Manteca City Council
April 7, 2026

ATTACHMENT 9
1 CITY OF MANTECA

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
4-C Ranch Annexation Project
15183 Consistency Checklist
August 2024
The environmental review and supporting documentation prepared for this Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines are available for public review in person and online.

IN PERSON
City of Manteca – Development Services Department
1215 W. Center St., Suite 201, Manteca, CA 95337
Office Hours: 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Thursday ONLINE: Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Project
https://www.manteca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7497/ 638743512596700000
For questions, email: [email protected]
15183 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

FOR THE
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT
AUGUST 2024
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
Development Services
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8500
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 9
15183 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

FOR THE
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT
AUGUST 2024
Prepared for:

City of Manteca
1215 W. Center Street, Suite 201
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8500
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 1
Table of Contents
Environmental Checklist .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Title................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Lead Agency Name and Address .......................................................................................................................... 3 Contact Person and Phone Number .................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Project Overview......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Location and Existing Surrounding Uses...................................................................................... 3 Existing Site Uses ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Characteristics......................................................................................................................................... 4 Annexation................................................................................................................................................................ 5 General Plan Designation.................................................................................................................................... 5 Zoning Designation ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Requested Entitlements and Other Approvals .............................................................................................13 Previous Environmental Analyses of the proposed Project....................................................................13 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Exemptions...........................................................................................13 Project-Specific Environmental Review..........................................................................................................16 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................16 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................................17 I. AESTHETICS .......................................................................................................................................................17 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES...........................................................................................22 III. AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................................................................27 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................................................39 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................................48 VI. ENERGY .............................................................................................................................................................52 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .................................................................................................................................55 XIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................61 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..........................................................................................73 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY......................................................................................................79 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.......................................................................................................................87 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................................90 ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 2
XIII. NOISE...............................................................................................................................................................91 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................................97 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................................................99 XVI. RECREATION............................................................................................................................................. 104 XVII. TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................................................... 106 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 114 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................................................. 119 XX. WILDFIRE..................................................................................................................................................... 124 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE................................................................................. 127 References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 129 Appendix A: AQ-GHG Data ...................................................................................................................................... 132 Appendix B: Cultural Report.................................................................................................................................. 134 Appendix C: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment................................................................................ 136 Appendix D: Noise Report....................................................................................................................................... 138 Appendix E: Traffic Report..................................................................................................................................... 140 ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 3

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT TITLE
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Project

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Manteca
1001 West Center Street
Manteca, CA 95337
(209) 456-8000

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Ryan Gerding
Raymus Homes
1463 Moffat Boulevard, Suite 5
Manteca, CA 95336

INTRODUCTION
The following pages provide an analysis of the proposed Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Project (proposed Project) with respect to the project’s consistency with the City of Manteca General Plan, the analysis contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and any sitespecific environmental impacts or cumulative impacts that may result from project implementation.

As explained in the following pages, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, for which an EIR was prepared and certified, and there are no site-specific or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project that have not been fully addressed in a previous environmental document, or that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. The findings presented below demonstrate that no additional environmental analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to approval of the proposed Project.

PROJECTOVERVIEW

PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING SURROUNDING USES
The Project site is 19.68+/- acres in San Joaquin County, within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Manteca, California. The Project site is located along E. Lousie Avenue to the northeast of the City of Manteca. The Project site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number: APN: 208-080-100.

Adjacent uses are as follows:
• North – Agricultural
• South – Residential, Agricultural
• East – Agricultural
• West – Residential
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 4

EXISTING SITE USES
The Project site is currently being used for agricultural type uses. Structures on the Project site include a single-family residence, a mobile home, and several outbuildings in fair to poor condition.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Project consists of a subdivision of land for the development of 68 single-family lots, a park/basin, streets, and utilities. The entitlements requested include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Prezone to Residential, Low (RL), and annexation. The property has a gentle slope with elevations ranging from 41-44’. The proposed Project may be developed in phases.

The Project Area will require annexation into the City of Manteca, but does not require adjustment to the SOI.

The proposed development is described below.

Low-density Residential: The low-density residential area would consist of 68 single family detached units on lots ranging in size from 6,500 to 14,005 square feet. Given that the Project site is 19.68+/- acres, the project density would be 3.4 units to the acre. This is consistent with the General Plan density limit of 2.1 to 8 units per acre.

Park/Basin: The park/basin land area would consist of a 2.09 acre lot and be primarily utilized for detention of storm water utilities.

Street Design: The streets within the proposed residential subdivision are designed consistent with the right-of-way and curb-to-curb widths of the current City of Manteca standards. The curb and sidewalk design are also designed to match the existing surrounding neighborhoods such that the proposed subdivision becomes an extension of the existing neighborhood. This includes roll curb with monolithic sidewalks.

Utilities: Utilities will be located within public utility easements and shall be maintained by governing agencies. Public utilities will be constructed with the proposed Project, including the extension of water, sewer, storm, and dry utilities. They are more thoroughly described as follows:
• Water: 12” and 8” water mains will service each lot of the subdivision, and tie into all existing stubs in the surrounding streets. Fire hydrants will be installed per City of Manteca standards.
• Sewer: 8” sewer mains will service each lot of the subdivision, and tie into all existing stubs in the surrounding streets.
• Storm: 15”, 18”, and 24” Storm mains will be installed within the subdivision to serve the project. Storm runoff will be treated by stormwater treatment devices, then conveyed into the existing 12” mains that run at Lousie Avenue, Cork Oak Lane, and Black Pine Way.

A 2.08 on-site detention basin and pump station is proposed within the Project site with a proposed basin volume of 3.38 acre-ft.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 5
• Existing septic system and water well to be abandoned or destroyed per San Joaquin County standards.
• Dry utilities will be installed within 10’ Public Utility Easements (P.U.E.) along all street frontages, with the exception of Lousie Avenue.

ANNEXATION
The Project site is within the City of Manteca’s Sphere of Influence but located outside the city limits and will require annexation approval by the City of Manteca and San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission. The annexation request will not require adjustment to the Sphere of Influence.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The Manteca General Plan designates the Project site Low Density Residential. The Manteca General Plan defines this use as follows:

Low Density Residential. This designation provides for a mix of single family housing, including small lots, clustered lots, attached homes, and conventional large lot detached residences. The maximum density is 2.1 to 8 units per acre.

The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.

ZONING DESIGNATION
The Project site is currently outside the city limits; therefore, the City Zoning Ordinance does not designate a zoning district on the Property. As part of the annexation request, the proposed Project includes a request for a pre-zone to R-1 (Residential, Low Density) District. The Zoning Code Section 17.20.020 indicates that the R-1 District is the corresponding zoning district for the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential. Thus, the proposed prezone is consistent with the General Plan designation on the Project site. The R-1 zoning District is described below:

R-1 (One-Family Dwelling Zoning District). This designation allows for substantial flexibility in selecting dwelling unit types and parcel configurations to suit site conditions and housing needs. The types of dwelling units include small lots and clustered lots as well as conventional large-lot detached residences.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 6
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 8
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 9
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 10
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 11
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 12
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 13

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS
The City of Manteca is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Guidelines Section 15050).

This document will be used by the City of Manteca to take the following actions:
• Adoption of the CEQA Exemption (Guidelines Section 15183). • Development Review.
• Approval of the Prezone to R-1
• Approval of the Tentative Map.
• Approval of a recommendation for LAFCo to approve the Annexation.

The following agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed Project:
• San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (SJLAFCo) - Review of a City recommendation to annex the Project site into the City of Manteca. • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approval prior to construction activities. • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) - Approval of constructionrelated air quality permits. • San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) - Review of project application to determine consistency with the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat, Conservation, and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP).

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT One previous environmental analysis has been prepared and certified which is applicable to the proposed Project.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan (and subsequent Manteca General Plan Amendment, 2024), for which an EIR was certified on June 19, 2023 (SCH#2020019010). The proposed Project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan. The certified General Plan EIR assumed full development and buildout of the Project site with uses that are proposed under the current application. The cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the Manteca General Plan, including the Project site, were fully addressed in the General Plan EIR.

CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 EXEMPTIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. As noted above, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the Manteca General Plan, for which an EIR was certified. The provisions contained in Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines are presented below.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 14
15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. (b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. (d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or (C) A general plan of a local agency, and
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
(e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 15
(2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the City or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire City or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a City or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision-making body of the City or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the City or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section. (g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. (i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. (1) “Community plan” is defined as a part of the general plan of a City or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 16
Government Code, and contains specific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel. (2) For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed Project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.
(j) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The attached Environmental Checklist includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or sitespecific environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. The Environmental Checklist identifies the applicable City of Manteca development standards and policies that would apply to the proposed Project during both the construction and operational phases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar or site-specific environmental impacts would occur.

CONCLUSION
As described above, the proposed Project is consistent with the Manteca General Plan (and subsequent Manteca General Plan Amendment, 2024), for which an EIR was certified on June 19, 2023 (SCH#2020019010). Cumulative impacts associated with development and buildout of the Project site, as proposed, were fully addressed in the Manteca General Plan EIR (SCH# 2020019010). Since the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development intensity assumed under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new cumulative environmental impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR.

The analysis in the attached CEQA Environmental Checklist demonstrates that there are no sitespecific or peculiar impacts associated with the project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied to the project. The Project Requirements identified in the attached environmental analysis include requirements that must be implemented by the proposed Project to ensure that any site-specific impacts or construction-related impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made a condition of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 17

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
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 the
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
X
Project Impacts:

The development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision would change the existing visual nature / character of the Project site from an agricultural field to a residential neighborhood. The Project site is not designated as a scenic vista or scenic highway. The development of the Project site would create new sources of light and glare that is typical of a residential development. The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation. There is nothing peculiar about the site that presents impacts greater than was anticipated under the General Plan. For instance, the Project site is not topographically elevated from the surrounding lands and is not highly visible from areas beyond the immediate vicinity of the Project site. There are no prominent features on the Project site, such as rock outcroppings, or other visually distinctive features that contribute to the scenic quality of the Project site. As discussed below, impacts to scenic vistas or viewsheds would not be anticipated.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

Implementation of the proposed Project would introduce new residential uses to the Project site, and would be consistent with the surrounding uses anticipated for the Project site by the Manteca General Plan and analyzed in Chapter 3.1 of the Manteca General Plan EIR (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.1-8 through 3.1-18). As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the General Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the General Plan EIR. The ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 18
General Plan EIR determined that visual and aesthetic impacts were less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.1 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to visual character of the City. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Community Design Element
• CD-2.1. Promote architectural design that exhibits timeless character and is constructed with high quality materials.
• CD-2.2. Utilize architectural design features (e.g., windows, columns, offset roof planes, etc.) to vertically and horizontally articulate elevations for all sides of buildings. • CD-2.3. Provide purposeful variations in color, texture, materials, articulation, and architectural treatments that coincide with the associated architectural style. Avoid long expanses of blank, monotonous walls or fences through the use of vertical and horizontal façade or fence articulation achieved through stamping, colors, materials, modulation, and landscaping.
• CD-2.4. For projects that include multiple buildings, encourage differing, but complementary architectural styles that incorporate representative characteristics of a given area.
• CD-2.5. Employ design strategies and building materials that evoke a sense of quality and permanence.
• CD-2.6. Orient building entrance toward the street and provide parking in the rear, when possible.
• CD-2.9. Ensure that new development and redevelopment reinforces desirable elements of its neighborhood, district, or center, including architectural style, scale, and setback patterns.
• CD-2.10. Encourage context-sensitive transitions in architectural scale and character between new and existing residential development.
• CD-2.11. Provide special building-form elements, such as towers and archways, and other building massing elements to help distinguish activity nodes and establish landmarks within the community.
• CD-2.12. For infill development, incorporate context sensitive design elements that maintain compatibility and raise the quality of the area’s architectural character. • CD-2.15. Where practical, and in compliance with ADA standards, separate common areas that provide seating from the primary walkways by informal barriers, such as planters, bollards, fountains, low fences, and/or changes in elevation. • CD-2.16. Design retention/detention basins to be visually attractive and well-integrated with any associated project and with adjacent land uses. • CD-2.17. Require that lighting and fixtures be integrated with the design and layout of a project and that they provide a desirable level of security and illumination. • CD-4.1. Strengthen the positive qualities of the City’s neighborhoods, districts, and ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 19
centers.
• CD-4.2. Support the development and preservation of unique neighborhoods, districts, and centers that exhibit a special sense of place and quality of design. • CD-4.3. Strengthen the identity of individual neighborhoods, districts, and centers through the use of entry monuments, flags, street signs, themed streets, natural features, landscaping, and lighting.
• CD-4.6. Design neighborhoods, districts, and centers to provide access to adjacent open spaces.
• CD-4.7. Design neighborhoods in new growth areas to incorporate the following characteristics:
o The edges of the neighborhood shall be identifiable by use of landscaped areas along major streets or natural features, such as permanent open space. Primary arterial streets may be used to define the boundaries of neighborhoods. The street system shall be designed to discourage high volume and high speed traffic through the neighborhood.
o Neighborhoods shall be not more than one mile in length or width. o Each neighborhood shall include a distinct center, such as an elementary school, neighborhood park(s), and/or a mixed-use commercial area within a reasonable walking distance of the homes, approximately one-half mile. o Each neighborhood shall include an extensive pedestrian and bikeway system comprised of sidewalks and bike lanes along streets and dedicated trails. • CD-8.1. To the extent possible, require new development to retain or incorporate visual reminders of the agricultural heritage of the community. • CD-8.2. Utilize wood, wrought-iron, or other types of open fencing instead of block walls in rural areas as needed.
• CD-8.3. Allow for the elimination of vertical curbs, paved gutters, and sidewalks in rural areas if adequate drainage conditions are provided.
• CD-8.4. For lighting in rural areas of the community, provide:
o Minimal levels of street, parking, building, site and public area lighting to meet safety standards and provide direction.
o Directional shielding for all exterior lighting to minimize the annoyance of direct or indirect glare.
o Automatic shutoff or motion sensors for lighting features in newly developed areas.

Implementation: Community Design Element
• CD-2a. Adopt and maintain, in consistency with the General Plan, the City’s Zoning regulations, and current best practice design solutions, Citywide Design Guidelines for the architectural review of discretionary projects.
• CD-2b. Require development projects to incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts. • CD-8a. Require projects developing on the fringe of the City or adjacent to agricultural or ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 20
rural residential uses to be compatible with the character of the area, including implementing the City’s light and glare standards, use of appropriate materials and design, and siting of more intense uses away from rural and agricultural uses, where feasible.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for aesthetic/visual impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. As discussed in Chapter 3.1 of the General Plan EIR, the existing General Plan does not designate official scenic vistas. The proposed Project is not located along or near a scenic vista. The proposed Project has uses are consistent with the General Plan land use designations, and compatible with the surrounding land use designations. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Response b): Less than Significant. As discussed in Chapter 3.1 of the General Plan EIR, no adopted State scenic highways are in Manteca. Only one highway section in San Joaquin County is listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the Caltrans Scenic Highway Mapping System; the segment of Interstate 580 (I-580) from Interstate 5 to Interstate 205. This route traverses the edge of the Coast Range to the west and Central Valley to the east. The City of Manteca, including the Project site, is not visible from this roadway segment. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

Response c): Less than Significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15387 defines an urbanized area as a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The Project site is located along the boundary of the City of Manteca, which is defined as an urbanized area. The proposed residential uses are in an area that the General Plan envisions to be developed with residential uses. Additionally, the surrounding area currently contains numerous residential uses like those proposed, and the proposed uses are scaled to be visually compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed Project would be zoned for low density residential uses that is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 21
analysis is required. The implementation of City standards and requirements would reduce any impacts related to visual quality or character to a less than significant level.

Response d): Less than Significant. During the day, sunlight reflecting from structures and vehicles is a primary source of glare, while nighttime light and glare can be divided into both stationary and mobile sources. Some types of stationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, interior lighting, decorative landscape lighting, and street lights. The principal mobile source of nighttime light and glare is vehicle headlamp illumination.

The General Plan EIR (page 3.1-5) notes that there is ambient lighting that comes from existing development, including roadways. The developed and inhabited land uses in the City of Manteca are the main source of daytime and nighttime light and glare. They are typified by single and multi-family residences, commercial structures, industrial areas, and street lights. These areas and their associated human activities (inclusive of vehicular traffic) characterize the existing light and glare environment present during daytime and nighttime hours in the developed portions of the city. Because the Project site is adjacent to developed portions of the City of Manteca, ambient light in this area is more pronounced than in areas farther away from the developed areas.

The surrounding area has existing sources of light and glare created by streetlights, car headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from buildings, including adjacent residential like the project. The proposed Project would create these same sources of light and glare. Chapter

3.1 of the General Plan EIR notes that exterior lighting is allowed under the General Plan, but is required to comply with City standards for outdoor lighting (Municipal Code Chapter 17.50).

These standards require exterior lighting to be energy efficient, stationary, shielded and directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

No additional analysis is required. The implementation of City standards and requirements would reduce any impacts related to light and glare to a less than significant level.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 22
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
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?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526)?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
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?
X
Project Impacts:

The development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision would change the existing character of the Project site from a predominately agricultural field to a residential neighborhood. The Project site contains areas designated as Prime Farmland and is zoned for Agriculture Urban Reserve by San Joaquin County. Most of the project site is currently vacant and disturbed land, and is generally located in an area of the city that includes developed areas, residential and some undeveloped lands. The General Plan designates the Project site Low Density Residential and the proposed Project includes a request for a pre-zone to R-1 (Residential, Low Density) District that supports residential development at densities and configurations, compatible with the areas that surround the Project site. The General Plan designates the Project site for urban land uses. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not create new impacts over and above those identified in the General Plan EIR, nor significantly change previously identified impacts.

The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

Implementation of the proposed Project would introduce new residential uses to the Project site, and would be consistent with the surrounding uses anticipated for the Project site by the Manteca General Plan and analyzed in Chapter 3.2 of the General Plan EIR (City of Manteca General Plan ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 23
Draft EIR, pages 3.2-10 through 3.2-17). As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the General Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Although the General Plan contains a strategy to protect agricultural lands beyond the city edges from conversion to non-agricultural use, the General Plan EIR identified the conversion of farmlands of concern under CEQA to non-agricultural uses as a significant impact. The General Plan EIR notes that because these parcels are located near existing urbanized areas, they may not be viable for agricultural operations due to conflicts with nearby urbanized areas. As discussed under Impact 3.2-1 of the General Plan EIR, no additional mitigation is available, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City of Manteca adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations stating that the EIR for the General Plan concludes that General Plan impacts on agricultural land conversion are significant and that feasible mitigation measures are not available that would conclusively reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-8.1. Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban use, until urban development is imminent.
• RC-8.2. Provide an orderly and phased development pattern, encouraging the development of vacant lands within City boundaries prior to conversion of agricultural lands, so that farmland is not subjected to premature development pressure. • RC-8.3. Encourage permanent agricultural lands surrounding the Planning Area to serve as community separators and continue the agricultural heritage of Manteca. • RC-8.4. Support and encourage the preservation of designated Agriculture lands, without placing an undue burden on agricultural landowners.
• RC-8.5. Minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. • RC-8.6. Ensure that urban development near existing agricultural lands will not unnecessarily constrain agricultural practices or adversely affect the economic viability of nearby agricultural operations.
• RC-8.7. Prohibit the fragmentation of agricultural parcels into small rural residential parcels except in areas designated for urban development in the Land Use Diagram. • RC-8.9. Work with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on issues of mutual concern including the conservation of agricultural land through consistent use of LAFCO policies, particularly those related to conversion of agricultural lands and establishment of adequate buffers between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, and the designation of a reasonable and logical Sphere of Influence boundary for the City.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 24
• RC-8.10. Prohibit re-designation of Agricultural lands to other land use designations unless all of the following findings can be made:
o There is a public need or net community benefit derived from the conversion of the land that outweighs the need to protect the land for long-term agricultural use.
o There are no feasible alternative locations for the proposed project that are either designated for non-agricultural land uses or are less productive agricultural lands.
o The use would not have a significant adverse effect on existing or potential agricultural activities on surrounding lands designated Agriculture. • RC- P-8.11. Require the development projects to reduce impacts on agricultural lands through the use of buffers, such as greenbelts, drainage features, parks, or other improved and maintained features, in order to separate residential and other sensitive land uses, such as schools and hospitals, from agricultural operations and from lands designated Agriculture.
• RC-8.12. Work with agricultural landowners to improve practices that have resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent properties. Such practices include site drainage and flood control measures.
• RC-8.15. Do not extend water and sewer lines to noncontiguous urban development that would adversely affect agricultural operations.

