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to historical resources.
b,c. The Proposed Project is intended to set goals and implementation measures to ensure that the City of Manteca meets the State of California GHG emission reduction requirement for the year 2030 and stay on course to meet the 2045 State of California GHG emission reduction target. Because direct development or ground disturbing activities would not be included as part of the Draft CAP, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to result in any adverse changes in the significance of unique archaeological resources or disturbance of any human remains. Implementation of the Draft CAP Update reduction measures may require future development or improvements, such as solar panels or building improvements; however, each future improvement would be subject to review by the City of Manteca to ensure the project is in compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be required to adhere to all necessary federal, State, and local regulations relating to cultural resources. Compliance with such would ensure that any impacts associated with future development or improvements related to implementation of the Draft CAP Update reduction measures would be minimized. Therefore, because the Draft CAP Update would not involve any direct physical development, a less-than-significant impact to unique archaeological and human remains would occur.
6 City of Manteca. Environmental Impact Report – Volume I for the Manteca General Plan Update. [pg. 3.5-14].
November 2022.
ATTACHMENT 3
VI. ENERGY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is intended to help the City meet GHG emission reduction targets set by the State of California. While the Draft CAP Update does not propose specific development, implementation of the GHG reduction measures would include a number of energy-efficiency improvements, such as Building Efficiency Measures 2 and 5, which would result in the transition of natural gas appliances to electric appliances and would phase in zero net energy (ZNE) requirements for residential and commercial developments, respectively. Using all-electric appliances in existing and new development would reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources in the City, reducing the consumption of such resources. In order for new development to meet ZNE requirements, new development would be required to meet high standards of energy efficiency, and on-site renewable energy generation would likely be required. Moreover, new development in the City would continue to be required to meet the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) requirements related to energy efficiency and green building standards. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, otherwise known as the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), is a portion of the CBSC which became effective with the rest of the CBSC on January 1, 2023.7 The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts that reduce negative impacts while encouraging sustainability. The CBSC standards regulate the method of use, properties, performance, types of materials used in construction, alteration repair, improvement and rehabilitation of structures or improvements to properties. The 2022 standards provide for additional efficiency improvements beyond the 2019 standards. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards expand upon energy efficiency measures from the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, resulting in a further reduction in energy consumption from the 2019 standards for residential structures. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards include requirements that encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new homes, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation standards. Therefore, in combination with the CBSC and other state standards, the Draft CAP Update would promote energy efficiency, and, thus, would result in no impact related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, nor would the Draft CAP Update conflict with a state or local renewable energy or energy efficiency plans. 7 California Building Standards Commission. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code. 2023.
ATTACHMENT 3
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be 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. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The City of Manteca’s topography is relatively flat and Manteca is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, in the immediate vicinity of an active fault, nor within a Landslide and Liquefaction Zone.8 The nearest mapped fault to the City is the San Joaquin Fault and the nearest active fault is the Greenville Fault, which is located over 20 miles west of the City. According to the Manteca 2043 General Plan EIR, ground shaking hazards could potentially occur due to faults located outside the planning area.9 The Proposed Project does not include any site-specific development, as the Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document intended to help reduce GHG emissions in the City of Manteca. While the Draft CAP Update includes measures that may result in future physical development, such as building and retrofitting bike paths, all relevant improvements would be subject to compliance with the City’s General Plan relating to seismic hazards, as well as all other applicable federal and State policies, including the CBSC. Compliance with such would ensure that any impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure associated with future developments would be minimized. Therefore, the Draft CAP Update, would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of 8 California Department of Conservation. Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and Seismic Hazard Zone Maps. Available at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information-warehouse. 2016. Accessed May 14, 2025. 9 City of Manteca. Environmental Impact Report – Volume I for the Manteca General Plan Update. [pg. 5.0-26].
November 2022.
ATTACHMENT 3
a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground failure, or landslides and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b-e. The Draft CAP Update does not directly include any site-specific development, design, or proposals. Thus, substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would not occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Similarly, effects related to unstable soils, such as on- or off-site landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, lateral spreading, or expansive soils, would not occur as a direct result of the Draft CAP. Because the Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include any specific development, impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems would not occur. Therefore, impacts would be less-than-significant. f. The Proposed Project would not include development or ground disturbing activities that would result in the discovery of known or unknown paleontological resources. The Draft CAP Update is designed to help the City of Manteca meet GHG reduction thresholds established by the State. While the GHG reduction measures included in the Draft CAP Update may recommend improvements throughout the City, the project does not include any specific physical development. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource, and no impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 3
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion
a. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include any specific development. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in generation of GHG emissions. The goal of the Draft CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions within the City of Manteca to meet the State GHG emission reduction targets.