Implementation: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-8a. Continue to implement Chapter 8.24 (Right to Farm) of the Municipal Code in order to protect farming uses from encroaching urban uses and to notify potential homebuyers of nearby agricultural operations.
• RC-8b. Consider impacts to agricultural lands and agricultural productivity when reviewing new development projects, amendments to the General Plan, and rezoning applications.
• RC-8c. Amend Title 17 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code to include specific agricultural buffer requirements for residential and sensitive land uses (i.e., schools, day care facilities, and medical facilities) that are proposed near existing agricultural lands in order to protect the associated agricultural operations from encroachment by incompatible uses. Buffers shall generally be defined as a physical separation, depending on the land use, and may consist of topographic features, roadways, bike/pedestrian paths, greenbelts, water courses, or similar features. The buffer shall occur on the parcel for which a permit is sought and shall favor protection of the maximum amount of agricultural land.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 25
• RC-8e. Apply the following conditions of approval where urban development occurs next to farmland.
o Require notifications in urban property deeds that agricultural operations are in the vicinity, in keeping with the City’s right-to- farm ordinance. o Require adequate and secure fencing at the interface of urban and agricultural use.
o Require phasing of new residential subdivisions; so as to include an interim buffer between residential and agricultural use.
o Require a buffer, which may include a roadway and landscaped buffer, open space, fencing, transition area, or low intensity uses, between urban uses and lands designated Agriculture on the Tentative Map.

These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.2 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to agricultural resources of the City.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The General Plan designates agricultural land for development to non-agricultural uses, including the Project site. The General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the conversion of Important Farmland. However, the proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program which will involve a contribution of conservation easement-protected land or payment of in-lieu fees to the Mitigation Program as compensation for the agricultural land conversion impacts of the Project. The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would have Less than Significant impact related to this environmental topic.

Response b): Less than Significant. The project site is zoned for Agriculture Urban Reserve by San Joaquin County. As part of the annexation request, the proposed Project includes a request for a pre-zone to R-1 (Residential, Low Density) District. The General Plan EIR noted that because these parcels are located near existing urbanized areas, they may not be viable for agricultural operations due to conflicts with nearby urbanized areas. As discussed under Impact 3.2-2 of the General Plan EIR, no additional mitigation is available, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the impact relative to his topic resulted in a significant and unavoidable impact. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would have Less than Significant impact related to this environmental topic.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 26
Responses c) and d): No Impact. The Project site is not forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526). The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There are no forest resources on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, there is no impact.

Response e): Less than Significant. The General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan land use map was generally developed to arrange new designations to place compatible uses adjacent to existing uses. Nevertheless, the General Plan would allow development that could result in potentially incompatible urban uses next to farms or ranches, creating circumstances that impair the productivity and profitability of agricultural operation, and could eventually lead farmers to take their land out of production. As described in the discussion for Threshold AG-1 of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that aim to protect agricultural lands outside of the city from conversion to non-agricultural use, including from incompatible uses.

Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 8.24 of the General Plan EIR, the Manteca Municipal Code contains a “Right-to-Farm Ordinance,” under which the City notifies property buyers to accept inconveniences or discomforts resulting from nearby agricultural activities, thereby protecting agricultural operations from nuisance complaints. With implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, as well as the City’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance, the General Plan EIR concluded that the impact relative to this topic would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would have Less than Significant impact related to this environmental topic.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 27
III. AIR QUALITY
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
Project Impacts:

The Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). This agency is responsible for monitoring air pollution levels and ensuring compliance with federal and state air quality regulations within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters within its borders.

The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation and is consistent with the growth assumptions of applicable air quality plans. There is nothing peculiar about the site that presents impacts greater than was anticipated under the General Plan. As discussed below, compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations would reduce impacts related to air quality to a less than significant level.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of air quality associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. The General Plan concluded that development anticipated by the General Plan could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. However, with application of State and SJVAPCD rules and regulations, implementation of the General Plan policies and actions would reduce construction and operation-related criteria air pollutants to the extent.

Additionally, review of development projects by SJVAPCD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) in addition to General Plan policies and actions would ensure that health risks are minimized. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Land Use Element
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 28
• LU-3.9: Locate residences away from areas of excessive noise, smoke, dust, odor, and lighting, and ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or transitional uses, such as less intensive renewable energy production, light industrial, office, or commercial uses, separate the proposed residential uses from more intensive uses, including industrial, agricultural, or agricultural industrial uses and designated truck routes, to ensure the health and well-being of existing and future residents. • LU-6.9: Require mixed-use development to provide strong connections with the surrounding development and neighborhoods through the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and, where feasible, site consolidation. • LU-9.1: Require future planning decisions, development, and infrastructure and public projects to consider the effects of planning decisions on the overall health and well-being of the community and its residents, with specific consideration provided regarding addressing impacts to disadvantaged populations and communities and ensuring disadvantaged communities have equitable access to services and amenities. • LU-9.2: As part of land use decisions, ensure that environmental justice issues related to potential adverse health impacts associated with land use decisions, including methods to reduce exposure to hazardous materials, industrial activity, vehicle exhaust, other sources of pollution, and excessive noise on residents regardless of age, culture, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, are considered and addressed.

Implementation: Land Use Element
• LU-1b: Regularly review and revise, as necessary, the Zoning Code to accomplish the following purposes:
o Ensure consistency with the General Plan in terms of zoning districts and development standards;
o Provide for a Downtown zone that permits the vibrant mixing of residential, commercial, office, business-professional, and institutional uses within the Central Business District;
o Ensure adequate buffers and transitions are required between intensive uses, such as industrial and agricultural industrial, and sensitive receptors, including residential uses and schools; and
o Provide for an Agricultural Industrial zone that accommodates the processing of crops and livestock.
o Ensure that land use requirements meet actual demand and needs over time as technology, social expectations, and business practices change. • LU-6a: Consider implementing incentives to support developers who construct vertical mixed-use projects and/or who build housing above non-residential ground-floor uses ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 29
within Downtown.
• LU-9a: Review all development proposals, planning projects, and infrastructure projects to ensure that potential adverse impacts to disadvantaged communities, such as exposure to pollutants, including toxic air contaminants, and unacceptable levels of noise and vibration are reduced to the extent feasible and that measures to improve quality of life, such as connections to bicycle and pedestrian paths, community services, schools, and recreation facilities, access to healthy foods, and improvement of air quality are included in the project. The review shall address both the construction and operation phases of the project.
• LU-9c: Encourage and support local transit service providers to increase and expand services for people who are transit-dependent, including seniors, persons with mobility disabilities, and persons without regular access to automobiles by improving connections to regional medical facilities, senior centers, and other support systems that serve residents and businesses.

Policies: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-4.1: Prepare for and respond to the expected impacts of climate change. • RC-4.2: Assess and monitor the effects of climate change and the associated levels of risk in order to adapt to changing climate conditions and be resilient to negative changes and impacts associated with climate change.
• RC-5.1: Ensure that land use and circulation improvements are coordinated to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips.
• RC-5.2: Encourage private development to explore and apply non-traditional energy sources such as co-generation, wind, and solar to reduce dependence on traditional energy sources.
• RC-5.3: Require all new public and privately constructed buildings to meet and comply with construction and design standards that promote energy conservation, including the most current “green” development standards in the California Green Building Standards Code.
• RC-5.4: Support innovative and green building best practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification for all new development, and encourage public and private projects to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Green Building Standards Code.
• RC-5.5: Encourage the conservation of public utilities. • RC-5.6: Encourage the conservation of petroleum products. • RC-6.1: Coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Air ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 30
District), San Joaquin Council of Governments, and the California Air Resources Board (State Air Board), and other agencies to develop and implement regional and county plans, programs, and mitigation measures that address cross-jurisdictional and regional air quality impacts, including land use, transportation, and climate change impacts, and incorporate the relevant provisions of those plans into City planning and project review procedures. Also cooperate with the Air District, SJCOG, and State Air Board in:
o Enforcing the provisions of the California and Federal Clean Air Acts, state and regional policies, and established standards for air quality. o Identifying baseline air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. o Encouraging economy clean fuel for city vehicle fleets, when feasible. o Developing consistent procedures for evaluating and mitigating project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts of projects.
• RC-6.2: Minimize exposure of the public to toxic or harmful air emissions and odors through requiring an adequate buffer or distance between residential and other sensitive land uses and land uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, or obnoxious fumes or odors, including but not limited to industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, highways, and rail lines.
• RC-6.3: Ensure that new construction is managed to minimize fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions.
• RC-6.4: Require appliances and equipment, including wood-burning devices, in development projects to meet current standards for controlling air pollution, including particulate matter and toxic air contaminants.
• RC-6.5: Require and/or cooperate with the Air District to ensure that burning of any combustible material within the City is consistent with Air District regulations to minimize particulate air pollution.

Implementation: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-4a: Continue to assess and monitor performance of greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts, including progress toward meeting longer-term GHG emissions reduction goals for 2035 and 2050 by reporting on the City’s progress annually, updating the Climate Action Plan and GHG inventory regularly to demonstrate consistency with State-adopted GHG reduction targets, including those targets established beyond 2020, and updating the GHG Strategy in the General Plan, as appropriate. • RC-4b: When updating master plans for infrastructure, including water supply, flood control, and drainage, and critical facilities, review relevant climate change scenarios and ensure that the plans consider the potential effects of climate change and include measures to provide resilience.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 31
• RC-4c: Incorporate the likelihood of climate change impacts into City emergency response planning and training.
• RC-5a: Implement development standards and best practices that promote energy conservation and the reduction in greenhouse gases, including:
o Require new development to be energy-efficient through passive design concepts (e.g., techniques for heating and cooling, building siting orientation, street and lot layout, landscape placement, and protection of solar access; o Require construction standards which promote energy conservation including window placement, building eaves, and roof overhangs;
o Require all projects to meet minimum State and local energy conservation standards; o Require best practices in selecting construction methods, building materials, project appliances and equipment, and project design;
o Encourage and accommodate projects that incorporate alternative energy; o Encourage projects to incorporate enhanced energy conservation measures and other voluntary methods of reducing energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions; and
o Require large energy users to implement an energy conservation plan as part of the project review and approval process, and develop a program to monitor compliance with and effectiveness of that plan.
• RC-5b: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
• RC-5c: Develop a public education program to increase public participation in energy conservation.
• RC-5d: Connect residents and businesses with programs that provide free or low-cost energy efficiency audits and retrofits to existing buildings. • RC-5e: Update the Municipal Code to incentivize the use of small-scale renewable energy facilities and, where appropriate, to remove impediments to such uses. • RC-5f: Cooperate with other agencies, jurisdictions, and organizations to expand energy conservation programs.
• RC-5g: Explore alternative energy sources, including co-generation, active solar energy, and wind generation, and identify opportunities for alternative energy to be used in ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 32
public and private projects.
• RC-5h: Implement transportation measures, as outlined in the Circulation Element, which reduce the need for automobile use and petroleum products. • RC-6a: Work with the Air District to implement the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
o Cooperate with the Air District to develop consistent and accurate procedures for evaluating project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts. o Cooperate with the Air District and the State Air Board in their efforts to develop a local airshed model.
o Cooperate with the Air District in its efforts to develop a cost/benefit analysis of possible control strategies (mitigation measures to minimize short and long-term stationary and area source emissions as part of the development review process, and monitoring measures to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. • RC-6b: Review development, land use, transportation, and other projects that are subject to CEQA for potentially significant climate change and air quality impacts, including toxic and hazardous emissions and require that projects provide adequate, appropriate, and cost-effective mitigation measures reduce significant and potentially significant impacts.

This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
o Use of the Air District “Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”, as may be amended or replaced from time to time, in identifying thresholds, evaluating potential project and cumulative impacts, and determining appropriate mitigation measures;
o Contact the Air District for comment regarding potential impacts and mitigation measures as part of the evaluation of air quality effects of discretionary projects that are subject to CEQA;
o Require projects to participate in regional air quality mitigation strategies, including Air District-required regulations, as well as recommended best management practices when applicable and appropriate ;
o Promote the use of new and replacement fuel storage tanks at refueling stations that are clean fuel compatible, if technically and economically feasible; o The use of energy efficient lighting (including controls) and process systems beyond Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged where practicable (e.g., water heating, furnaces, boiler units, etc.);
o The use of energy efficient automated controls for air conditioning beyond Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged where practicable; and o Promote solar access through building siting to maximize natural heating and cooling, and landscaping to aid passive cooling and to protect from winds; o The developer of a sensitive air pollution receptor shall submit documentation ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 33
that the project design includes appropriate buffering (e.g., setbacks, landscaping) to separate the use from highways, arterial streets, hazardous material locations and other sources of air pollution or odor;
o Identify sources of toxic air emissions and, if appropriate, require preparation of a health risk assessment in accordance with Air District-recommended procedures; and
o Circulate the environmental documents for projects with significant air quality impacts to the Air District for review and comment.
• RC-6c: Review area and stationary source projects that could have a significant air quality impact, either individually or cumulatively, to identify the significance of potential impacts and ensure that adequate air quality mitigation is incorporated into the project, including:
o The use of best available and economically feasible control technology for stationary industrial sources;
o All applicable particulate matter control requirements of Air District Regulation VIII;
o The use of new and replacement fuel storage tanks at refueling stations that are clean fuel compatible, if technically and economically feasible; o Provision of adequate electric or natural gas outlets to encourage use of natural gas or electric barbecues and electric gardening equipment; and o Use of alternative energy sources.
• RC-6d: Maintain adequate data to analyze cumulative land use impacts on air quality and climate change. This includes tracking proposed, planned, and approved General Plan amendments, development, and land use decisions so that projects can be evaluated for cumulative air quality impacts, including impacts associated with transportation and land use decisions.
• RC-6e: Prior to entitlement of a project that may be an air pollution point source, such as a manufacturing and extracting facility, the developer shall provide documentation that the use is located and appropriately separated from residential areas and sensitive receptors (e.g., homes, schools, and hospitals).
• RC-6f: Construction activity plans shall include and/or provide for a dust management plan to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard.

Project development applicants shall be responsible for ensuring that all adequate dust control measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of project development and construction.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 34
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for air quality impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would be both a direct and indirect source of air pollution. Direct sources of pollution include area, energy, and water and waste sources, due to development of the on-site buildings and associated infrastructure. Indirect sources of pollution would be due to the generation of trips of from vehicles traveling to and from the Project site.

CalEEModTM (v.2022.1) was used to model operational emissions of the proposed Project. Table Air-1 shows proposed Project emissions as provided by CalEEMod. Further detail is provided in Appendix A. The SJVAPCD provides a list of applicable air quality emissions thresholds.

Table AIR-1: Operational Project Generated Emissions (tons per year) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Emissions 6.53 0.87 1.21 0.02 1.46 0.45
Exceeds
Threshold? N N N N N N
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
The SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. The SJVAPCD has established operations related emissions thresholds of significance as follows: 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO, 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), 27 tons per year of sulfur oxides (SOx), 15 tons per year particulate matter of 10 microns or less in size (PM10), and 15 tons per year particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5). If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for operationalgenerated emissions, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions to the extent feasible. As shown in Table AIR-1 above, operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance.

Separately, emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions from demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings.

CalEEModTM (v.2022.1) was used to estimate construction emissions for the proposed Project.

Table AIR-2, below, provides the construction criteria pollutant emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Further detail is provided in Appendix A.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 35
Table AIR-2: Maximum Construction Project Generated Emissions (tons per year) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 1.65 1.20 0.55 <0.01 0.08 0.05

EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD?

N N N N N N
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for construction-generated emissions, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions. As shown in Table AIR-2, Project maximum construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Nevertheless, regardless of emission quantities, the SJVAPCD requires construction related control measures in accordance with their rules and regulations.

Implementation of these control measures (provided in further detail below) would further reduce proposed Project construction related emissions to the extent possible.

The first step is to prepare a Dust Control Plan that meets all the applicable requirements of APCD Rule 8021. All construction activities are required to implement dust control measures, as required by APCD Rules 8011-8081, to limit Visible Dust Emissions to 20% opacity or less. Dust control measures include application of water or chemical dust suppressants to unpaved roads and graded areas, covering or stabilization of transported bulk materials, prevention of carryout or trackout of soil materials to public roads, limiting the area subject to soil disturbance, construction of wind barriers, access restrictions to inactive sites as required by the applicable rules. The following dust control practices are identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (2002):
a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking.
d. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.
f. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 36
outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions. Compliance with the existing rules and regulations would ensure that the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact on a project-level. The General Plan EIR evaluated this topic.

The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. The implementation of City standards and requirements would reduce any impacts related to air quality to a less than significant level.

Response c): Less than Significant. A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air.

However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources. In addition, the U.S. EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.

The 2007 U.S. EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 145 percent, a ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 37
combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050. California maintains stricter standards for clean fuels and emissions compared to the national standards, therefore it is expected that MSAT trends in California will decrease consistent with or more than the U.S. EPA's national projections.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB, 2005) to provide information to local planners and decision-makers about land use compatibility issues associated with emissions from industrial, commercial and mobile sources of air pollution. The CARB Handbook indicates that mobile sources continue to be the largest overall contributors to the State’s air pollution problems, representing the greatest air pollution health risk to most Californians. The most serious pollutants on a statewide basis include diesel exhaust particulate matter (diesel PM), benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, all of which are emitted by motor vehicles. These mobile source air toxics are largely associated with freeways and high traffic roads. Non-mobile source air toxics are largely associated with industrial and commercial uses. Table Air-3 provides the California Air Resources Board minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses.

Table Air-3: CARB Minimum Separation Recommendations on Siting Sensitive Land Uses

SOURCE CATEGORY ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Freeways and
High-Traffic
Roads
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

Distribution
Centers
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
• Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports
• Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries. Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners
Using Perchloroethylene
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district. • Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater).

A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

SOURCES: AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK: A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE” (CARB 2005) ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 38
The proposed Project does not generate any land uses that generate notable sources of TACs.

Since the proposed Project would not generate a significant risk of public exposure to TACs or a substantially greater impact than that evaluated in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

Response d): Less than Significant. Operation of the proposed Project would not generate notable odors. The land uses included in the proposed Project are compatible with the surrounding existing and proposed land uses. People in the immediate vicinity of construction activities may be subject to temporary odors typically associated with construction activities (diesel exhaust, hot asphalt, etc.). However, any odors generated by construction activities would be minor and would be short and temporary in duration.

Examples of facilities that are known producers of operational odors include: Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chemical Manufacturing, Sanitary Landfill, Fiberglass Manufacturing, Transfer Station, Painting/Coating Operations (e.g. auto body shops), Composting Facility, Food Processing Facility, Petroleum Refinery, Feed Lot/Dairy, Asphalt Batch Plant, and Rendering Plant. If a project would locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other further analysis may be warranted; however, if a project would not locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other, then further analysis is not warranted. The project does not propose to locate sensitive receptors near these types of stationary sources, and thus, the project would not be exposed to odors in the vicinity. Should any of the future residential or park uses generate odors during construction, the odors would be contained within the building envelope and proper ventilation would be provided. This is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 39
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision and would modify habitats through the removal of plant cover on the Project site. There is limited potential for impacts to special status animal or plant species to occur due to the lack of habitat and the existing developed lands surrounding the Project site. The Project site does not contain any oak trees, creeks, riparian areas, wetlands, or other sensitive habitat.

Prior Environmental Analysis
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the biological resources of the City of Manteca because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included development impacts to special-status species, species of concern, non-listed species, biological communities, and migratory wildlife corridors (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.4-32 through 3.4-48). Mitigation measures to ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 40
address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan EIR and include General Plan policies that encourage the protection and conservation of biological resources and require compliance with rules and regulations protecting biological resources. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-1.1: Where feasible, protect and enhance surface water resources in creeks, streams, channels, seasonal and permanent marshland, wetlands, sloughs, riparian habitat, and vernal pools through sound land use planning, community design, and site planning. • RC-1.4: Encourage the rehabilitation of culverted or open existing channelized waterways to a more natural condition, as feasible, to remove concrete linings and allow for a connection between the stream channel and the natural water table. Avoid creating additional culverted or open channelized waterways, unless no other alternative is available to protect human health, safety, and welfare. • RC-1.5: Where feasible, require development projects adjacent to creeks and streams to include opportunities for beneficial uses, such as flood control, ecological restoration, public access trails, and walkways.
• RC-1.6: Encourage the conservation of riparian habitat along local creeks and waterways in order to maintain water quality and provide suitable habitat for native fish and plant species.
• RC-1.8: Minimize pollution of water resources, including the San Joaquin River, other waterways, and the groundwater basin, from urban runoff, soil erosion, and sedimentation.
• RC-7.1: Consider General Plan land use designations that include agriculture, permanent open space, parks and similar uses, as well as waterways (i.e., San Joaquin River, Lower Lone Tree Creek, Middle Lone Tree Creek, Oakwood Lake, Walker Slough, and Walthall Slough), as contributing to the City’s open space.
• RC-7.2: Conserve open space for conservation, recreation, and agricultural uses.

Conversion of open space, as described under Policy RC-7.1, to developed residential, commercial, industrial, or other similar types of uses, shall be strongly discouraged.

Undeveloped land that is designated for urban uses may be developed if needed to support economic development, improve the City’s housing stock and range of housing types, and if the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. • RCP-8.1: Support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban use, until urban development is imminent.
• RC-8.2: Provide an orderly and phased development pattern, encouraging the development of vacant lands within City boundaries prior to conversion of agricultural lands, so that farmland is not subjected to premature development pressure. • RC-8.3: Encourage permanent agricultural lands surrounding the Planning Area to serve as community separators and continue the agricultural heritage of Manteca. • RC-9.1: Protect sensitive habitats that include creek corridors, wetlands, vernal pools, riparian areas, wildlife and fish migration corridors, native plant nursery sites, waters of ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 41
the United States, sensitive natural communities, and other habitats designated by State and Federal agencies.
• RC-9.2: Preserve and enhance those biological communities that contribute to Manteca and the region’s biodiversity, including but not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, and agricultural lands
• RC-9.3: Focus conservation efforts on high priority conservation areas that contain suitable habitat for endangered, threatened, migratory, or special-status species and that can be managed with minimal interference with nearby urban land uses. • RC-9.4: Conserve existing native vegetation, where possible, and integrate regionally native plant species into development and infrastructure projects where appropriate.
• RC-9.5: Condition new development in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River and Walthall Slough to protect riparian habitat, wetlands, and other native vegetation and wildlife communities and habitats.
• RC-9.7: Protect special status species and other species that are sensitive to human activities.
• RC-9.9: Encourage the planting of native vegetation on new drainage channels. • RC-9.8: Encourage contiguous habitat areas.
• RC-9.10: Continue to support and implement the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (County Habitat Plan). • RC-11.1: Support the long-term viability and success of the natural Delta ecosystems and the continuation of Delta heritage.
• RC-11.2: Support efforts to ensure the protection, viability, and restoration of the Delta ecosystem in perpetuity, including implementing local conservation efforts that improve adequate water supply and quality.
• RC-11.4: Promote protection of areas for habitat restoration, including remnants of riparian and aquatic habitat, particularly in the Delta. • RC-11.5: Encourage compatibility between agricultural practices and wildlife habitat. • RC-11.6: Preserve and protect the water availability and quality of the Delta for designated beneficial uses and habitat protection.
• RC-11.7: Encourage and promote the expansion of floodplains and riparian habitats in levee projects.
• RC-12.1: Ensure the long-term viability, success of the natural Delta ecosystems, and continuation of Delta heritage.
• RC-12.2: Support efforts for the protection and restoration of the Delta ecosystem in perpetuity, including implementing local conservation efforts that improve adequate water supply and quality.
• RC-12.4: Support regional efforts to address issues related to urban development, habitat conservation and agricultural protection through participating in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). • RC-12.5: Promote protection of remnants of riparian and aquatic habitat.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 42
• RC-12.7: Preserve and protect the water availability and quality of the Delta for both designated beneficial uses, and habitat protections.
• RC-12.8: Protect opportunities for habitat restoration. • RC-12.9: Encourage and promote the expansion of floodplains and riparian habitats in levee projects.

The General Plan policies described above, combined with the Manteca Municipal Code requirements, would protect biological resources in the Project area. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan’s adopted vision and land uses designated on the Project site, and would not result in any new or substantially increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to these environmental topics were less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.4 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan EIR did not identify any mitigation measures, but the General Plan included policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to biological resources.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for biological resources impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The Project site is primarily leveled agricultural fields farmed in row crops that are biologically unremarkable. Due to a lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that special-status plants occur on the Project site. No special-status wildlife species are expected to occur on the Project site on more than a very occasional or transitory basis. The site is not in designated critical habitat of any federally listed species. Habitats on the Project site are highly disturbed from intensive farming for decades and periodic disking and tilling of portions of the site for several years. Ruderal grassland vegetation on the Project site is primarily constrained to the outer edges of the vegetable fields on the Project site, surrounding the site.

Special-status plants generally occur in relatively undisturbed areas in vegetation communities such as vernal pools, marshes and swamps, seasonal wetlands, riparian scrub, and areas with unusual soils. All special-status plants in area occur in habitat types that do not occur on the Project site. The site contains ruderal grassland species that is routinely disked and the site has been historically farmed for decades and is not suitable for special-status plants. No specialstatus plants or potentially suitable habitat for special-status plants are observed on the Project site. Due to lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that special status plants occur in the Project site.

Human settlement has involved a high frequency of ground disturbance associated with the historical farming activities in the region, including the Project site. Therefore, the Project site ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 43
does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant species. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on these species.

Special-status wildlife species recorded in project area include burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi). While the project site may have provided habitat for several of the special-status wildlife species at some time in the past, intensive farming and development have substantially modified natural habitats in the greater project vicinity, including those in the Project site. Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and white-tailed kite are the only species identified that has much potential to occur on the Project site on more than a transitory or very occasional basis.

Special-status birds that occur within the region include: tricolored blackbird, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, and bald eagle, which are associated with streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, marshes, and other wet environments; loggerhead shrike, and burrowing owl, which lives in open areas, usually grasslands, with scattered trees and brush; and raptors that are present in varying habitats throughout the region.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special-status plants and animals, including habitat. The City of Manteca General Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. Additionally, the project would be subject to the mitigation requirements set forth by the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (HCP/SJMSCP). Implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, as well as Federal and State regulations, would ensure that the project results in a less than significant impact to these species.

Swainson’s Hawk. The Swainson’s hawk is threatened in California and is protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

Additionally, Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is protected by the CDFG. Swainson’s hawks forage in open grasslands and agricultural fields and commonly nest in solitary trees and riparian areas near foraging habitat. The agricultural land on the Project site provides foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. There are also several potential nest trees along the edge, outside of the Project site, and annual cropland and grasslands in the region provide suitable foraging habitat for this species. Incidental take minimization measures are required for this species since there is suitable nesting and foraging habitat on or near the Project site. The proposed Project will participate in the HCP/ SJMSCP (SJCOG, 2000). The HCP involves payment of fees and compliance with standard Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs) that will be issued for the project.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 44
Pursuant to the HCP, if construction is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (i.e., between February 15 through August 31), and Swainson’s hawks are nesting in or near the Project site, a construction setback of twice the diameter of the drip-line of the nest tree (as measured from under the nest) would be required until nesting is complete. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-1 would ensure that Swainson’s hawks are not impacted during construction activities. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-1 would ensure that the project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources.

Burrowing Owls. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protects burrowing owls year-round, as well as their nests during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Burrowing owls are a year-long resident in a variety of grasslands as well as scrub lands that have a low density of trees and shrubs with low growing vegetation; burrowing owls that nest in the Central Valley may winter elsewhere. The primary habitat requirement of the burrowing owl is small mammal burrows for nesting. The owl usually nests in abandoned ground squirrel burrows, although they have been known to dig their own burrows in softer soils. In urban areas, burrowing owls often utilize artificial burrows including pipes, culverts, and piles of concrete pieces. This semi-colonial owl breeds from March through August, and is most active while hunting during dawn and dusk. The intensity of development and agriculture within and surrounding the Project site reduces the likelihood of burrowing owls using the Project site for nesting. If burrow habitat becomes available in the future, this species may utilize habitats in the Project site for nesting. Pursuant to the HCP/SJMSCP, if construction is scheduled to commence outside the nesting season (i.e., if construction starts between September 1 and January 31) and burrowing owls are present on-site, they can be passively relocated. If construction commences during the nesting season and burrowing owls are present on-site, a 250-foot construction setback from the natal burrow would be required until nesting is complete. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-2 would ensure that burrowing owls are not impacted during construction activities. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-2 would ensure that the project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources.

White-Tailed Kite. White-tailed kite is a State of California Species of Concern, but is not a listed species at the state or federal level. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code protect white-tailed kite year-round, as well as their nests during nesting season; nesting for this species peaks from May to August. White-tailed kites can be found in a variety of habitats across California including grasslands, open woodlands, riparian areas, marshes, and cultivated fields.

Populations of white-tailed kites are concentrated in the Central Valley, but their range spans west of the Sierra Nevada’s to the California coastline. White-tailed kite may nest in trees in or near the Project site and may forage in the onsite fields and grasslands near the Project site.

Nesting usually commences in the early spring, concurrent with other resident Central Valley raptors, and most young fledge by early-July. Pursuant to the HCP/ SJMSCP, if construction is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (i.e., between February 15 through September 15), and white-tailed kites are nesting in or near the Project site, a construction setback of a 100- ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 45
foot construction setback from the nest would be required until nesting is complete. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-3 would ensure that white-tailed kites are not impacted during construction activities. The implementation of Project Requirement BIO-3 would ensure that the project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement BIO-1: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the Project site, the project applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawks. If no hawks or hawk nests are detected, then construction activities may commence. If Swainson’s hawks or occupied nests are discovered, then the following shall be implemented:
• During the nesting season (February 15 through August 31) and Swainson’s hawks are nesting in or near the Project site, a construction setback of 250 feet of the nest tree (as measured from under the nest) would be required until nesting is complete.

Implementation of this requirement shall occur prior to grading or site clearing activities. SJCOG shall be responsible for monitoring and a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys as required.

Project Requirement BIO-2: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the Project site, the project applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls. If no owls or owl nests are detected, then construction activities may commence. If burrowing owls or occupied nests are discovered, then the following shall be implemented:
• During the nesting season (February 1 and August 31) and burrowing owls are present onsite, a 250-foot construction setback from the natal burrow would be required until nesting is complete.
• Outside the nesting season (September 1 and January 31) burrowing owls occupying the Project site should be evicted from the Project site by passive relocation as described in the California Department of Fish and Game’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owls (Oct., 1995) Implementation of this requirement shall occur prior to grading or site clearing activities. SJCOG shall be responsible for monitoring and a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys and relocate owls as required.

Project Requirement BIO-3: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the Project site, the project applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for white-tailed kites. If no kites or kite nests are detected, then construction activities may commence. If white-tailed kite or occupied nests are discovered, then the following shall be implemented:

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 46
• During the nesting season (February 15 through September 15) occupied nests shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a 100-foot construction setback 100-foot construction setback from the nest would be required until nesting is complete.

Implementation of this requirement shall occur prior to grading or site clearing activities. SJCOG shall be responsible for monitoring and a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys as required.

Response b): No Impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located on the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would have no impact on these resources, and no mitigation is required.

Response c): Less than Significant. The project site does not contain protected wetlands or other jurisdictional areas and there is no need for permitting associated with the federal or state Clean Water Acts. Absent any wetlands or jurisdictional waters, implementation of the proposed project would have less than significant impact relative to this topic.

Response d): Less than Significant. There are no documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is located within a mostly developed area that includes roads, existing residential developments. The residential development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Responses e), f): Less than Significant. The Project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (“Plan” or “SJMSCP”) and is located within the Central Zone of the SJMSCP. The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) prepared the Plan pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding adopted by SJCOG, San Joaquin County, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the CDFW, Caltrans, and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy in October 1994. On February 27, 2001, the Plan was unanimously adopted in its entirety by SJCOG.

According to Chapter 1 of the SJMSCP, its key purpose is to “provide a strategy for balancing the need to conserve open space and the need to convert open space to non-open space uses, while protecting the region's agricultural economy; preserving landowner property rights; providing for the long-term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be listed in the future, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); providing and maintaining multiple use Open Spaces which contribute to the quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin County; and, accommodating a growing population while minimizing costs to project proponents and society at large.”
In addition to providing compensation for conversion of open space to non-open space uses, which affect plant and animal species covered by the SJMSCP, the SJMSCP also provides some compensation to offset impacts of open space conversions on non-wildlife related resources such ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 47
as recreation, agriculture, scenic values, and other beneficial open space uses. Specifically, the SJMSCP compensates for conversions of open space to urban development and the expansion of existing urban boundaries, among other activities, for public and private activities throughout the County and within Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy.

Participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary for both local jurisdictions and project applicants. Only agencies adopting the SJMSCP would be covered by the SJMSCP. Individual project applicants have two options if their project is in a jurisdiction participating in the SJMSCP: mitigating under the SJMSCP or negotiating directly with the state and/or federal permitting agencies. If a project applicant opts for SJMSCP coverage in a jurisdiction that is participating under the SJMSCP, the following options are available, unless their activities are otherwise exempted: pay the appropriate fee; dedicate, as conservation easements or fee title, habitat lands; purchase approved mitigation bank credits; or, propose an alternative mitigation plan.

Responsibilities of permittees covered by the SJMSCP include collection of fees, maintenance of implementing ordinances/resolutions, conditioning permits (if applicable), and coordinating with the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for Annual Report accounting. Funds collected for the SJMSCP are to be used for the following: acquiring Preserve lands, enhancing Preserve lands, monitoring, and management of Preserve lands in perpetuity, and the administration of the SJMSCP. Because the primary goal of SJMSCP is to preserve productive agricultural use that is compatible with SJMSCP’s biological goals, most of the SJMSCP’s Preserve lands would be acquired through the purchase of easements in which landowners retain ownership of the land and continue to farm the land. These functions are managed by SJCOG.

The proposed Project is classified as Agricultural Habitat Open Spaces under the SJMSCP. The proposed Project was analyzed for consistency with the SJMSCP by De Novo Planning Group, and it was determined that the proposed Project would not conflict with the SJMSCP. The City of Manteca and the project applicant shall consult with SJCOG to utilize coverage of the project pursuant to the SJMSCP prior to development of the Project site, as provided under Project Requirement BIO-4. The implementation of Project Requirement 4 would ensure that the project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement BIO-4: Prior to development of the Project site, including the commencement of grading activities, the City of Manteca and the project applicant shall consult with SJCOG to utilize coverage of the project pursuant to the SJMSCP.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 48
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
'15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to '15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Project Impacts:

The Project site does not contain any resources that are listed with the California Register of Historical Resources or that have been determined by the lead agency to have significance to a California Native American Tribe. The Central California Information Center (CCIC) record search did not identify any known prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources within 0.25 miles of the project area. No impacts to tribal cultural resources are anticipated. A Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis has been prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix B).

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources within the Planning area because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included potential destruction or damage to any historical, cultural, and paleontological resources (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.5-14 through 3.5-21). However, the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions for the preservation and treatment of archaeological, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-11.1. Protect important historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Manteca.
• RC-11.2. Encourage historic resources to remain in their original use whenever possible.

The adaptive use of historic resources is preferred, particularly as museums, educational facilities, or visitor-serving uses, when the original use can no longer be sustained. Older residences may be converted to office/retail use in commercial areas and to tourist or business use, so long as their historical authenticity is maintained or enhanced. • RC-11.3. Do not approve any public or private project that may adversely affect an archaeological site without consulting the California Archaeological Inventory at Stanislaus State University, conducting a site evaluation as may be indicated, and ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 49
attempting to mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. City implementation of this policy shall be guided by CEQA and the National Historic Preservation Act.
• RC-11.4. Require that the proponent of any development proposal in an area with potential archaeological resources, and specifically near the San Joaquin River and Walthall Slough, and on the east side of State Highway 99 at the Louise Avenue crossing, shall consult with the California Archaeological Inventory, Stanislaus State University to determine the potential for discovery of cultural resources, conduct a site evaluation as may be indicated, and mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. The survey and mitigation shall be developer funded. • RC-11.9. Review new development projects and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.
• RC-11.10. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
• RC-11.11. Consistent with State, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB 18, consult as necessary with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.

Implementation: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-11a. Require a records search for any proposed development project, to determine whether the site contains known archaeological, historic, or cultural resources and/or to determine the potential for discovery of additional cultural resources. This requirement may be waived if determined by the City that the proposed project area is already sufficiently surveyed.
• RC-11b. Require a cultural and archaeological survey prior to approval of any project which would require excavation in an area that is sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If significant cultural or archaeological resources, including historic and prehistoric resources, are identified, appropriate measures shall be implemented, such as documentation and conservation, to reduce adverse impacts to the resource. • RC-11c. Require all City permits for reconstruction or modification of existing buildings to include the submittal of a photograph of the existing structure or site. The intent is to create a record of the buildings in the City over time. A photograph will also be required for vacant sites that will be modified with new construction of new buildings or other above ground improvements.
• RC-11d. Incorporate significant archaeological sites, where feasible, into open space areas.
• RC-11e. Continue to inventory historic sites throughout the City. The inventory should contain a narrative of the significant facts regarding the historic events or persons associated with the site, and pictures of the site.
• RC-11f. Continue to support the local historical society in their efforts to:
o Archive historic information, including photographs, publications, oral histories ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 50
and other materials, and
o make the information available to the public for viewing and research. • RC-11g. Encourage the placement of monuments or plaques that recognize and celebrate historic sites, structures, and events.
• RC-11j. Require all new development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:
o If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Director shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Director; and
o If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Community Development Director and the San Joaquin County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Community Development Director.

The General Plan policies described above, combined with the Manteca Municipal Code requirements, would protect historical archaeological deposits in the EIR planning area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation.