For example, the Draft CAP Update includes policies designed to reduce GHG emissions from future development (Building Efficiency Measure 5, which ensures the application of the applicable CALGreen Code), as well as policies designed to reduce GHG emissions from existing developments (Transportation Measure 9 encourages the expansion of the City’s Safe Routes to School Program). Accordingly, the Proposed Project would have an overall long-term beneficial effect related to GHG emissions and global climate change.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The Draft CAP Update sets forth strategies to reduce GHG emissions within the City in an effort to comply with State Regulations, particularly the GHG emission reduction goals set forth in AB 32 and SB 32. The Draft CAP Update is also intended to yield other benefits as the City would be less dependent on fossil fuels, improve citizens’ quality of life, and increase financial savings. The Draft CAP Update also identifies how the City would achieve consistency with the statewide emissions limits and the 2022 Scoping Plan Update prepared by the CARB. The goal of the Draft CAP Update is to account for the City of Manteca’s proportionate share of the Statewide GHG emissions reduction targets decided in SB 32 and to strive to meet the State’s long-term target of carbon neutrality by 2045, as set by Executive Order (EO) B-55-18 and the 2022 Scoping Plan Update.
Additionally, it should be noted that the emissions limits within the 2022 Scoping Plan are intended to be consistent with the legislative goals of AB 32, SB 32, and EO B-55-18. As further discussed in the Draft CAP, Citywide emissions are anticipated to comply with statewide reduction goals by reducing Manteca GHG emissions to approximately 5.3 MTCO2e/yr/capita by 2030. In order to ensure that Citywide GHG emissions comply with statewide per capita emissions goals of carbon neutrality for the year 2045, the Draft CAP Update requires that the City prepare future updates to the CAP. Future updates will occur on a five-year basis, as required by Measure RC-4a within the City’s General Plan and the City’s General Plan EIR. Future updates to the Draft CAP Update would monitor progress made towards emissions reductions and would integrate new or updated emissions reductions strategies. The Draft CAP Update reduction strategies would serve to reduce building energy consumption, water consumption, City-wide VMT, and solid waste production within the City. Thus, the Draft CAP Update creates a GHG emissions reduction strategy for the City of Manteca, which is consistent with Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, over time, the Draft CAP Update would reduce GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future projects and applicable plans within Manteca to ensure compliance with State regulations. Thus, the Draft CAP ATTACHMENT 3
Update would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions, including the 2022 Scoping Plan Update.
The Draft CAP Update provides significant progress towards the City of Manteca meeting the State goals, and would result in a substantial reduction of GHG emissions rather than generating GHG emissions. Therefore, the Draft CAP Update would be considered directly compliant with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The impact would be less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 3
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the likely release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Discussion
a-d. The Proposed Project is a policy-level document and does not involve any physical development. As such, the Proposed Project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not create reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accidental conditions resulting in the release of hazardous or toxic materials. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update would not involve construction or operations that involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of a school. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not directly involve development activity located on any sites that are included on a list of materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Thus, the impacts associated with such would be less-than-significant.
e. The City of Manteca is located approximately six miles south of Stockton Metropolitan Airport. However, the Draft CAP Update would not involve any new development and, therefore, would not result in any safety hazards for people residing or working in the area related to airports or private air strips. As a result, no impact would occur. f. The Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific development plans or designs. The San Joaquin County has an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) adopted February 17, 2022. The Draft CAP Update would not physically interfere with the adopted EOP. Therefore, the Draft CAP Update would result in no impact regarding emergency response or evacuation plans.
ATTACHMENT 3
g. According to the San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones map, the City of Manteca does not contain any fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ).10 In addition, according to the Manteca 2043 General Plan EIR, portions of the City of Manteca that are urbanized are not at high risk for wildland fires.11 Although the Draft CAP Update includes GHG reduction measures that may affect future development within the City, the Draft CAP Update would not directly result in any development or improvements that would increase the risk of wildland fires. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to wildland fires.
10 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones. October 2, 2007. 11 City of Manteca. Environmental Impact Report – Volume I for the Manteca General Plan Update. [pg. 3.16-1].
November 2022.