Implementation of the proposed action identified above, as well as compliance with federal, State, and local laws and regulations, would reduce potential impacts to historical archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a), b), c): Less than Significant. Because the Project site has been previously disturbed by the agricultural operations, it is not anticipated that site grading and preparation activities would result in impacts to cultural, historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. According to the Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis (Appendix B), the CCIC record search demonstrated that no previously documented prehistoric or historic-era sites, features, artifacts, or other properties are located within the project area. The Central California Information Center (CCIC) record search did not identify any known prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources within 0.25 miles of the project area. There are no known human remains located on the Project site, nor is there evidence to suggest that human remains may be present on the Project site. The Manteca General Plan includes policies and actions that would ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 51
reduce impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. The proposed Project would be subject to all relevant General Plan policies and actions that provide protections for cultural, historical, and tribal resources. The General Plan policies and actions provide a framework for ensuring that effects on significant unknown historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources are reduced to the extent feasible. The project would be subject to all General Plan Requirements, and is consistent with the development types anticipated under the General Plan and General Plan EIR. Furthermore, in accordance with the City of Manteca General Plan, a cultural resources constraints analysis was prepared for the project, which included a recommendation to be incorporated into the construction of the proposed Project. This recommendation has been incorporated into the following project requirement. Implementation of the following project requirement would ensure the potential impacts are less than significant.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement CUL-1: If presently undocumented buried archaeological deposits are encountered during construction activities, work must cease within a 50-foot radius of the discovery.

A qualified archaeologist must be retained to document the discovery, assess its significance, and recommend treatment. If human remains or any associated funerary artifacts are discovered during construction, all work must cease within the immediate vicinity of the discovery. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5), the San Joaquin County Sheriff/Coroner must be contacted immediately. If the Coroner determines the remains to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will in turn appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to act as a tribal representative. The MLD will work with the project proponent/applicant and a qualified archaeologist to determine the proper treatment of the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Construction activities will not resume until either the human remains are exhumed, or the remains are avoided via project construction design change.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 52
VI. ENERGY
Significant Impact Peculiar to the Project or the Project Site
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, energy would be used during both the construction phase and during the operational phase of the proposed project. Energy usage during the construction phase would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment. Construction-related energy usage can vary substantially depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, and types of equipment. Operational energy usage would be generated by electricity use for the onsite facilities and landscaping at the project site. Energy usage during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project would be typical for a project of this kind, and would not represent a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan (EIR) did not include a dedicated analysis of energy impacts as consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project were not required at the time it was written. However, the General Plan EIR included a host of other adopted regulations that require energy efficiency standards, including:
• Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards • Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building Energy Efficiency Standards • Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code Consistency with these standards, as well as other applicable city regulations, would ensure energy efficiency to greatest extent feasible.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

The consumption of energy because of development activities is discussed in the Manteca General Plan. Policies and mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan that encourage coordination with utility service providers and the conservation of energy and resources.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 53
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-b): Less than Significant. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a Project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The amount of energy used at the Project site would directly correlate to the energy consumption (including fuel) used by vehicle trips generated during project construction, fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction, fuel used by vehicles during project operation, and electricity usage during project operation.

The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Manteca and San Joaquin County. For example, buildings developed as part of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the latest version of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), which require a high degree of energy efficiency for new buildings. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g., the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), which improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel for any trips that would be generated by the project. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

The amount of energy used by the proposed Project during operation would include the amount of energy used by the project building and outdoor lighting, the fuel used by vehicle trips generated during operation, and fuel used by project maintenance activities during project operation. For construction, the proposed Project would not require energy consumption that would be out of the ordinary for a project of its size and type.

Overall, the proposed Project would not violate any state or federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy efficiencies, ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 54
energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 55
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

X
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 or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
X
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?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision in a seismically active region. The Project site is not located within a currently designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known surface expressions of active faults are believed to exist within the Project site. The closest known faults classified as active by the U.S. Geological Survey include an unnamed fault east of the City of Tracy, located approximately 5 miles to the west of Manteca, and the San Joaquin fault, located approximately 15 miles to the southwest of ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 56
the city. The Midway fault is located approximately 20 miles to the west, and the Greenville Fault, located approximately 25 miles west of the Project site.

Construction of the proposed Project will involve clearing and grading of the Project site, which could render the Project site susceptible to a temporary increase in erosion from the grading and construction activities.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impacts due to local soils and geologic conditions that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included seismic hazards such as groundshaking and liquefaction, erosion, soil stability, and wastewater conflicts (City of Manteca General Plan Update Draft EIR, pages 3.6- 16 through 3.6-28). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in geological impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards contained in the Manteca Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding geologic hazards and compliance with local, state, and federal standards related to geologic conditions.

The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Safety Element
• S-2.1. Enforce adopted regulations to identify and address potential hazards relating to seismic, geologic, and soils conditions.
• S-2.2. Regulate development in areas of seismic and geologic hazards to reduce risks to life and property associated with earthquakes, liquefaction, erosion, and expansive soils. • S-2.3. Require new development to mitigate the potential impacts of geologic and seismic hazards, including uncompacted fill, liquefaction, and subsidence, through the development review process.
• S-2.6. Continue to require professional inspection of foundation, excavation, earthwork, and other geotechnical aspects of site development during construction on those sites specified in geotechnical studies as being prone to moderate or greater levels of seismic or geologic hazard.
• S-2.8. Ensure that all public facilities, including buildings, water tanks, and reservoirs, are structurally sound and able to withstand seismic shaking and the effects of seismicallyinduced ground failure, consistent with the California Building Standards Codes and other applicable standards.

Implementation: Safety Element
• S-2a. Continue to require preparation of geotechnical reports for proposed development projects, public projects, and all critical structures. The reports should include, but not be limited to: evaluation of and recommendations to mitigate the effects of fault displacement, ground shaking, uncompacted fill, expansive soils, liquefaction, subsidence, and settlement. Recommendations from the report shall be incorporated into the development project to address seismic and geologic risks identified in the report.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 57
• S-2b. Review development proposals to ensure compliance with the current State building standards.
• S-2c. Review development proposals to ensure compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 19100 et seq. (Earthquake Protection Law), which requires that buildings be designed to resist stresses produced by natural forces such as earthquakes and wind.

In addition, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations.

Collectively, these state requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Manteca, include design standards and requirements that are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. Section 1613 specifically provides structural design standards for earthquake loads. Section 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613. Additionally, the City of Manteca has adopted Design and Construction Standards and incorporated numerous policies relative to seismicity to ensure the health and safety of all people.

The General Plan EIR determined that impacts due to geologic and seismic conditions were less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.6 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for geology and soils impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the Manteca General Plan will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City ordinances, rules, and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a.i), a.ii): Less than Significant. The Project site is in an area of moderate to high seismicity. However, no known active faults cross the Project site, and the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Nevertheless, relatively large earthquakes have historically occurred in the Bay Area and along the margins of the Central Valley. Many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year in California.

Portions of the Great Valley fault are considered seismically active thrust faults; however, since the Great Valley fault segments are not known to extend to the ground surface, the State of California has not defined Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones around the postulated traces. The Great Valley fault is considered capable of causing significant ground shaking at the Project site, but the recurrence interval is believed longer than for more distant, strike-slip faults. Further seismic activity can be expected to continue along the western margin of the Central Valley, and ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 58
as with all projects in the area, the proposed Project will be designed to accommodate strong earthquake ground shaking, in compliance with the applicable California building code standards.

Since there are no known active faults crossing the Project site and the Project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, the potential for ground rupture at the Project site is considered low.

An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region and along the margins of the central valley could cause considerable ground shaking at the Project site, like that which has occurred in the past. To minimize potential damage to the proposed structures caused by groundshaking, all construction would comply with the latest California Building Code standards, as required by the City of Manteca Municipal Code.

Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead-and-live loads. The code-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage.

Building new structures for human use would increase the number of people exposed to local and regional seismic hazards. Seismic hazards are a significant risk for most property in California.

The City reviews all proposed development projects for consistency with the General Plan policies and California Building Code provisions identified above. This review occurs throughout the project application review and processing stage, and throughout plan check and building inspection phases prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In order to minimize potential damage to the buildings and site improvements, all construction in California is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations. Collectively, these state requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Manteca, include design standards and requirements that are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. Section 1613 specifically provides structural design standards for earthquake loads. Section 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613. Additionally, the City of Manteca has adopted Design and Construction Standards and incorporated numerous policies relative to seismicity to ensure the health and safety of all people. Design in accordance with these standards and policies would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. Because all development in the project site must be designed in conformance with these state and local standards and policies, any potential impact would be considered less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 59
Responses a.iii): Less than Significant. Liquefaction normally occurs when sites underlain by saturated, loose to medium dense, granular soils are subjected to relatively high ground shaking.

During an earthquake, ground shaking may cause certain types of soil deposits to lose shear strength, resulting in ground settlement, oscillation, loss of bearing capacity, landsliding, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. Mostliquefaction hazards are associated with sandy soils, some silty soils of low plasticity, and some gravelly soils. Cohesive soils are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. In general, liquefaction hazards are most severe within the upper 50 feet of the surface, except where slope faces or deep foundations are present. Since groundwater is not present up to the maximum depth explored of 31.5 feet, the Geotechnical Report concluded that the potential for liquefaction is low at the Project site.

The City of Manteca General Plan requires geotechnical investigations to be completed prior to approval of any buildings to ensure that these facilities are constructed in a way that mitigates site-specific seismic and/or geological hazards. Any future development would be required to prepare soils investigations to address seismic safety issues and provide adequate mitigation for potential hazards identified, and would be required to comply with all CBC seismic requirements.

The City requires that, prior to development of the Project site, a subsurface geotechnical investigation must be performed to identify onsite soil conditions and identify any site-specific engineering measures to be implemented during the construction of building foundations and subsurface utilities. As a condition of approval, a geotechnical investigation would be prepared for the proposed Project which includes recommendations to be incorporated in the design of the Project and implemented during construction. Adherence to the engineering requirements contained in the subsurface geotechnical report would ensure that the project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan. As such, this is a less than significant impact.

Responses a.iv): Less than Significant. The Project site is relatively flat and there are no major slopes in the vicinity of the Project site. As such, the Project site is exposed to little or no risk associated with landslides. This is a less than significant impact.

Response b): Less than Significant. During the construction preparation process, exposed surfaces could be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. Effects from erosion include impacts on water quality and air quality. Exposed soils that are not properly contained or capped increase the potential for increased airborne dust and increased discharge of sediment and other pollutants into nearby stormwater drainage facilities. Risks associated with erosive surface soils can be reduced by using appropriate controls during construction and properly re-vegetating exposed areas. The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is less than significant impact.

Responses c), d): Less than Significant. The potential for the project to be exposed to unstable soil conditions resulting from on-or off-site landslide, and liquefaction are discussed above under Responses a.iii, and a.iv., and were found to be less than significant impacts.

Lateral Spreading: The geologic conditions conducive to lateral spreading include gentle surface slope (0.3-5% slope), and liquefiable soils. The proposed Project would not result in new or ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 60
substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is less than significant impact.

Expansive Soils: Expansive soils shrink/swell when subjected to moisture fluctuations, which could cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to moisture changes in expansive soils could be reduced by appropriate grading practices and using posttensioned slab foundations or similarly stiffened foundation systems which are designed to resist the deflections associated with soil expansion. As noted in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, of the General Plan EIR, all construction in the city is required to be designed in accordance with the latest seismic design standards of the California Building Code. The California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 16 addresses structural design and Chapter 18 addresses soils and foundations. Collectively, these state requirements, which have been adopted by the City of Manteca, include design standards and requirements that are intended to minimize impacts to structures in seismically active areas of California. Section 1803.5.11 and 1803.5.12 provide requirements for geotechnical investigations for structures assigned varying Seismic Design Categories in accordance with Section 1613. Additionally, the City of Manteca has adopted Design and Construction Standards and incorporated numerous policies relative to seismicity to ensure the health and safety of all people. Design in accordance with these standards and policies would reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. Because all development in the project site must be designed in conformance with these state and local standards and policies, any potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Response e): No Impact. The Project site would be served by public wastewater facilities and does not require an alternative wastewater system such as septic tanks. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact on this environmental issue.

Response f): Less than Significant. The Project site is in an area known to have paleontological resources. The Manteca General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to paleontological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of paleontological resources. The proposed Project would be subject to all relevant General Plan policies and actions that provide protections for paleontological resources.

The General Plan policies and actions provide a framework for ensuring that effects on significant unknown paleontological resources are reduced to the extent feasible. The Project would be subject all General Plan Requirements, and is consistent with the development types anticipated under the General Plan and General Plan EIR. As such, this is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 61
XIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, development of the proposed Project will result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operational activities. The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation and is consistent with the growth assumptions of applicable plans. There is nothing peculiar about the site that presents impacts greater than was anticipated under the General Plan. As discussed below, compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations would reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant level.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with applicable adopted greenhouse gas plans, policies, or regulations resulting from implementation of the General Plan.

The General Plan EIR concluded that due to the magnitude of growth associated with the buildout of the General Plan, development anticipated by the General Plan could remain substantial and would not contribute to net achievement of the State’s long-term climate stabilization goals.

However, implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions, combined with application of the Federal and State regulations, the CARB’s Scoping Plan, and SJCOG’s RTP/SCS, would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. In addition, findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Manteca City Council regarding these impacts.

The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Land Use Element
• LU-3.9: Locate residences away from areas of excessive noise, smoke, dust, odor, and lighting, and ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or transitional uses, such as less intensive renewable energy production, light industrial, office, or commercial uses, separate the proposed residential uses from more intensive uses, including industrial, agricultural, or agricultural industrial uses and designated truck routes, to ensure the health and well-being of existing and future residents.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 62
• LU-6.9: Require mixed-use development to provide strong connections with the surrounding development and neighborhoods through the provision of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and, where feasible, site consolidation. • LU-9.1: Require future planning decisions, development, and infrastructure and public projects to consider the effects of planning decisions on the overall health and well-being of the community and its residents, with specific consideration provided regarding addressing impacts to disadvantaged populations and communities and ensuring disadvantaged communities have equitable access to services and amenities. • LU-9.2: As part of land use decisions, ensure that environmental justice issues related to potential adverse health impacts associated with land use decisions, including methods to reduce exposure to hazardous materials, industrial activity, vehicle exhaust, other sources of pollution, and excessive noise on residents regardless of age, culture, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, are considered and addressed.

Implementation: Land Use Element
• LU-1b: Regularly review and revise, as necessary, the Zoning Code to accomplish the following purposes:
o Ensure consistency with the General Plan in terms of zoning districts and development standards;
o Provide for a Downtown zone that permits the vibrant mixing of residential, commercial, office, business-professional, and institutional uses within the Central Business District;
o Ensure adequate buffers and transitions are required between intensive uses, such as industrial and agricultural industrial, and sensitive receptors, including residential uses and schools; and
o Provide for an Agricultural Industrial zone that accommodates the processing of crops and livestock.
o Ensure that land use requirements meet actual demand and needs over time as technology, social expectations, and business practices change. • LU-6a: Consider implementing incentives to support developers who construct vertical mixed-use projects and/or who build housing above non-residential ground-floor uses within Downtown.
• LU-9a: Review all development proposals, planning projects, and infrastructure projects to ensure that potential adverse impacts to disadvantaged communities, such as exposure to pollutants, including toxic air contaminants, and unacceptable levels of noise and vibration are reduced to the extent feasible and that measures to improve quality of life, such as connections to bicycle and pedestrian paths, community services, schools, and ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 63
recreation facilities, access to healthy foods, and improvement of air quality are included in the project. The review shall address both the construction and operation phases of the project.
• LU-9c: Encourage and support local transit service providers to increase and expand services for people who are transit-dependent, including seniors, persons with mobility disabilities, and persons without regular access to automobiles by improving connections to regional medical facilities, senior centers, and other support systems that serve residents and businesses.

Policies: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-4.1: Prepare for and respond to the expected impacts of climate change. • RC-4.2: Assess and monitor the effects of climate change and the associated levels of risk in order to adapt to changing climate conditions and be resilient to negative changes and impacts associated with climate change.
• RC-5.1: Ensure that land use and circulation improvements are coordinated to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips.
• RC-5.2: Encourage private development to explore and apply non-traditional energy sources such as co-generation, wind, and solar to reduce dependence on traditional energy sources.
• RC-5.3: Require all new public and privately constructed buildings to meet and comply with construction and design standards that promote energy conservation, including the most current “green” development standards in the California Green Building Standards Code.
• RC-5.4: Support innovative and green building best practices including, but not limited to, LEED certification for all new development, and encourage public and private projects to exceed the most current “green” development standards in the California Green Building Standards Code.
• RC-5.5: Encourage the conservation of public utilities. • RC-5.6: Encourage the conservation of petroleum products. • RC-6.1: Coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Air District), San Joaquin Council of Governments, and the California Air Resources Board (State Air Board), and other agencies to develop and implement regional and county plans, programs, and mitigation measures that address cross-jurisdictional and regional air quality impacts, including land use, transportation, and climate change impacts, and incorporate the relevant provisions of those plans into City planning and project review procedures. Also cooperate with the Air District, SJCOG, and State Air Board in:

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 64
o Enforcing the provisions of the California and Federal Clean Air Acts, state and regional policies, and established standards for air quality. o Identifying baseline air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. o Encouraging economy clean fuel for city vehicle fleets, when feasible. o Developing consistent procedures for evaluating and mitigating project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts of projects.
• RC-6.2: Minimize exposure of the public to toxic or harmful air emissions and odors through requiring an adequate buffer or distance between residential and other sensitive land uses and land uses that typically generate air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, or obnoxious fumes or odors, including but not limited to industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities, highways, and rail lines.
• RC-6.3: Ensure that new construction is managed to minimize fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions.
• RC-6.4: Require appliances and equipment, including wood-burning devices, in development projects to meet current standards for controlling air pollution, including particulate matter and toxic air contaminants.
• RC-6.5: Require and/or cooperate with the Air District to ensure that burning of any combustible material within the City is consistent with Air District regulations to minimize particulate air pollution.

Implementation: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-4a: Continue to assess and monitor performance of greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts, including progress toward meeting longer-term GHG emissions reduction goals for 2035 and 2050 by reporting on the City’s progress annually, updating the Climate Action Plan and GHG inventory regularly to demonstrate consistency with State-adopted GHG reduction targets, including those targets established beyond 2020, and updating the GHG Strategy in the General Plan, as appropriate. • RC-4b: When updating master plans for infrastructure, including water supply, flood control, and drainage, and critical facilities, review relevant climate change scenarios and ensure that the plans consider the potential effects of climate change and include measures to provide resilience.
• RC-4c: Incorporate the likelihood of climate change impacts into City emergency response planning and training.
• RC-5a: Implement development standards and best practices that promote energy conservation and the reduction in greenhouse gases, including:

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 65
o Require new development to be energy-efficient through passive design concepts (e.g., techniques for heating and cooling, building siting orientation, street and lot layout, landscape placement, and protection of solar access; o Require construction standards which promote energy conservation including window placement, building eaves, and roof overhangs;
o Require all projects to meet minimum State and local energy conservation standards; o Require best practices in selecting construction methods, building materials, project appliances and equipment, and project design;
o Encourage and accommodate projects that incorporate alternative energy; o Encourage projects to incorporate enhanced energy conservation measures and other voluntary methods of reducing energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions; and
o Require large energy users to implement an energy conservation plan as part of the project review and approval process, and develop a program to monitor compliance with and effectiveness of that plan.
• RC-5b: Continue to review development projects to ensure that all new public and private development complies with the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards as well as the energy efficiency standards established by the General Plan and the Municipal Code.
• RC-5c: Develop a public education program to increase public participation in energy conservation.
• RC-5d: Connect residents and businesses with programs that provide free or low-cost energy efficiency audits and retrofits to existing buildings. • RC-5e: Update the Municipal Code to incentivize the use of small-scale renewable energy facilities and, where appropriate, to remove impediments to such uses. • RC-5f: Cooperate with other agencies, jurisdictions, and organizations to expand energy conservation programs.
• RC-5g: Explore alternative energy sources, including co-generation, active solar energy, and wind generation, and identify opportunities for alternative energy to be used in public and private projects.
• RC-5h: Implement transportation measures, as outlined in the Circulation Element, which reduce the need for automobile use and petroleum products. • RC-6a: Work with the Air District to implement the Air Quality Management Plan ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 66
(AQMP).
o Cooperate with the Air District to develop consistent and accurate procedures for evaluating project-specific and cumulative air quality impacts. o Cooperate with the Air District and the State Air Board in their efforts to develop a local airshed model.
o Cooperate with the Air District in its efforts to develop a cost/benefit analysis of possible control strategies (mitigation measures to minimize short and long-term stationary and area source emissions as part of the development review process, and monitoring measures to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. • RC-6b: Review development, land use, transportation, and other projects that are subject to CEQA for potentially significant climate change and air quality impacts, including toxic and hazardous emissions and require that projects provide adequate, appropriate, and cost-effective mitigation measures reduce significant and potentially significant impacts.