ATTACHMENT 3
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Discussion
a,b,e The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that would not risk violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Additionally, the project would not affect the local groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. In addition, Water Conservation Measure 2 of the Draft CAP Update incorporates water efficient designs for new municipal facilities and incentivizes the community to install water efficient landscaping. Thus, the Draft CAP Update would aid in sustainable groundwater management.
The City of Manteca 2024 Water Master Plan (WMP) was updated in February 2024.12 The purpose of the WMP is to maintain efficient use of urban water supplies and continue to promote conservation programs and policies. The Draft CAP Update includes emissions reduction measures intended to reduce GHG emissions within the City. For example, Water Conservation Measures 1 and 3 of the Draft CAP Update aim to increase community water use efficiency and reduce emissions from wastewater treatment, respectively. Although some of the emissions reductions measures may affect future development within the City, the Draft CAP Update would not directly result in new development that would conflict with the City’s UWMP. Moreover, as noted in Chapter 3, Regional Impacts of Climate Change, within the Draft CAP Update, climate change threatens the continued recharge of groundwater in the region. By implementing GHG 12 City of Manteca. Final Water Master Plan. February 2024.
ATTACHMENT 3
reduction measures, the Draft CAP Update would help sustainable management of the City’s existing groundwater resources.
Consequently, the Proposed Project would not substantially degrade surface or ground water quality or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c,d. The Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include any site-specific development and, thus, would not result in substantial erosion, affect drainage patterns, or increase runoff. Overall, measures included within the Draft CAP Update would encourage infill development and an urban tree program which could help reduce erosion and runoff.
While the City of Manteca contains various areas subject to flooding, the Draft CAP Update does not include any new development within the City. Accordingly, implementation of the Draft CAP Update would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns within the City, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. Because the project would not alter existing drainage patterns, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing drainage systems, or impede or redirect flood flows.
Although the Draft CAP Update encourages infill development and development that would reuse existing development sites in the City, such development would be initiated by private entities and development would be subject to project-specific environmental review. Additionally, the City of Manteca is not located near a coastline, so a tsunami is not likely to occur within the area. Furthermore, the Draft CAP Update does not include development and would risk release of pollutants by being located in a seiche zone.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact related to such would occur.
ATTACHMENT 3
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include any direct development. The Draft CAP Update is intended to help the City of Manteca meet GHG reduction targets. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact related to the physical division of an established community. b. The Draft CAP Update includes proposed measures that would help the City of Manteca meet GHG emission reduction targets imposed by the State. The State’s emissions reduction targets are specifically designed to avoid environmental effects related to climate change; therefore, the Draft CAP Update’s compliance with such reduction targets demonstrates compliance with Statewide regulations related to avoiding the environmental effects of climate change. The Draft CAP Update reduction measures would be compliant with, or include direct implementation of, City documents, building code requirements, development standards, design guidelines, and standard practices.
Such standards are evaluated on a project-by-project basis and include, but are not limited to, compliance with regulations such as the CALGreen Code, the City’s Municipal Code, the State’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, and the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.
To ensure the success of the Draft CAP, the City would integrate the goals and strategies of the CAP into other local plans, programs, and activities. As the City moves forward with any future General Plan updates, Municipal Code updates, Housing Element updates, and other planning documents, staff would ensure the updates are consistent with the CAP Update. Additionally, General Plan Measure RC-4a requires the CAP to be updated by 2025 and reviewed on a five-year basis to remain consistent with State-adopted GHG reduction targets. Thus, the CAP Update ensures consistency with the City’s General plan.
Upon approval and adoption, all development within the City of Manteca would be required to comply with the CAP Update, which is intended to reduce GHG emissions to appropriate levels and mitigate the environmental effects of climate change. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 3
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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. 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?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Manteca is within the San Joaquin Valley where the mineral resources are primarily sand and gravel aggregate with minimal peat, gold, and silver mining. The Draft CAP Update is intended to reduce GHG emissions and does not include any physical development. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally-important mineral resource recovery site, and no impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 3
XIII. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document with the sole purpose of meeting Statewide GHG emission reduction targets. The GHG emission reduction measures included in the Draft CAP Update do not propose specific development, rather, the measures would aim to reduce overall vehicle use, and, thus, traffic noise would be reduced. For example, the Draft CAP Update includes measures that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, including bike and walking paths, which would reduce the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City. In addition, the Draft CAP Update supports installation of electric vehicle charging stations at existing and future commercial developments within the City. Electric vehicle charging stations would promote the use of electric and hybrid vehicles, which are quieter than gasoline-powered vehicles, which could result in reduced street noise. Implementation of the measures set forth in the Draft CAP Update may require future improvements that would result in temporary increased noise levels; however, the improvements would be subject to projectspecific environmental review and would be required to comply the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code standards. Because the Draft CAP Update does not include direct development, the Proposed Project would not increase noise generation or groundborne vibration and a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. The City of Manteca is located approximately six miles south of Stockton Metropolitan Airport. The Draft CAP Update would not involve any specific development and, therefore, would not be located within two miles of a public or private airport, or expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. As a result, no impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 3
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a,b. The Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include direct development of new homes or businesses and would not induce substantial population growth. While buildout is expected to occur in the City of Manteca through the year 2043, the Draft CAP Update would not directly or indirectly induce any population growth by proposing new projects in an undeveloped area or extend major infrastructure. Furthermore, the Draft CAP Update would not directly result in development or land disturbance, and, thus, the Proposed Project would not displace any existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur related to population and housing.
ATTACHMENT 3
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other Public Facilities?
Discussion
a-e. The Manteca 2043 General Plan EIR determined that buildout of the General Plan would increase the overall demand on fire and police protection services. However, the proposed Draft CAP Update does not include direct development, and, thus, would not increase the need for fire and police protection beyond what was previously anticipated in the City’s General Plan EIR. In addition, the CAP Update would encourage increased greenspace through Land Use Measure 4 which aims to update the Urban Tree Management Plan and promote urban forestry in parks and throughout the City. Furthermore, implementation of the Draft CAP Update would not increase demand for any schools, parks, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Thus, the Proposed Project would result in no impact.
ATTACHMENT 3
XVI. RECREATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document intended to reduce GHG emissions Citywide. The Proposed Project would not result in direct development and, thus, would not increase the use of existing park facilities or substantially deteriorate existing facilities. Additionally, the Draft CAP Update would not result in any direct population growth requiring the construction or expansion of any recreational facilities.
Furthermore, the CAP Update would encourage increased greenspace through Land Use Measure 4 which aims to update the Urban Tree Management Plan and promote urban forestry. Therefore, implementation of the Draft CAP Update would have no impact regarding recreation.
ATTACHMENT 3
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a,b. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document, intended to help the City reduce GHG emissions to meet the State’s reduction targets. The GHG emission reduction measures set forth in the Draft CAP Update would encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as increased use of public transit, bicycling, and pedestrian infrastructure. The Draft CAP Update would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, requiring any future projects adhere to local and State standards.
For example, Transportation Measure 1 ensures compliance with the City of Manteca Bicycle Transportation Plan to improve bicycle infrastructure. Additionally, in compliance with General Plan Policy RC-5.1, which focuses on purchasing alternatively fueled vehicles for City use, Transportation Measure 5 of the Draft CAP Update directs the City to optimize the municipal vehicle fleet to increase fuel efficiency and investigate the use of alternative fueled vehicles where feasible.
The Draft CAP Update demonstrates consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) through many of the transportation and land use focused measures. For instance, Transportation Measure 3 improves the City’s infrastructure related to alternative transportation, therefore reducing the Citywide VMT. Furthermore, Transportation Measures 1 and 3 promote alternative modes of transportation, all of which reduce VMT.
Transportation Measure 7 is specifically designed to reduce VMT through participation in Transportation Management Associations. Finally, Land Use Measures 1 and 3 would encourage higher density development within the City’s existing development footprint; higher density development often allows for a reduction in VMT as increased density allows for different residential product types (i.e., apartments) whose residents tend to travel/commute less. Higher density housing is also often located in proximity to varied land uses and public transit.
For the aforementioned reasons and because the Draft CAP Update would not include any direct development, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities nor would the Draft CAP Update be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c,d. As discussed above, the City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that would not include any direct development. However, many of the Draft CAP Update measures would have a secondary effect of improving the transportation/circulation system within the City. Consequently, implementation of the Draft CAP Update would have ATTACHMENT 3
a long-term beneficial effect related to transportation and circulation. Therefore, the CAP would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access, and no impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 3
XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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).
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Discussion
a,b. In compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1), on June 23, 2025 the City provided formal notification letters to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay, Northern Valley Yokut/Ohlone Tribe, Tule River Indian Tribe, Wilton Rancheria, and Wuksachi Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band. Responses were not received during the required consultation period.