This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
o Use of the Air District “Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts”, as may be amended or replaced from time to time, in identifying thresholds, evaluating potential project and cumulative impacts, and determining appropriate mitigation measures;
o Contact the Air District for comment regarding potential impacts and mitigation measures as part of the evaluation of air quality effects of discretionary projects that are subject to CEQA;
o Require projects to participate in regional air quality mitigation strategies, including Air District-required regulations, as well as recommended best management practices when applicable and appropriate ;
o Promote the use of new and replacement fuel storage tanks at refueling stations that are clean fuel compatible, if technically and economically feasible; o The use of energy efficient lighting (including controls) and process systems beyond Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged where practicable (e.g., water heating, furnaces, boiler units, etc.);
o The use of energy efficient automated controls for air conditioning beyond Title 24 requirements shall be encouraged where practicable; and o Promote solar access through building siting to maximize natural heating and cooling, and landscaping to aid passive cooling and to protect from winds; o The developer of a sensitive air pollution receptor shall submit documentation that the project design includes appropriate buffering (e.g., setbacks, landscaping) to separate the use from highways, arterial streets, hazardous material locations and other sources of air pollution or odor;
o Identify sources of toxic air emissions and, if appropriate, require preparation of a health risk assessment in accordance with Air District-recommended procedures; ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 67
and
o Circulate the environmental documents for projects with significant air quality impacts to the Air District for review and comment.
• RC-6c: Review area and stationary source projects that could have a significant air quality impact, either individually or cumulatively, to identify the significance of potential impacts and ensure that adequate air quality mitigation is incorporated into the project, including:
o The use of best available and economically feasible control technology for stationary industrial sources;
o All applicable particulate matter control requirements of Air District Regulation VIII;
o The use of new and replacement fuel storage tanks at refueling stations that are clean fuel compatible, if technically and economically feasible; o Provision of adequate electric or natural gas outlets to encourage use of natural gas or electric barbecues and electric gardening equipment; and o Use of alternative energy sources.
• RC-6d: Maintain adequate data to analyze cumulative land use impacts on air quality and climate change. This includes tracking proposed, planned, and approved General Plan amendments, development, and land use decisions so that projects can be evaluated for cumulative air quality impacts, including impacts associated with transportation and land use decisions.
• RC-6e: Prior to entitlement of a project that may be an air pollution point source, such as a manufacturing and extracting facility, the developer shall provide documentation that the use is located and appropriately separated from residential areas and sensitive receptors (e.g., homes, schools, and hospitals).
• RC-6f: Construction activity plans shall include and/or provide for a dust management plan to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard.

Project development applicants shall be responsible for ensuring that all adequate dust control measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of project development and construction.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

Generation of greenhouse gas emissions because of development activities are discussed in the Manteca General Plan. Policies and mitigation measures have been included in the General Plan that promote mixed use and infill development.

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 68
be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Background Discussion
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs, including CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the preindustrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013).

Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2021, accounting for 39% of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (22%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (16%) and the agriculture and forestry sector (8%) (California Energy Commission, 2024).

As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively. California produced approximately 381 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2021 (California Energy Commission, 2024). Given that the U.S. EPA estimates that worldwide emissions from human activities totaled nearly 46 billion gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (BMTCO2e) in 2010, California’s incremental contribution to global GHGs is approximately 2% (U.S. EPA, 2014).

Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 69
dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.

The proposed Project’s short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM.

CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MT CO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.

SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated maximum mitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are summarized in Table GHG-1. These emissions include all worker vehicle, vendor vehicle, hauler vehicle, and off-road construction vehicle GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, based on input from the project proponents, the proposed Project is assumed to commence construction in early 2025 and finish in late 2026. It should be noted that this schedule is an approximation and may change over time. A regularized construction schedule was utilized for modelling purposes for the sake of simplicity.

Table GHG-1: Maximum Construction GHG Emissions (Average MT CO2e/year) YEAR BIO- CO2 NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
2025 0 358 358 <0.1 <0.1 360
2026 0 295 295 <0.1 <0.1 298
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 70
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
As presented in the table above, short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated at a maximum of approximately 360 MT CO2e per year.

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
The operational GHG emissions estimate for the proposed Project includes on-site area, energy, mobile, waste, and water emissions generated by the project during its operation. Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table GHG-2, below. It should be noted that CalEEMod does not account for the Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N-79-20), which requires that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Additionally, the CalEEMod modeling conducted does not account for the incorporation of additional Renewables Portfolio Standard attainment beyond CalEEMod defaults, incorporation of AB 341, and incorporation of Title 24 requirements for the EV charging stations. This is anticipated to substantially reduce the operational emissions associated with passenger vehicles (i.e. mobile emissions), energy emissions, and waste emissions, over time, including prior the 2035 final implementation year. Therefore, the operational emissions results are likely an overestimate for mobile, energy, and waste emissions.

As shown in the following table, as conservatively modeled, the annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 1,651 MT CO2e.

Table GHG-2: Operational GHG Emissions at Buildout (Metric Tons/Year) Sector BIO- CO2 NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2E
Mobile 0 1,400.1 1,400.1 0.1 0.1 2.2 1,423.0
Area 13.7 27.5 41.2 0.1 0.0 0 42.9
Energy 0 158.6 158.6 0.0 0.0 0 159.4
Water 0.9 3.0 3.9 0.1 0.0 0 6.8
Waste 5.4 0 5.4 0.5 0 0 18.9
Refrig. 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2
Total 20.0 1,589.2 1,609.3 0.8 0.1 2.4 1,651.1
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the electrical service provider for the Project site, will need to continue to annually increase renewable electricity through 2045 in order to meet the carbonfree electricity target set by SB 100. The project would need to comply with AB 341, which set a target of reducing landfill waste by 75 percent by 2020, and the Title 24 standards, which require incorporation of rooftop PV systems and solar panels, as well as electric vehicle charging capabilities. The potential reductions in GHG emission associated with this requirement were not incorporated in the reductions, as the amount would be confirmed at a later stage; therefore, the operational emissions shown in Table GHG-2 are conservative.

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE PLANS
Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the San Joaquin Valley region. The Project’s consistency with the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan, as well as San Joaquin ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 71
Council of Government’s (SJCOG’s) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

The CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan strategies that are applicable to the project include reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The project would be consistent with these goals through Project design, which includes complying with the latest requirements of the CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards, providing EV parking spaces and charging equipment, and complying with the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent. In addition, the project would receive electricity from PG&E, which is required to reduce GHG emissions by increasing procurement from eligible renewable energy by set target years. Moreover, the project would provide extensive pedestrian connectivity to encourage alternative modes of transportation, and be consistent with the requirements of the latest (2022) version of the Title 24 Energy Code, or better. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

SJCOG 2022 RTP/SCS
The SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS includes eight policies with corresponding implementation strategies for conserving energy, maximizing mobility and accessibility, increasing safety and security, preserving the transportation system, supporting economic development, promoting interagency cooperation and public participation, maximizing cost effectiveness, and improving quality of life for residents. These strategies include similar measures to the 2022 Scoping Plan, such as supporting energy and water efficiency. The Project’s consistency with the applicable 2022 RTP/SCS strategies is discussed in Table GHG-3, below. As shown therein, the project would be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction strategies contained in the SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS.

Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with the SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS

POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Enhance the Environment for Existing
and Future Generations and Conserve
Energy
No Conflict. The project would utilize electricity provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) which is required to meet the year 2030, 2045, and 2050 performance standards. In addition, future development associated with project implementation would be required to meet the applicable requirements of the 2022 (or more current) Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Maximize Mobility and Accessibility No Conflict. The project would support the use of zero-emission and low-emission vehicles, by implementing EV-ready charging spaces, consistent with the requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Increase Safety and Security No Conflict. The project would be developed using the latest State and local requirements relating to safety and security. Development of the Project site would include other uses to support and compliment the proposed residential development include public utility infrastructure, public and private roadways, curb/gutters/sidewalks, other pedestrian facilities, private parking, street lighting, and street signage, which would enhance the safety and security of the site and it surroundings, by connecting to existing development.

Preserve the Efficiency of the Existing Not applicable. This is not a transportation improvement project and ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 72
Transportation System is therefore not applicable.

Support Economic Vitality No Conflict. The project would add residential land uses to the local community, adding tax revenues, thereby supporting economic vitality.

Promote Interagency Coordination and
Public Participation for Transportation
Decision-Making and Planning Efforts
Not applicable. This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable.

Maximize the Cost Effectiveness No Conflict. The project would add residential land uses to the local community, in a location that is logical and appropriate form a cost effectiveness perspective.

Improve the Quality of Life for Residents No Conflict. The project would add recreational and other in-demand residential land uses the community.

SOURCE: SJCOG 2022 RTP/SCS
Consistency with the SJVAPCD Requirements: The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD (i.e. Air District) Rules and regulations. For example, Regulations and rules that may apply to the proposed Project could include Regulation VIII provides fugitive PM10 dust prohibitions; Rule 8021 provides rules for PM10 dust prohibition associated with construction, demolition activities, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities; Rule 4601 provides rules to limit VOC emissions for architectural coatings. In sum, the proposed Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules and regulations.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the project, including the off-site improvements, would be consistent with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update and the SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS. Furthermore, because the project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions as described above would not result in a new significant impact or in a substantially greater impact than the General Plan EIR projected for buildout of the project site on the environment. Therefore, project-related impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 73
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision and would not result in activities that transport, store, or use hazards and hazardous materials.

As discussed below, compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level. A Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix C).

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated human health and hazards impacts that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 74
impacts included wildland fire hazards, transportation, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and emergency response and evacuation plans (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, 3.8-23 through 3.8-35). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the Manteca General Plan can introduce a variety of human health and hazards impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards in the Manteca Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding hazardous conditions, and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.8 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to hazards or hazardous materials. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Safety Element
• S-1.1. Maintain and periodically update the City’s Emergency Plan. • S-1.2. Ensure the availability and functionality of critical facilities during flooding events.
• S-1.3. Locate new critical City facilities, and promote the location of non-City critical facilities, including hospitals, emergency shelters, emergency response centers, and emergency communications facilities, outside of flood hazard zones and geologic hazard areas where feasible. Critical facilities that are, or must be, located within flood hazard zones or areas with geologic hazards should incorporate feasible site design or building construction features to mitigate potential risks, including those associated with geologic, seismic, and flood events, to ensure accessibility, operation, and structural integrity, during an emergency and to minimize damage to the facility. • S-1.4. Encourage community awareness of seismic, flooding, and other disaster safety issues, including building safety, emergency response plans, and understanding steps to take for safety during and after a disaster, including identified evacuation routes. • S-1.5. Continue to cooperate with San Joaquin County and other public agencies in implementing the Countywide Emergency Preparedness Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
• S-4.1. Maintain an awareness of hazardous materials throughout the Manteca region. • S-4.2. Strictly regulate the production, use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials to protect the health and safety of Manteca residents. • S-4.3. As part of the development review process, consider the potential for the production, use, storage, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials and provide ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 75
for appropriate controls on such hazardous materials consistent with federal, state, and local standards.
• S-4.4. Use the environmental review process to comment on Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage and Disposal Facilities proposed in the Manteca Planning Area and throughout the County to request a risk assessment and ensure that potentially significant, widespread, and long-term impacts on public health and safety of these facilities are identified and mitigated, as such impacts do not respect jurisdictional boundaries.

Implementation: Safety Element
• S-1a. Regularly conduct periodic emergency response exercises to test the effectiveness of City emergency response procedures.
• S-1b. Regularly review County and State emergency response procedures that must be coordinated with City procedures.
• S-1c. Cooperate with San Joaquin County OES, Manteca Fire Department, Lathrop Manteca Fire District, Manteca Police Services, the reclamation districts, and other agencies with responsibility for emergency management in emergency response planning, training and provision of logistical support. • S-4a. As part of the development review process, require projects that result in significant risks associated with hazardous materials to include measures to address the risks and reduce the risks to an acceptable level.
• S-4b. Review development proposals to address proximity of users and transporters of significant amounts of hazardous materials relative to sensitive uses, such as schools and residential neighborhoods.
• S-4c. Continue to require the submittal of information regarding hazardous materials manufacturing, storage, use, transport, and/or disposal by existing and proposed businesses and developments to the Manteca Fire Department. • S-4d. Annually coordinate with the Manteca Fire Department and 911 dispatch center to ensure that the City maintains a current database of hazardous materials. • S-4e. Coordinate with the Manteca Fire Department, other local agencies, and Union Pacific Railroad to strictly regulate and enforce the use, storage, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials under California Administrative Code Title 19 requirements.
• S-4f. Continue to work with San Joaquin County and other public agencies to inform consumers about household use and disposal of hazardous materials. • S-4g. Cooperate fully with Union Pacific Railroad and other agencies, such as the California Highway Patrol, in the event of a hazardous material emergency. • S-4h. Continue the City hazardous waste pick-up program for household hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 76
All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for human health and hazards impacts incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan and the City’s Improvement Standards, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with the Manteca Municipal Code and other City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would place new residential uses in an area of the City that currently contains predominantly residential uses. The proposed residential land uses do not routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, except for common residential grade hazardous materials such as household cleaners, paint, etc. The operational phase of the proposed Project does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) there are no Federal Superfund Sites, State Response Sites, or Voluntary Cleanup Sites on, or in the near vicinity of the project site. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. There are no other listed cleanup sites located within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Any operations that involve the use of hazardous materials would be required to have the hazardous material transported, stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. The San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health is the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) for San Joaquin County and is responsible for the implementation of statewide programs within the city including Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) requirements, among numerous other programs. Additionally, businesses are regulated by Cal/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and are therefore required to ensure employee safety. Specific requirements include identifying hazardous materials in the workplace, providing safety information to workers that handle hazardous materials, and adequately training workers. To further ensure the safety of employees, and reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, the applicant must submit a HMBP to San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health for review and approval prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite.

Construction equipment and materials would likely require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of common chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, Project Requirement HYD-1 (Hydrology and Water Quality) requires the project applicant to implement a SWPPP during construction activities, which would prevent any contaminated runoff from leaving the Project site. Therefore, compliance with applicable federal, state, local statutes, and regulations, and the SWPPP provided in Project ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 77
Requirement HYD-1, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this issue.

Response c): Less than Significant. The Project site is not located within 1/4-mile of an existing school. The nearest school to the Project site is the Joshua Cowell School, located approximately

0.31 miles southeast of the Project site. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Response d): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would not be located on a Cortese List site, and no impact would occur. The project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Response e): Less than Significant. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes distances of ground clearance for take-off and landing safety based on such items as the type of aircraft using the airport.

The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is the closest airport to the Project site, located approximately 7 miles to the northwest. The probability of an aircraft accident is highest along the extended runway centerline, and within one mile of the runway end. According to SJCOG Guidelines there are seven zones in which land use restrictions apply due to proximity to the airport:

1. Zone 1 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)

2. Zone 2 Inner Approach/Departure Zone (IADZ)

3. Zone 3 Inner Turning Zone (ITZ)

4. Zone 4 Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ)

5. Zone 5 Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ)

6. Zone 7 Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ)

7. Zone 8 Airport Influence Area (AIA)
Land use constraints in these zones become progressively less restrictive from the RPZ to the TPZ. The proposed Project is not located within any of the safety zones. The proposed Project is not located within one mile of the airport, nor along the extended runway centerline, or within an AIA. Additionally, there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project consists of low-rise structures, and does not propose any structures of substantial height that would protrude into active airspace. Therefore, safety hazards related to the project’s proximity to the Stockton Metropolitan Airport are less than significant.

Response f): No Impact. The proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The project involves the development of residential land uses within an urbanized environment and would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impact on this environmental topic.

Response g): Less than Significant. The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 78
intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point, while fuels such as trees have a lower surface area to mass ratio and require more heat to reach the ignition point.

The City has areas with an abundance of flashy fuels (i.e. grassland) in the outlying residential parcels and open lands that, when combined with warm and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit, create a situation that results in higher risk of wildland fires. Most wildland fires are human caused, so areas with easy human access to land with the appropriate fire parameters generally result in an increased risk of fire.

Since the Project site is not located within a designated wildfire hazard area, this is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 79
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
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:

X
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; X (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems to
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision and would require grading activities that would remove some limited vegetation cover and expose soil to wind and water erosion and potentially impact water quality. Waterways in the area have the potential to flood and expose people or structures to flooding. Additional impervious surfaces would be created with the development of the proposed Project.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 80
impacts included water quality, ground water quality and supply, drainage, flooding, risks of seiche, tsunami and mudflow (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.9-21 through 4.9- 36). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in hydrology and water quality impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards contained in the Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance and Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance of the Manteca Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies related to hydrology, flooding and water quality, and compliance with local, state, and federal water quality standards and floodplain development requirements. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Safety Element
• S-3.3 Require evaluation of potential flood hazards prior to approval of development projects to determine whether the proposed development is reasonably safe from flooding and consistent with California Department of Water Resources Urban Level of Flood Protection Criteria (ULOP). The City shall not approve the execution of a development agreement, a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map is not required, or a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement that would result in the construction of a new building, or construction that would result in an increase in allowed occupancy for an existing building, or issuance of a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence for property that is located within a 200-year flood hazard zone, unless the adequacy of flood protection as described in Government Code §65865.5(a), 65962(a), or 66474.5(a), has been demonstrated. • S-3.4 New development may be permitted in areas not identified as "urban" or "urbanizing" provided that:
o Such areas are protected from 100-year flooding by FEMA-accredited levees or equivalent flood protection as shown on an adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, a FEMA-approved Letter of Map Revision or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision, subject to conditions specified in the letter; or o Where not protected by FEMA-accredited 100-year levees, such areas are subject to all applicable requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 8.30 (Floodplain Management), the California Building Standards Code as adopted by the City, and the latest promulgated FEMA standards for development in the 100-year floodplain, provided that new development approval will not cause the project site or area to be defined as "urban" or "urbanizing."
Policies: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-1.1 Where feasible, protect and enhance surface water resources in creeks, streams, channels, seasonal and permanent marshland, wetlands, sloughs, riparian habitat, and vernal pools through sound land use planning, community design, and site planning. • RC-1.2 Require water conservation in both City operations and private development to minimize the need for the development of new water sources.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 81
• RC-1.3 Require use of recycled water and treated wastewater to the extent allowable and feasible, including use for irrigation, agriculture, industrial, and groundwater recharge purposes, when such opportunities become available.
• RC-1.4 Encourage the rehabilitation of culverted or open existing channelized waterways to a more natural condition, as feasible, to remove concrete linings and allow for a connection between the stream channel and the natural water table. Avoid creating additional culverted or open channelized waterways, unless no other alternative is available to protect human health, safety, and welfare. • RC-1.7 Maximize stormwater filtration and/or infiltration in areas that are not subject to high groundwater by maximizing the natural drainage patterns and the retention of natural vegetation and other pervious surfaces.
• RC-1.8 Minimize pollution of water resources, including the San Joaquin River, other waterways, and the groundwater basin, from urban runoff, soil erosion, and sedimentation.
• RC-1.9 Require discretionary projects and flood control and storm water conveyance projects to consider effects on storm water quality and to integrate best management practices, including the integration of natural features such as bioswales, vegetation, and retention ponds to remove surface water pollutants to the greatest extent feasible, while ensuring that these features adequately convey and control storm water to protect human health, safety, and welfare.
• RC-1.10 Where feasible, encourage and support multipurpose detention basins that provide water quality protection, storm water detention, open space amenities, and recreational amenities.
• RC-22 Prohibit new septic tanks where sewer service has been extended to incorporated areas.
• RC-2.1 Protect the quantity and quality of Manteca’s groundwater. • RC-2.2 Manage groundwater as part of a broader integrated approach that includes surface water, conservation, water quality, reuse, environmental stewardship, and other water management strategies.
• RC-2.3 Operate the City’s well system in such a manner as to not exceed the sustainable yield of the local groundwater aquifer.
• RC-2.4 Recognize the importance of open space lands, including agricultural lands, parks, greenways, lakes.
• RC-2.5 Conserve groundwater recharge features, encourage new groundwater recharge opportunities, and protect aquifers from degradation of water quality and reduction of recharge.
• RC-2.6 Promote the use of permeable surface materials and provide for ample areas of open space, including agricultural land, parks and greenways, and naturalized land, in order to decrease surface runoff and promote groundwater recharge.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 82
• RC-2.9 Consider the effects of development on groundwater quality, and implement measures to reduce water contamination.