As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, the City of Manteca is known to contain cultural and tribal resources of significance. However, because the City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not include any direct development or physical changes to the environment and would not involve any ground-disturbing activities, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to directly affect any Tribal Cultural Resources. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result related to Tribal Cultural Resources.
ATTACHMENT 3
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Discussion
a-c. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that would not involve any direct development. Rather, the Draft CAP Update would require implementation of GHG emission reduction measures to meet the standards set by the State of California.
The Draft CAP Update would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, or natural gas facilities. In addition, Energy and Building Design Measure 2 of the Draft CAP Update incorporates the most recent CBSC into Municipal Code for private development and requires the City to conduct systematic energy audits of municipal facilities. In addition, Water Conservation Measure 1 of the Draft CAP Update would aim to increase Citywide water use efficiency; therefore implementation of the Draft CAP Update would not induce or increase water usage within the City or impact stormwater drainage. Land Use Measure 4 recommends the establishment of an Urban Tree Management Plan, which is intended to reduce the urban heat island effect and stormwater runoff. Waste Measure 2 also includes the improvement of biodigesters at the City’s wastewater treatment plant in order to efficiently collect waste and sludge. Considering the proposed GHG reduction measures within the Draft CAP, and the potential negative impacts that could occur related to water supply and stormwater related flooding due to climate change, the Proposed Project would have a long-term beneficial effect related to the water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power or natural gas facilities. Overall, based on the above, impacts would be less than significant.
d,e. The Draft CAP Update would not directly involve any construction or development within the City. Any improvements that could result from implementation of GHG reduction measures would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and City goals, policies, and regulations related to solid waste. The Draft CAP Update contains GHG ATTACHMENT 3
emission reduction measures that, if implemented, would help reduce the amount of solid waste generated in the City of Manteca. Due to such measures, the Proposed Project would have a secondary beneficial effect related to solid waste generation and disposal.
For the aforementioned reasons and because the Draft CAP Update would not result in any direct development, the Proposed Project would not affect the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management reduction statutes and regulations.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to solid waste.
ATTACHMENT 3
XX. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a-d. The City of Manteca is not located in a State Responsibility Area or a Very High FHSZ.13 The outskirts of the City primarily consist of Moderate FHSZ, while the developed areas of the City are not substantially at risk of wildfires. Furthermore, the Draft CAP Update would not include any direct development and would not exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact related to wildfire. 13 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. San Joaquin County Fire Hazard Severity Zones October 2, 2007.
ATTACHMENT 3
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. The intent of the Draft CAP Update is to reduce GHG emissions from operations within the City of Manteca through the implementation of GHG reduction measures. The proposed Draft CAP Update is designed to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the environment and establish emissions thresholds that would benefit the environment and humans in the long term. The measures included in the Draft CAP Update promote alternative modes of transportation, sustainable land use, energy efficiency, and decreased waste, which would all contribute to improving the quality of the environment.
As discussed throughout the IS/ND, the Draft CAP Update would not include any direct development or physical changes to the existing environment. As specifically discussed in the Biological Resources and Cultural Resources sections of this IS/ND, the Proposed Project would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate protected plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. Global climate change is, by nature, a cumulative impact. Emissions of GHG cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of climate change (e.g., sea level rise, impacts to water supply and water quality, public health impacts, impacts to ecosystems, impacts to agriculture, and other environmental impacts). Implementation of the Draft CAP Update would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with buildout of the City of Manteca, to levels that meet the statewide targets. Reducing the City of Manteca’s GHG emissions would reduce the cumulative effects of climate change.
Thus, the Proposed Project would have a beneficial effect on the cumulative environment.
Based on the above, as the Proposed Project would not include any direct development, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c. The City of Manteca Draft CAP Update is a policy-level document that does not involve any direct development, and, thus, would not have substantial adverse effects on human beings. As discussed throughout this IS/ND, the Draft CAP Update is intended to reduce ATTACHMENT 3
GHG emissions in compliance with Statewide emissions targets. For example, the Draft CAP Update would include reduction measures aimed at reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, and promoting energy efficiency within the City of Manteca. Polluted air can have permanent health effects, and, thus, the above factors resulting from the Draft CAP Update would ultimately benefit human beings in the future. Overall, the Draft CAP Update would have a less-than significant impact related to adverse effects on human beings.
ATTACHMENT 3