Implementation: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-2a Participate in regional groundwater management efforts with the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority and other local agencies to implement the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and to review and update the plan as necessary to meet the federal and state requirements.
• RC-2b Coordinate with water purveyors and water users to manage supplies to avoid long-term overdraft, water quality degradation, land subsidence, and other potential problems.
• RC-2c Continue to monitor City wells to track local groundwater levels and monitor water quality. Share data with state and regional agencies and the public to ensure that regional groundwater sustainability planning efforts include the most complete and comprehensive data available.
• RC-2d Investigate opportunities to utilize recycled water supplies to assist with groundwater recharge.
• RC-2e Monitor groundwater resources and consider locating required detention basins where recharge potential is determined to be high.
• RC-2f Initiate and support a range of educational and public outreach programs to inform residents, agriculture, businesses and other groundwater users of best management practices in the areas of efficient water use, water conservation, and increasing groundwater recharge. Make these resources available to the public through the City’s website.
• RC-2h Require development projects and infrastructure projects to implement low impact development practices, when appropriate, such as techniques that increase surface infiltration in landscaped, turf, and undeveloped areas.

These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to, erosion control measures, the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit requirements, and goals and policies in the General Plan Safety Elements requiring the protection of new and existing development from flood and drainage hazards, the prevention of storm drainage run-off in excess of pre- development levels, and the development and application of erosion control plans and best management practices.

These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.9 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential water quality impacts from the operation of new development.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 83
Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR as well as relevant standards from the City’s Improvement Standards for hydrology and water quality impacts will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with the Manteca Municipal Code and other City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, the City requires the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site during both the construction and operational phases of the project. Additionally, projects are required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The final storm drainage infrastructure plan for the project would also be submitted to the City for review and approval.

The collection of fees and determined fair share fee amounts are adopted by the City as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for all new development projects prior to project approval. The payment of applicable development impact fees by the proposed Project would ensure that the project pays its fair-share of capital improvement fees towards future system expansions.

Additionally, through compliance with the NPDES permit requirements, and compliance with the SWPPP, the proposed Project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the NPDES, the SWPPP required by Project Requirement HYD-1, and the final storm drainage infrastructure plan required by Project Requirement HYD-2 would ensure that the project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement HYD-1: The project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes specific types and sources of stormwater pollutants, determine the location and nature of potential impacts, and specify appropriate control measures to eliminate any potentially significant impacts on receiving water quality from stormwater runoff.

The SWPPP shall require treatment BMPs that incorporate, at a minimum, the required hydraulic sizing design criteria for volume and flow to treat projected stormwater runoff. The SWPPP shall comply with the most current standards established by the Central Valley RWQCB. Best Management Practices shall be selected from the City’s Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual according to site requirements and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Central Valley RWQCB.

Project Requirement HYD-2: Prior to approval of the Final Map, the project applicant shall submit a detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan to the City of Manteca Development Services Department for review and approval. The project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to collect and direct ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 84
all stormwater generated on the Project site within onsite retention/detention facilities to the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system, and demonstrate that the project would not result in onor off-site flooding impacts. The project shall also pay all applicable development impact fees, which would include funding for offsite Citywide storm drainage infrastructure improvements identified in the City of Manteca Storm Drain Master Plan.

Response b): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would not result in the construction of new groundwater wells, nor would it increase existing levels of groundwater pumping. As previously discussed, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and therefore was considered in the City’s planning projections. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not be considered to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The project would be required to prepare a SWPPP that would include BMPs for capturing stormwater. Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Groundwater recharge occurs primarily through percolation of surface waters through the soil and into the groundwater basin. The addition of significant areas of impervious surfaces (such as roads, parking lots, buildings, etc.) can interfere with this natural groundwater recharge process. Upon full project buildout, portions of the Project site would be covered in impervious surfaces, which would limit the potential for groundwater percolation to occur on the Project site.

However, because the City has adequate existing water service capacity to serve the project, and the limited scope of impervious surface coverage (when compared to the larger groundwater basin), the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge.

Response c): Less than Significant. When land is in a natural or undeveloped condition, soils, mulch, vegetation, and plant roots absorb rainwater. This absorption process is called infiltration or percolation. Much of the rainwater that falls on natural or undeveloped land slowly infiltrates the soil and is stored either temporarily or permanently in underground layers of soil. When the soil becomes completely soaked or saturated with water or the rate of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, the rainwater begins to flow on the surface of land to low lying areas, ditches, channels, streams, and rivers. Rainwater that flows off a site is defined as storm water runoff. When a site is in a natural condition or is undeveloped, a larger percentage of rainwater infiltrates into the soil and a smaller percentage flow off the Project site as storm water runoff.

The infiltration and runoff process are altered when a site is developed with urban uses. Houses, buildings, roads, and parking lots introduce asphalt, concrete, and roofing materials to the landscape. These materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. As impervious surfaces are added to the ground conditions, the natural infiltration process is reduced. As a result, the volume and rate of storm water runoff increases. The increased volumes and rates of storm water runoff may result in flooding if adequate storm drainage facilities are not provided.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 85
Development of the Project site would place impervious surfaces on portions of the Project site.

Development of the Project site would potentially increase local runoff production, and would introduce constituents into storm water that are typically associated with urban runoff. These constituents include heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper) and petroleum hydrocarbons.

BMPs will be applied to the proposed site development to limit the concentrations of these constituents in any site runoff that is discharged into downstream facilities to acceptable levels.

Storm mains will be installed within the subdivision to serve the project. 5”, 18”, and 24” Storm mains will be installed within the subdivision to serve the project. Storm runoff will be treated by stormwater treatment devices, then conveyed into the existing 12” mains that run at Lousie Avenue, Cork Oak Lane, and Black Pine Way. A 2.08 acre on-site detention basin and pump station is proposed within the Project site with a proposed basin volume of 3.38 acre-ft.

To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, Project Requirement HYD-1 requires the preparation of a SWPPP. As described previously, the SWPPP would require the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site during both the construction and operational phases of the project.

The project is also required to pay all applicable development impact fees. To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, or otherwise degrade water quality, Project Requirement HYD-1 requires the preparation of a SWPPP, and structural BMPs. As described above, the SWPPP would require the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site, which would ensure that stormwater runoff does not adversely increase pollutant levels, and would reduce the potential for disturbed soils and ground surfaces to result in erosion and sediment discharge into adjacent surface waters during construction and operational phases of the project. The implementation of this requirement would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Ultimately, to ensure that stormwater runoff generated at the Project site because of new impervious surfaces does not exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system, Project Requirement HYD-2 above requires the project applicant to submit a detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan to the City of Manteca Community Development Department for review and approval. The project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to collect and direct all stormwater generated on the Project site within onsite retention/detention facilities to the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system, and demonstrate that the project would not result in on- or off-site flooding impacts. The implementation of this requirement would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Through the payment of all applicable fees, and the implementation of Project Requirements HYD-1 and HYD-2, would ensure that this impact is less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 86
Response d): Less than Significant. The General Plan EIR identifies special flood hazard areas mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). As shown, the project site is not located within a regulatory floodway or flood zone delineated by FEMA. The Project site is in the FEMA flood zone X which is an area of minimal flood hazard. Similarly, the project site is not located within a dam inundation area. Therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Response e): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would be subject to a Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and would ensure that adequate drainage would be provided through connection to the City’s existing water and sanitary sewer lines and development of bioretention areas for stormwater runoff. As previously mentioned, the proposed Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements. The SWPPP would identify BMPs that are intended to prevent erosion runoff during construction. Furthermore, the General Plan contains several policies intended to protect groundwater supplies. The General Plan designates the Project site for residential use, and the Project site would be developed consistent with that land use designation. Therefore, the proposed Project is considered planned growth and would not conflict with the Water Quality Control Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, or Comprehensive Groundwater Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review is not met. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 87
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Physically divide an established community? X
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?
X
Project Impacts:

The development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision, would not physically divide the community, and there are no conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on land use because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included dividing an established community and potential conflicts with established land uses within and adjacent to the City (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.10-18 through 3.10-28). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in land use impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding land use impacts. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Land Use Element
• LU-3.1 Provide for the development of a variety of housing types and at a range of prices to meet the needs of all segments of the city’s population, including individuals and families who qualify for affordable housing assistance in accordance with the housing element.
• LU-3.2. Require the design of new residential development to be consistent with any applicable design guidelines, to ensure harmony with Manteca’s unique character and compatibility with existing surrounding land uses.
• LU-3.3. Encourage residential development to occur in a balanced and efficient pattern that reduces sprawl, preserves open space, and creates convenient connections to other land uses.
• LU-3.4. Prioritize the location of higher density housing in close proximity to employment areas, services, schools, retail, transit stops, near community destinations, and near major streets with high access to transit and non-vehicle transportation modes.
• LU-3.6. Encourage new neighborhoods to include a mix and distribution of land uses, including schools, parks, shopping, restaurants, and services, that reduce auto trips ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 88
and support walking, biking, and transit use.
• LU-3.10. Encourage the development of additional executive housing units and neighborhoods.
• LU-3.12. Encourage and support development patterns at the highest limits permitted within each General Plan land use designation consistent with the policies of all other General Plan elements.

General Plan Update Implementation Programs
The following implementation measures of the General Plan Update related to land use and population are applicable to the proposed Project:
• LU-3a. Through the development review and permit process, screen development proposals for land use compatibility, including conformance with existing development or neighborhoods.
• LU-3b. Through the development review and permit process, ensure that residential developments meet the minimum density requirement stipulated on the Land Use Map in order to ensure that Manteca has an ample number of housing units to meet all of its housing needs.
• LU-3d. Require proposed residential subdivisions of 10 or more units with an average lot size less than one acre that are within 500 feet of an existing industrial, commercial, agricultural industrial, or agricultural processing use or a designated truck route to submit a Site Analysis Plan to ensure compliance with standards of Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Code, as amended.
o The Site Analysis Plan will quantify existing conditions of the site relative to compliance with Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Code as amended, and how new development will meet these standards. The Site Analysis Plan shall incorporate a written narrative explaining how the project design has responded to the existing conditions and how new development will ensure that new residents will have an environment that is in compliance with the standards of Chapter 17.58, as amended. Such a statement, to form part of the material required for an application, is intended to assist the City’s design and evaluation processes, and result in residential projects that meet quantifiable performance standards. • LU-3e. Develop and periodically update design and performance standards that update and complement Chapter 17.58 of the Zoning Code to provide recommended design solutions available to proposed development projects to reduce impacts associated with aesthetics, noise, safety, odor, glare, and lighting, including land use conflicts between residential uses and nearby industrial and agricultural uses, in compliance with Chapter

17.58 of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
• LU-3f. Implement the policies and actions in the Housing Element in order to enhance opportunities to provide affordable housing within the community and to accommodate a range of household types, special need populations, and income levels. • LU-3g. Explore and encourage creative approaches to providing affordable housing, including market rate housing affordable to moderate income households, within the ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 89
community. Such approaches may include public/private partnerships, land trusts, housing cooperatives, co-housing, and/or inclusionary housing. • LU-3h. Continue to fund existing and provide assistance to additional neighborhood improvement programs designed to stabilize and enhance the quality of existing neighborhoods. Such improvements may include, but are not limited to sidewalk upgrade and repair, street tree programs, street lighting, signage, trash collectors, bus stop shelters and benches and similar improvements to the public areas. • LU-3k. Upgrade and provide infrastructure in existing neighborhoods as funding is available.
• LU-3o. Evaluate, in cooperation with the Building Industry Association, fiscal alternatives that will encourage development at the highest levels permitted by general plan land use designations such as Public Facilities Implementation Plan fees collected at the per acre basis compared to the per dwelling unit basis.

These goals and policies include but are not limited to goals and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element requiring buffering of land uses, reviewing development proposals for compatibility issues, establishing, and maintaining development standards and encouraging communication between adjacent jurisdictions.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for impacts to land use incorporated as goals and policies in the Manteca General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): No Impact. The Project site is surrounded by residential and agricultural uses. The project would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and would not divide an established community. There is no impact.

Response b): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use designation for the Project site evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The project has been designed consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation, goals and policies, and relevant ordinances, and is therefore considered planned growth that would not conflict with the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in no impact and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. This is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 90
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
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?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): No Impact. The Manteca General Plan EIR does not identify significant mineral resources within the area. Furthermore, there are no mineral resources of local or statewide importance within the Project site. Therefore, there is no possibility of loss of mineral resources of local or statewide importance. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites. The proposed Project would result in no impact and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. There is no impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 91
XIII. NOISE
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Generation of a 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?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
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?
X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, development of the proposed Project will result in an increase in noise from construction and operational activities. Compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the General Plan goals and policies, and the City of Manteca Noise Ordinance, in additional to specific mitigation measures provided herein, would reduce noise related impacts to a lessthan-significant level. A Noise Study has been prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix D).

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of noise associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included construction noise, traffic noise, operational noise, groundborne vibration, and overall increased in noise resulting from implementation of the General Plan (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages

3.12-20 through 3.12-43).

Mitigation measures to address these impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Noise Element, which includes policies that require acoustical analyses to determine noise compatibility between land uses, application of stationary and mobile noise source sound limits/design standards, restriction of development of noise-sensitive land uses unless effective noise mitigations are incorporated into projects, and mitigation of noise levels to ensure that the noise level design standards of the Noise Element are not exceeded. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Safety
• S-5.1. Incorporate noise considerations into land use, transportation, and infrastructure planning decisions, and guide the location and design of noise-producing uses to ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 92
minimize the effects of noise on adjacent noise-sensitive land uses, including residential uses and schools.
• S-5.2. Ensure that Downtown noise levels remain acceptable and compatible with a pedestrian-oriented environment and higher density residential land uses. • S-5.3. Areas within Manteca exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels from mobile noise sources exceeding the performance standards in Table S-1 shall be designated as noise-impacted areas.
• S-5.4. Require residential and other noise-sensitive development projects to satisfy the noise level criteria in Tables S-1 and S-2.
• S-5.5. Require new stationary noise sources proposed adjacent to noise sensitive uses to be mitigated so as to not exceed the noise level performance standards in Table S-2, or a substantial increase in noise levels established through a detailed ambient noise survey. • S-5.6. Regulate construction-related noise to reduce impacts on adjacent uses to the criteria identified in Table S-2 or, if the criteria in Table S-2 cannot be met, to the maximum level feasible using best management practices and complying with the MMC Chapter 9.52.
• S-5.7. Where the development of residential or other noise-sensitive land use is proposed for a noise-impacted area or where the development of a stationary noise source is proposed in the vicinity of noise-sensitive uses, an acoustical analysis is required as part of the environmental review process so that noise mitigation may be considered in the project design. The acoustical analysis shall:
o Be the responsibility of the applicant.
o Be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics. o Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and the predominant noise sources.
o Estimate existing and projected (20 years) noise levels in terms of the standards of Table S-1 or Table S-2, and compare those levels to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.
o Recommend appropriate mitigation measures to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element.
o Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.
o If necessary, describe a post-project assessment program to monitor the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.
• S-5.8. Apply noise level criteria applied to land uses other than residential or other noise-sensitive uses consistent with noise performance levels of Table S-1 and Table S-2. • S-5.9. Enforce the Sound Transmission Control Standards of the California Building ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 93
Code concerning the construction of new multiple occupancy dwellings such as hotels, apartments, and condominiums.
• S-5.10. Ensure that new equipment and vehicles purchased by the City comply with noise level performance standards consistent with the best available noise reduction technology.
• S-5.11. Require the Manteca Police Department to actively enforce requirements of the California Vehicle Code relating to vehicle mufflers and modified exhaust systems. • S-5.12. For new residential development backing on to a freeway or railroad right-of-way, the developer shall be required to provide appropriate mitigation measures to satisfy the performance standards in Table S-1.
• S-5.13. It is recognized that the City and surrounding areas are considered to be urban in nature and rely upon both the industrial and agricultural economy of the area. Therefore, it is recognized that noise sources of existing uses may exceed generally accepted standards.
• S-5.14. Carefully review and give potentially affected residents an opportunity to fully review any proposals for the establishment of helipads or heliports. • S-5.15. Recognizing that existing noise-sensitive uses may be exposed to increase noise levels due to circulation improvement projects associated with development under the General Plan and that it may not be feasible to reduce increased traffic noise levels to the criteria identified in Table S-1, the following criteria may be used to determine the significance of noise impacts associated with circulation improvement projects:
o Where existing traffic noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and o Where existing traffic noise levels range between 60 and 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant; and o Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a + 1.5 dB Ldn increase in noise levels due to roadway improvement projects will be considered significant.

The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals and policies, significant noise impacts will occur because of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR noted that the existing and proposed policies, actions, and regulations would serve to reduce noise from vehicles at the source and to otherwise shield sensitive uses from excessive noise. However, while these policies, actions, and regulations would help to mitigate the severity of the effects of traffic noise, they would not prevent all the anticipated traffic noise increases along the impacted roadway segments identified in Table 3.12-1 of the EIR, and the impact would be significant. Thus, because no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate noise impacts to a less than significant level, traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Manteca City Council regarding these impacts.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 94
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant.

Traffic Noise Increases at Off-Site Receptors
The City of Manteca General Plan specifies criteria to determine the significance of traffic noise impacts. Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. According to the noise study prepared for the proposed Project, the maximum increase in traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 0.1 dBA. Therefore, impacts resulting from increased traffic noise would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational Noise at Existing Sensitive Receptors
The proposed Project would include typical residential noise which would be compatible with the existing adjacent residential uses. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. As indicated in the noise study prepared for the proposed Project, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would also be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. The City of Manteca General Plan exempts construction noise from the noise ordinance between the hours 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction shall be permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays or federal holidays, without a specific exemption issued by the City.

The City defines a significant increase due to construction noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels. According to the noise study prepared for the proposed Project, construction equipment is predicted to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.

Construction noise is evaluated as occurring at the center of the site to represent average noise levels generated over the duration of construction across the project site. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 300 feet as measured from the center of the project site. At this distance, maximum construction noise levels would be up to 74 dBA. The average daytime maximum noise level in the vicinity of the sensitive receptors was measured to be 63 dBA, resulting in an increase of 11 dBA. Therefore, project construction would not cause an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur during daytime hours.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 95
Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noisesensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours. Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant. Implementation of Project Requirement NOI-1 would ensure that construction noise impacts remain less than significant.

Exterior Transportation Noise
Compliance with City’s standards on new noise-sensitive receptors is not a CEQA consideration.

However, this information is provided here so that a determination can be made regarding the ability of the proposed project to meet the requirements of the City of Manteca for exterior and interior noise levels at new sensitive uses proposed under the project.

Several of the proposed outdoor activity areas are predicted to be exposed to exterior transportation noise levels up to approximately 68 dBA Ldn. This would exceed the 60 dBA limit for outdoor areas established by the City of Manteca. Therefore, additional noise control measures would be required.

The noise study determined the effect of including a sound wall in the project design. A 6-foottall barrier was modeled along the southern project boundary. The barrier is predicted to lower noise levels at all outdoor activity areas on the project site to 64 dBA Ldn or lower. The City of Manteca General Plan allows for a 5 dB Ldn increase to the City’s exterior transportation noise standard to 65 dBA Ldn if practical application of noise reduction technology have been implemented.

Interior Transportation Noise
Modern building construction methods typically yield an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 25 dBA1. Therefore, where exterior noise levels are 70 dBA Ldn, or less, no additional interior noise control measures are typically required. For this project, exterior noise levels are predicted to be up to 65 dBA Ldn at the second story of the buildings closest to Louise Avenue. This would result in interior noise levels of up to 40 dBA Ldn at the second story receivers based on typical building construction. This meets the City of Manteca which requires that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB Ldn. Therefore, no additional noise control measures are required to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels.

Conclusion
Implementation of Project Requirement NOI-1 would ensure that construction-generated noise levels do not exceed City standards.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement NOI-1: Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the plans for the proposed project shall show that the southern area of the project site shall be shielded from Louise Avenue through the use of minimum six-foot-tall sound walls per the approval of the City Engineer.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 96
Sound wall may include a combination of earthen berm and masonry wall to achieve the required wall height. Wall heights shall be measured relative to either pad or roadway centerline elevations, whichever is higher. The approximate locations of these barriers are shown on Figure 4 of the Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Saxelby Acoustics LLC (July 26, 2024). Other types of barrier may be employed but shall be reviewed by an acoustical engineer prior to being constructed.

Response b): Less than Significant. Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.

According to the noise study prepared for the proposed Project, construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from typical construction activities. At distances greater than 26 feet construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours. This is a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. .

Response c): Less than Significant. The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is the closest airport to the Project site, located approximately 4.9 miles to the north. The Project site is located outside of both the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the 60 dB CNEL noise contours for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, and the Project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise from the Stockton Metropolitan Airport. This is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 97
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project will result in the construction of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision, which would increase population growth within the project area. Using the most recent Department of Finance (2024) estimates for the average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in the City of Manteca of 2.99, the addition of 68 housing units could increase the population of the city by an estimated 203 persons.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated population and housing impacts that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included population growth and availability of housing opportunities (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.10-18 through 3.10-28). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in population and housing impacts, implementation of the General Plan would not contribute to a significant generation of growth that would substantially exceed any established growth projections nor would it displace substantial numbers of housing units or people. Moreover, the proposed Project will not construct off-site infrastructure that would induce substantial development, unplanned or otherwise. As such, population and housing impacts were determined to be less than significant.

These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.10 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan, and can be considered planned growth assumed under the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. This is a less than significant impact.

Response b): Less than Significant. The Project site is undeveloped and does not include any housing or residents. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the project would not result in new ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 98
or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. This is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 99
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) 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:

X
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision and would be anticipated to increase the need for the provision of new and/or expanded public services or facilities.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for fire and police protection and school and recreation facilities because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included increased demand for fire, police and school services, provision of adequate fire flow, and increased demand for parks and recreation (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.12-18 through 3.12-21). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in public services and facilities impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of public services and facilities and through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to public services and facilities. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Community Facilities Element
• CF-1.1. Encourage the implementation of new techniques and technologies to provide the best available level of community services in a cost-effective manner. • CF-1.2. Ensure that new growth and development participates in the provision and expansion of essential community services and facilities, including parks, fire and ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 100
police facilities, schools, utilities, roads, and other needed infrastructure, does not exceed the City’s ability to provide services, and does not place an economic burden on existing residents.
• CF-1.3. Require new development to demonstrate that the City’s existing or planned community services and facilities can accommodate the increased demand for said services and facilities prior to or at completion of the project. • CF-1.4. Require new development to offset or mitigate impacts to community services and facilities, including fair share contribution of all costs of required public infrastructure and services, to ensure that service levels for existing users are not degraded or impaired.
• CF-1.5. Require public improvements and facilities to enhance, rather than degrade, the natural environment.
• CF-1.6. Encourage comprehensive development of public facilities and services rather than incremental, single projects.
• CF-1.7. Plan and develop public services and facilities to support economic development and residential growth.
• CF-1.8. Make use of the public right-of-way as a tool for facilitating quality design and development.
• CF-2.1. Prioritize public safety through ensuring adequate staffing, implementing best available technologies, capital investments in public safety, and organizing and utilizing community volunteers.
• CF-2.2. Ensure that the Police Department has adequate funding, staff, and equipment to accommodate existing and future growth in Manteca.
• CF-2.3. Strive to provide a police force level of a minimum of 1.00 officers per 1,000 population.
• CF-2.4. Endeavor through adequate staffing and patrol arrangements to maintain the minimum feasible police response times for police calls. • CF-2.5. Periodically review and, if necessary, amend the criteria for determining the circumstances under which police service will be enhanced. • CF-2.6. Promote and support community-based crime prevention programs, as an important augmentation to the provision of professional police services. • CF-2.7. Emphasize the use of physical site planning as an effective means of preventing crime. Open spaces, landscaping, parking lots, parks, play areas, and other public spaces should be designed with maximum feasible visual and aural exposure to community residents.
• CF-2.8. Promote coordination between land use planning and urban design through consultation and coordination with the Police Department during the review of new development applications.
• CF-3.1. Through adequate staffing and station locations, maintain a maximum fiveminute travel response time 90% of the time for fire and emergency calls and an overall fire insurance (ISO) rating of 3 or better for all developed areas within the City.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 101
• CF-3.2. Provide fire services to serve the existing and projected population. • CF-3.3. Periodically review, and if necessary amend, the criteria for determining the circumstances under which fire service will be enhanced. • CF-3.4. Design and maintain roadways in such a way so as to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times.
• CF-3.5. Ensure that new development is designed, constructed, and equipped consistent with the requirements of the California Fire Code in order to minimize the risk of fire.
• CF-3.6. Ensure that new development is served with adequate water volumes and water pressure for fire protection.
• CF-4.1. Ensure the provision of sufficient parks, trails, and recreation facilities that are well distributed and interconnected throughout the community. • CF-4.2. Expand, renovate, and maintain high quality parks, trails, and recreation facilities, programs, and services to accommodate existing and future needs that address traditional and non-traditional recreation, active and passive recreation, wellness, historical, cultural arts, environmental education, conservation, accessibility, inclusion, diversity, safety, and new technology. • CF-4.3. Uphold design, construction, implementation, and maintenance standards to ensure high quality parks, trails, and recreation facilities, programs, and services, now and into the future.
• CF-5.1. Continue to work cooperatively with the local school districts to encourage the maintenance of high quality schools and to order to ensure that superior educational facilities and opportunities for all students are provided in a timely manner in accordance with the pace of residential development.

These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to the California Fire Code, the California Health and Safety Code, the Manteca Municipal Code, and goals and policies in the General Plan Safety Element requiring periodic review of the City’s Development Impact Fee requirements, proportional share participation in the financial costs of public services and facilities, maintaining adequate staffing levels, providing adequate access for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes, and requiring certain types of development that may generate higher demand or special needs to mitigate the demands/needs.

These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.12 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to public services of the City.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for impacts to public services incorporated as goals and policies in the Manteca General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for the proposed Project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 102
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a):
i) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: Less than Significant. The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Manteca Fire Department (MFD). All new future construction would meet all applicable building and safety codes and would be required to be reviewed for safety access. The project would not require the development of any new MFD facilities. Emergency vehicle access is anticipated to be sufficient since the onsite road would connect to the entrance of the project site and emergency vehicles would have adequate ability to turn around on the Project site. Furthermore, impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the project applicant as COAs prior to project approval, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with fire protection services.

To provide adequate fire protection and suppression services to the Project site, the MFD must have access to adequate onsite hydrants with adequate fire-flow pressure available to meet the needs of fire suppression units. The final site plans and development specifications developed for the proposed Project will indicate the location and design specifications of the fire hydrants that will be required within the Project site.

The proposed Project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies related to reducing fire risks. Project plans would also be reviewed by the MFD to ensure that the Project site is acceptable for fire safety purposes. The proposed Project is consistent with the Residential land use designation for the Project site, and therefore to the extent that the project would increase demand for fire protection services was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. The project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR, no mitigation measures are required, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact. ii) Police Protection: Less than Significant. Impact fees from new developments are collected based upon projected impacts from each development by the City as COAs prior to project approval. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, and other revenues generated by the project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police services.

Upon annexation into the City of Manteca, the Project site would be served by the Manteca Police Department. As previously discussed, the proposed Projectis consistent with the Residential land use designation for the Project site, and therefore the extent that the project would increase demand for police protection services was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. The project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR, no mitigation measures are required, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 103
It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant new demand for police services. Project implementation would not require the construction of new police facilities to serve the Project site, nor would it result in impacts to the existing response times and existing police protection service levels. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
iii) Schools: Less than Significant. All new residential development in the City is required to pay a developer impact fee to fund school improvement projects to mitigate impacts to school facilities, as applicable. The development impact fee is the source of school capital improvement funding provided by new development. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the proposed Project, would fund improvements associated with school services. According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by SB 50 (1998) are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for any demands or impacts on school facilities caused by new development. The proposed Project includes the development of 68 additional housing units. The number of students generated by the proposed residential Project would be consistent with the levels assumed in General Plan EIR as the project is consistent with General Plan’s land use assumptions for the Project site.

Payment of development fees is considered to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school facilities under Section 65996 of the California Government Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are required and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact. iv) Parks: Potential project impacts to parks and recreational facilities are addressed in Section XVI below.
v) Other Public Facilities: Less than Significant. The project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses on the Project site are assumed in the General Plan EIR. The project would result in the construction of an additional 68 residential units that would increase demand for other public facilities.

As described in the General Plan EIR Impact 3.12-1 the General Plan implementation potential to result in adverse physical impacts associated with the deterioration of other public facilities, such as the Manteca Branch Library, a branch of the Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library (SSJCPL) library facilities, was found to be less than significant. Development anticipated under the proposed Project would be consistent with development levels analyzed in the Manteca General Plan EIR. In-lieu fees would be required upon issuance of a building permit. In-lieu fees would ultimately fund the construction of other public facilities to offset the increased demand for these facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are required and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 104
XVI. RECREATION
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
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?
X
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?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision and would be anticipated to increase the use of, and demand for, recreational facilities. As mentioned prior, using the most recent Department of Finance (2024) estimates for the average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in the City of Manteca of 2.99, the addition of 68 housing units could increase the population of the city by an estimated 203 persons. As discussed below, the General Plan has established a parkland standard of 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the proposed Project has a park requirement of 1.01 acres. The proposed Project includes the development of a 2.09-acre basin/park, which includes 1.06 acres of dual use park/basin, and 1.03 acres of single use park. .

Therefore, the proposed project meets the required General Plan standard for required parkland.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for recreation facilities because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included increased demand for parks and recreation (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.13-13 through 3.13-22). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in recreation facilities impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to recreation facilities. The General Plan has established a parkland standard of 5 acres of developed neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents. The General Plan has adopted goals and policies to ensure that this standard is met.

These goals and policies call for the provision of new park and recreational facilities as needed by new development through parkland dedication and the payment of park and recreation fees.

These programs and practices are recognized in the General Plan Community Facilities and Services Element, which mitigates these impacts to a less than significant level.

In addition, compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of public services and facilities and the application of General Plan goals and policies would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to public services and facilities, as noted above. The General Plan did not ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 105
identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to park and recreational facilities of the City.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable mitigation measures from the General Plan EIR, including the mitigation measures for impacts to recreation incorporated as goals and policies in the Manteca General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Less than Significant. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, new residents from development allowed by the General Plan would increase the demand for recreational opportunities and facilities. In addition, the proposed Project includes construction of additional parks or recreational facilities. The General Plan contains policies and actions that would support parkland goals, and, as described in the City of Manteca Municipal Code, the Fee Schedule VI Development Fee establishes parkland dedication and/or fee requirements for new development. The collection of fees and determined fair share fee amounts are adopted by the City as COAs for all new development projects prior to project approval. Fees paid aid in the development of new park-space and maintenance as required, to ensure continued park facilities for all City residents.

Furthermore, the project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses on the Project site areas assumed in the General Plan EIR. The project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. As such, this is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 106
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Project Impacts:

The development of the proposed Project would result in construction activities and the occupation of the residential buildings that would result in transportation impacts because an undeveloped site will become developed. The project proposes construction of the following new streets within the site:
• Six New Residential Streets:
o Streets: Cork Oak Lane extension, Black Pine Way extension, Street 1, Street 2, Street 3, and Street 4.
o Right-of-Way (ROW): 50 feet.
o Features: Five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides and a 36-foot curb-to-curb width that includes a travel lane and a parking lane in both directions. • One New Collector Street
o Street: Vasconcellos Avenue extension.
o ROW: 60 feet.
o Features: Five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides and a 44-foot curb-to-curb width that includes a travel lane and a parking lane in both directions.

Project Trip Generation
This section presents the forecasted project trip generation, including trip distribution and assignment. It also includes the recommended study intersections to be evaluated as part of the upcoming LTA based on the City’s TIA Guidelines.

Trip Generation
The project’s trip generation was estimated using trip rates published in the Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2021). Table Traffic-1 displays the estimated number of daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour vehicle trips for the proposed ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 107
project. As shown in Table Traffic-1, the project is projected to generate 708 daily, 52 AM peak hour, and 69 PM peak hour trips.

Table Traffic-1: Project Trip Generation

LAND USE QUANTITY DAILY TRIPS

AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Single-family detached
housing (ITE 210)
68 Dwelling
Units
708 13 39 52 44 25 69
NOTES:

TRIP GENERATION IS BASED ON ITE 210 TRIP RATES PUBLISHED IN TRIP GENERATION MANUEL 11TH EDITION (INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS, 2021).

FITTED CURVE EQUATION:

DAILY: LN(T) = 0.92 LN(X) + 2.68
AM PEAK HOUR: LN(T) = 0.91 LN(X) + 0.12
PM PEAK HOUR: LN(T) = 0.94 LN(X) + 0.27
% IN / % OUT:

AM PEAK HOUR: 26% / 74%
PM PEAK HOUR: 63% / 37%
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2024.

Trip Distribution
Project trips were distributed using the City of Manteca General Plan travel demand model, which accounts for location of complementary land uses and likely paths that will be used to travel to and from the site. Project trip distribution is presented below:
• • 68% of trips travel to/from Louise Avenue west of Pestana Avenue • • 10% of trips travel to/from Pestana Avenue south of Louise Avenue • • 19% of trips travel to/from Autin Road south of Louise Avenue • • 2% of trips travel to/from Autin Road north of Louise Avenue • • 1% of trips travel to/from Louise Avenue east of Austin Road Trip Assignment
Trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway network according to the trip distribution summarized above. Table Traffic-2 presents the estimated trip assignment for key intersections near the project site.

Table Traffic-2: Project Trips at Nearby Intersections
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

L T R L T R L T R L T R
Louise Ave/Pestana Ave 1 1 7 3 6 3 19
Louise Ave/Vasconcellos
Ave / Project Driveway 9 22 7 3
Louise Ave/Austin Rd 2 1 1 1 7
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 108
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

L T R L T R L T R L T R
Louise Ave/Pestana Ave 1 3 1 4 8 22 2 12
Louise Ave/ Vasconcellos Ave /
Project Driveway 6 14 25 10
Louise Ave/Austin Rd 8 1 1 5 1
NOTES:

L = LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT, T = THROUGH MOVEMENT, R = RIGHT-TURN MOVEMENT PROJECT TRIPS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER.

SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, 2024.

The proposed project is projected to generate 708 daily, 52 AM peak hour, and 69 PM peak hour trips during typical weekday conditions. The City of Manteca requires preparation of a non-CEQA LTA. Fehr & Peers has been retained by the applicant to prepare an LTA for review and approval by the City.

The project is consistent with the City of Manteca General Plan, zoning standards, and other local plans and policies related to the land use designations, including density limits, and the circulation system. The Project is not anticipated to increase transportation related hazards and will provide adequate emergency vehicle access. Given its consistency with the General Plan and its proximity within a half-mile of two transit stops, the project is presumed to not require additional CEQA VMT analysis.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. Fehr and Peers reviewed the City of Manteca 2040 General Plan (2023), City of Manteca Public Facilities Improvement Plan (PFIP, 2013), City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan (2020), and existing transit service to determine if the proposed project results in any inconsistencies with adopted transportation related policies or design standards.

Manteca General Plan
Land Use & Zoning: The adopted City of Manteca General Plan designates the project site as low density residential allowing 2.1 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre. The project is consistent with the adopted General Plan land use designation and density as the project proposes an average density of 3.4 single family dwelling units per acre.

Transportation: Relevant policies include:
• Policy C-2.6: Align residential and collector street intersections with collector and arterial streets with other residential and collector streets, where feasible, to maintain a high degree of connectivity between neighborhoods, minimize circuitous travel, and to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to travel more conveniently and more safely from one neighborhood to another without using major streets.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 109
• Policy C-2.1: Promote development of a future roadway system as shown in the Major Streets Master Plan, Figure C-1, with streets designed in accordance with the City’s standard plans to provide multiple, direct and convenient routes for all modes and to provide high volume, multi-lane facilities with access controls, as needed, to preserve the through traffic carrying capacity of the facility.
• Policy C-2.12: Require new development to establish joint-use driveways and/or cross access easements to provide access when feasible and/or if: 1) located on street segments identified in C-1.2, 2) located on streets with intersections approaching not meeting LOS D, or 3) the shared access will reduce vehicle miles traveled as determined by the City’s Development Services Department. The requirement is intended to preserve the movement function of the major thoroughfare system by requiring development of parallel roads or cross access easements to connect developments as they are permitted along major roads, providing more efficient connections to destinations, and reducing air emissions.

The proposed roadway layout maintains a high degree of connectivity between the neighborhoods by connecting with the neighborhood at Cork Oak Lane and Black Pine Way. This will reduce circuity and allow for more direct access to the existing neighborhood to the west.

The proposed project driveway at the Louise Avenue / Vasconcellos Avenue intersection provides joint access between the neighborhood to the south and the proposed project.

The City’s design standards shown on Drawing No. ST-2 in the Standard Street Cross Sections (City of Manteca, 2004) require a minimum 50-foot ROW, 36-foot curb-to-curb width, and fivefoot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street for new residential streets. The proposed crosssection for new residential streets (Cork Oak Lane extension, Black Pine Way extension, Street 1, Street 2, Street 3, and Street 4) meets the minimum City of Manteca design standards for residential streets.

Drawing No. ST-2 in the Standard Street Cross Sections (City of Manteca, 2004) also shows design standards for new small collector streets, which require a minimum 60-foot ROW, 44-foot curb to-curb width, and five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. The proposed cross section for the Vasconcellos Avenue extension meets the minimum City of Manteca design standards for small collector streets.

Transit Network: Existing transit routes and stops in the vicinity of the project site are summarized in Table Traffic-3. Two existing bus stops for Route 3 are provided within a half-mile walk of the project site. Transit service is provided by Manteca Transit, Route 3 serves north Manteca with connections to the Manteca Transit Center and Downtown Manteca.

The project can lead to increased transit ridership along existing routes given that the project site is within a half-mile of the nearest transit stop. The project is not expected to conflict with existing or planned transit services.

Table Traffic-3: San Joaquin RTD Routes in the Project Vicinity ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 110

ROUTE ROUTE LIMITS

NEAREST STOP
(DISTANCE FROM

PROJECT SITE)

WEEKDAYS WEEKENDS
HOURS HEADWAY1 HOURS HEADWAY1
3 Diamond Oak Park
to Manteca Transit
Center to East
Union High School
Louise Avenue /
Empire Lane (0.50
miles)
6:00 AM –
6:48 PM
60 minutes
9:00 AM –
3:48 PM
60 minutes
NOTES:

THE FREQUENCY, OR INTERVAL OF TIME BETWEEN BUSES TRAVELING IN ANY GIVEN DIRECTION ALONG A DESIGNATED ROUTE.

ROUTES 378, 380, AND 390 MAY BE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED.

SOURCE: SAN JOAQUIN RTD WEBSITE, MAY 2024.

The proposed project aligns with adopted transportation-related programs, plans, ordinances, and policies. The project's street improvements are consistent with adopted plans and design standards. Therefore, the project is not expected to impact the proposed and surrounding circulation system, including planned transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Network
Manteca Active Transportation Plan
The City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan identifies the following planned improvements near the project site:
• Planned Class II bike lanes along both directions of Louise Avenue between Pestana Avenue to Austin Road
The project proposes frontage improvements along Louise Avenue. These improvements are assumed to include median adjustments to provide adequate left-turn access to the site, as well as enhancements to travel lanes, a Class II bike lane, and a new sidewalk with landscape buffers on each side. These improvements will extend from the Louise Avenue centerline to the ROW limit along the southern boundary of the project site, with a minimum cross-section distance of 54 feet from the centerline to the ROW line.

As part of the project, a westbound Class II bike lane will be implemented along the Louise Avenue frontage. This will not preclude the future implementation of an eastbound Class II bike lane, which is expected to be constructed by others. In general, improvements south of the Louise Avenue centerline are expected to be implemented by others as the project is only proposing frontage improvements for the segment north of the centerline. The proposed improvements along westbound Louise Avenue align with the City of Manteca Active Transportation Plan and are not expected to conflict with planned bicycle network improvements or the City of Manteca design standards.

Pedestrian Facilities
Primary access between the project site and surrounding neighborhood will be provided via new connections to the existing Cork Oak Lane and Black Pine Way. All existing streets connecting to ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 111
the west side of the project site provide four-foot-wide sidewalks with a five-foot wide landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the gutter. The project proposes five-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of all new residential and collector streets with rolled curbs. The four foot-wide sidewalks meet the minimum City of Manteca design standards for local residential streets.

The project proposes eight-foot-wide sidewalks with six-foot-wide landscape buffers on both sides of the sidewalk along the Louise Avenue site frontage. This design meets the minimum cross-sectional requirements specified on the Plate E-2.03 drawings of the the PFIP design standards for Louise Avenue. The project proposes continuous and connected sidewalks throughout the site and will connect to the existing sidewalk network along Louise Avenue, Cork Oak Lane and Black Pine Way.

Policy Consistency Determination
The proposed project aligns with adopted transportation-related programs, plans, ordinances, and policies. The project's street improvements are consistent with adopted plans and design standards. Therefore, the project is not expected to impact the proposed and surrounding circulation system, including planned transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

The payment of applicable traffic impact fees by the proposed Project would ensure that the project pays its fair-share of capital improvement fees towards the future transportation system improvements and expansions. Payment of these fair-share traffic impact fees would assist the City with implementation of various improvements, to maintain acceptable levels of service throughout the City.

The proposed Project would not induce any additional required improvements. The collection of fees and determined fair share fee amounts are adopted by the City as COAs for all new development projects prior to project approval. The payment of the required traffic impact fees to the City of Manteca would reduce project-related traffic impacts to a less than significant level.

Moreover, the project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses on the Project site as assumed in the General Plan EIR. The project is considered planned growth under the General Plan and was considered in the analysis of the General Plan EIR, which acknowledged LOS impacts from buildout of the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe LOS impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Response b): Less than Significant. As of July 1, 2020, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that the recommended metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts is VMT. It outlines the criteria for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts. For land use projects, this section states that “vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.”
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 112
According to City of Manteca SB 743 Implementation Policy (City of Manteca, 2022), a project would result in a significant transportation VMT impact if it would:
• Not qualify for screening per the screening criteria outlined in the City’s VMT screening guidelines, which states that a project may be screened from additional VMT analysis if it complies with one or more of the following conditions: (1) is a small project generating fewer than 1,000 trips a day and consistent with City’s General Plan; or (2) 100% affordable housing; or (3) is local-serving retail less than 125,000 square feet in building floor area; or (4) located in a High-Quality Transit Area; or (5) located in a low VMT area. • Exceed the applicable VMT threshold, which for a residential project is set to 15% below Citywide baseline for VMT per single-family dwelling unit.

The proposed project does qualify for screening criteria (1) listed above given that the project would generate fewer than 1,000 daily trips and is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation and density limits established by the City of Manteca for the project site.

VMT Screening Determination
The project meets the small project screening criteria specified in the City of Manteca SB 743 Implementation Policy (City of Manteca, 2022) since the project is consistent with the General Plan land use plan and zoning standards. As a result, the project is presumed to not require a detailed VMT analysis for CEQA purposes.

Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(a) states that: “CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , which was certified in 2023, identified a significant and unavoidable VMT impact on the transportation system. The project proposes detached single-family homes with an average density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the low-density residential land use designation of the General Plan. The project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.

This impact would be less than significant.

Response c): Less than Significant. Proposed street sections (provided in Appendix B of the Traffic Analysis) for new streets to be constructed by the project meet the minimum City of Manteca design standards (City of Manteca Standard Street Cross Sections, ST-2) for residential streets. The project also meets the City’s PFIP improvement design standards for proposed Louise Avenue improvements along the site frontage. Furthermore, proposed street improvements would provide continuous and connected sidewalks. Although the project does not propose on-site dedicated bike lanes, the proposed on-site streets are expected to be low volume and low speed, which would facilitate a low stress bicycling environment ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 113
The proposed improvements and corresponding design features are compatible with the proposed and neighborhood uses; therefore, no impact would occur.

Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a geometric design feature that is inconsistent with applicable design standards for the City of Manteca. The project would not result in a significant change to the vehicle mix or speed of traffic that is not compatible with the design of existing or planned facility design. The project does not propose any new roadways or transportation facilities that would be inconsistent with applicable design standards for the City of Manteca. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a change to the vehicle mix or speed of traffic that is not compatible with the design of existing or planned roadways and transportation facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

Response d): Less than Significant. The project includes three access points (on Louise Avenue, Cork Oak Lane, and Black Pine Way) connecting the project site with the surrounding neighborhood. All proposed on-site streets would provide a minimum clear width of 20 feet, meeting the City of Manteca Fire Code minimum 20 foot clear-width requirement for streets that provide access to buildings under 30 feet in height.

The internal circulation is designed to meet City code for emergency vehicle access and would maintain high levels of emergency vehicle accessibility and mobility, which ensures vehicles have the necessary access when responding to an emergency. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 114
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
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:

X
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)?
X
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 resources to a California Native
American tribe.

X
Project Impacts:

The Project site does not contain any resources that are listed with the California Register of Historical Resources or that have been determined by the lead agency to have significance to a California Native American Tribe. No impacts to tribal cultural resources are anticipated.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to historical, cultural, and paleontological resources within the Planning area because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included potential destruction or damage to any historical, cultural, and paleontological resources (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.5-13 through 3.5-20). However, the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions for the preservation and treatment of archaeological, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-11.1. Protect important historic resources and use these resources to promote a sense of place and history in Manteca.
• RC-11.2. Encourage historic resources to remain in their original use whenever possible.

The adaptive use of historic resources is preferred, particularly as museums, educational ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 115
facilities, or visitor-serving uses, when the original use can no longer be sustained. Older residences may be converted to office/retail use in commercial areas and to tourist or business use, so long as their historical authenticity is maintained or enhanced. • RC-11.3. Do not approve any public or private project that may adversely affect an archaeological site without consulting the California Archaeological Inventory at Stanislaus State University, conducting a site evaluation as may be indicated, and attempting to mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. City implementation of this policy shall be guided by CEQA and the National Historic Preservation Act.
• RC-11.4. Require that the proponent of any development proposal in an area with potential archaeological resources, and specifically near the San Joaquin River and Walthall Slough, and on the east side of State Highway 99 at the Louise Avenue crossing, shall consult with the California Archaeological Inventory, Stanislaus State University to determine the potential for discovery of cultural resources, conduct a site evaluation as may be indicated, and mitigate any adverse impacts according to the recommendation of a qualified archaeologist. The survey and mitigation shall be developer funded. • RC-11.9. Review new development projects and work in conjunction with the California Historical Resources Information System to determine whether project areas contain known archaeological resources, either prehistoric and/or historic-era, or have the potential for such resources.
• RC-11.10. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity, and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
• RC-11.11. Consistent with State, local, and tribal intergovernmental consultation requirements such as SB 18, consult as necessary with Native American tribes that may be interested in proposed new development and land use policy changes.

Implementation: Resource Conservation Element
• RC-11a. Require a records search for any proposed development project, to determine whether the site contains known archaeological, historic, or cultural resources and/or to determine the potential for discovery of additional cultural resources. This requirement may be waived if determined by the City that the proposed project area is already sufficiently surveyed.
• RC-11b. Require a cultural and archaeological survey prior to approval of any project which would require excavation in an area that is sensitive for cultural or archaeological resources. If significant cultural or archaeological resources, including historic and prehistoric resources, are identified, appropriate measures shall be implemented, such as documentation and conservation, to reduce adverse impacts to the resource.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 116
• RC-11c. Require all City permits for reconstruction or modification of existing buildings to include the submittal of a photograph of the existing structure or site. The intent is to create a record of the buildings in the City over time. A photograph will also be required for vacant sites that will be modified with new construction of new buildings or other above ground improvements.
• RC-11d. Incorporate significant archaeological sites, where feasible, into open space areas.
• RC-11e. Continue to inventory historic sites throughout the City. The inventory should contain a narrative of the significant facts regarding the historic events or persons associated with the site, and pictures of the site.
• RC-11f. Continue to support the local historical society in their efforts to:
o Archive historic information, including photographs, publications, oral histories and other materials, and
o make the information available to the public for viewing and research. • RC-11g. Encourage the placement of monuments or plaques that recognize and celebrate historic sites, structures, and events.
• RC-11j. Require all new development, infrastructure, and other ground-disturbing projects to comply with the following conditions in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources or human remains:
o If construction or grading activities result in the discovery of significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts or unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease, the Community Development Director shall be notified, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian for appropriate protection and preservation measures; and work may only resume when appropriate protections are in place and have been approved by the Community Development Director; and
o If human remains are discovered during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the Community Development Director and the San Joaquin County Coroner have been contacted; if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendants have been consulted; and work may only resume when appropriate measures have been taken and approved by the Community Development Director.

The General Plan policies would protect historical archaeological deposits in the EIR planning area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 117
resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation.

Implementation of the proposed action identified above, as well as compliance with federal, State, and local laws and regulations, would reduce potential impacts to historical archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-b): According to the General Plan EIR, cultural resources have been identified within the Manteca Planning Area, however no prehistoric sites, historic sites, historic buildings, archaeological resources, or paleontological resources have been recorded on the project site.

Nevertheless, the proposed Project is in a region where cultural resources have been recorded and there remains a potential that undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resource definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during grounddisturbing and construction activities.

Due to the possible presence of undiscovered/undocumented archeological or Tribal Cultural Resources within the project site, appropriate steps to preserve and/or document any previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during construction and/or operational activities, including human remains, would be required. The Manteca General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the General Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to these environmental topics were less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 3.5 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to archaeological, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources of the City.

Furthermore, in accordance with the City of Manteca General Plan, a cultural resources constraints analysis was prepared for the project, which included several recommendations to be incorporated into the construction of the proposed Project. These recommendations have been incorporated into the following project requirements. Implementation of the following project requirement would ensure the potential impacts are less than significant.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement TRI-1: If presently undocumented buried archaeological deposits are encountered during future project-associated construction activities, work must cease within a 50- foot radius of the discovery. A qualified archaeologist must be retained to document the discovery, assess its significance, and recommend treatment. If human remains or any associated funerary artifacts are discovered during construction, all work must cease within the immediate vicinity of the discovery. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5), the San Joaquin County Sheriff/Coroner must be contacted immediately. If the Coroner determines the remains to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 118
Commission, which will in turn appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to act as a tribal representative. The MLD will work with the project proponent/applicant and a qualified archaeologist to determine the proper treatment of the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Construction activities will not resume until either the human remains are exhumed, or the remains are avoided via project construction design change.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 119
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
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?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
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
projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
X
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 reductions goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of a 68 single-family lot residential subdivision and would be anticipated to increase the use of, and demand for utilities and service systems.

Public utilities will be constructed with the proposed Project, including the extension of water, sewer, storm, and dry utilities into the Project site. 12” and 8” water mains will service each lot of the subdivision, and tie into all existing stubs in the surrounding streets. Fire hydrants will be installed per City of Manteca standards. 8” sewer mains will service each lot of the subdivision, and tie into all existing stubs in the surrounding streets. 15”, 18”, and 24” Storm mains will be installed within the subdivision to serve the project. Storm runoff will be treated by stormwater treatment devices, then conveyed into the existing 12” mains that run at Lousie Avenue, Cork Oak Lane, and Black Pine Way. A 2.08 on-site detention basin and pump station is proposed within the Project site with a proposed basin volume of 3.38 acre-ft. Existing septic system and water well to be abandoned or destroyed per San Joaquin County standards. Dry utilities will be installed within 10’ Public Utility Easements (P.U.E.) along all street frontages.

As discussed in greater detail below, there is adequate wastewater treatment and water capacity to meet the water and wastewater treatment demands of the proposed Project, and no ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 120
expansions would be required because of the project. Utility extensions to the Project site are nearby and would need to extend services to serve the project area Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for utilities and service systems because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan.

These impacts included increased demand for utilities and service systems (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.15-9 through 3.15-46). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in utilities and service system impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to utilities and service systems. In addition, compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of utilities and service systems and the application of General Plan goals and policies would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to utilities and service systems, as noted above. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems of the City. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:

Policies: Community Facilities Element
• CF-6.1. Ensure the water system and supply is adequate to meet the needs of existing and future development and is utilized in a sustainable manner. • CF-6.2. Ensure safe drinking water standards are met throughout the community. • CF-6.3. Pursue additional water supply agreements to supplement the City's existing system in order to meet projected demand and to reduce the City’s reliance on groundwater resources.
• CF-6.4. Ensure that the City’s water supply provides for and supports a balance of jobs and housing in future development.
• CF-6.5. Prohibit extension of City water services to unincorporated areas except in extraordinary circumstances. Existing commitments for City water service outside the City limits shall continue to be honored.
• CF-6.7. Ensure that all new development provides for and funds a fair share of the costs for adequate water distribution, including line extensions, easements, and plant expansions.
• CF-6.8. Continue efforts to reduce potable water use and increase water conservation. • CF-6.9. Encourage the use of recycled water for industrial uses and landscape irrigation where feasible, within the parameters of State and County Health Codes and standards. • CF-6.10. Consider the effect of incremental increases in the demands on groundwater supply and water quality when reviewing development applications. • CF-7.1. Ensure adequate wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure to serve existing and future development and the safe disposal of wastes. • CF-7.2. Develop new sewage treatment and trunk line capacity as necessary to serve new development. The City shall incorporate current technologies into the design and operation of these facilities.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 121
• CF-7.3. Only extend sewer services to unincorporated areas under extraordinary circumstances. Existing commitments for sewer service outside the city limits shall continue to be honored.
• CF-7.5. Maintain the ability to handle peak discharge flow while meeting State Regional Water Quality Control Board Standards as established in the current NPDES Permit. • CF-7.6. Maintain the existing wastewater system on a regular basis to increase the lifespan of the system and ensure public safety.
• CF-8.1. Maintain and improve Manteca's storm drainage facilities. • CF-8.2. Require all development projects to demonstrate how Stormwater runoff will be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility as part of the development review process and as required by the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Permit. Project applicants shall mitigate any drainage impacts as necessary and shall demonstrate that the project will not result in any increase in off-site runoff during rain and flood events.
• CF-8.3. Continue to allow dual-use detention basins for parks, ball fields, and other uses where appropriate.
• CF-8.4. Incorporate recreational trails and parkway vegetation design where open stormwater facilities are appropriate and ensure that vegetation does not reduce channel capacity.
• CF-8.5. Maintain drainage channels in a naturalized condition where appropriate, incorporating recreational trails, parkway vegetation, and other amenities and ensuring that vegetation does not reduce channel capacity, and consistent with the Resource Conservation Element.
• CF-11.1. Continue to require mandatory refuse collection throughout the city. • CF-11.2. Implement and enforce the provisions of the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Program and update the program as necessary to meet or exceed the State waste diversion requirements.
• CF-11.3. Reduce municipal waste generation by increasing recycling, on-site composting, and mulching, where feasible, at municipal facilities, as well as using resource efficient landscaping techniques in new or renovated medians and parks. • CF-11.4. Encourage residential, commercial, and industrial recycling and reuse programs and techniques.
• CF-11.5. Coordinate with and support other local agencies and jurisdictions in the region to develop and implement effective waste management strategies and waste-to-energy technologies.
• CF-11.6. Support the continued use of the Lovelace Transfer Station on Lovelace Road, between Union Road and Airport Way, for the processing and shipping of solid waste materials.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable policies and standards, including the mitigation measures addressing impacts of urban development under the General Plan on utility and service systems incorporated as goals ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 122
and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project. These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), c): Less than Significant. Municipal wastewater is treated at the City’s Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF), which treats municipal sanitary sewage from the City of Manteca, portions of Lathrop, and Raymus Village, just northeast of Manteca. Per contractual agreement, 8.42 mgd of plant capacity is allocated to the City of Manteca and 1.45 mgd is allocated to the City of Lathrop. The WQCF treats an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of about 6 mgd and has an average dry weather design capacity of 9.87 mgd. The anticipated buildout ADWF within areas served by the WQCF is 27 mgd (EDAW, 2007). Wastewater treatment requirements for discharges from the Manteca WQCF are set forth in CVRWQCB Order No. R5-2015-0026 NPDES NO. CA0081558.

The General Plan EIR concluded that wastewater generation and discharges from development allowed under the General Plan would not cause exceedances of wastewater treatment requirements for effluent or capacity of the WQCF, and impacts would be less than significant.

The City has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand for wastewater treatment services in addition to its existing commitments, and no improvements or expansions to the existing WQCF are required to serve the proposed Project. The addition of project-generated wastewater would not result in any CVRWQCB violations related to effluent treatment or discharge.

The General Plan designates the Project site for Residential use and the proposed Project is consistent with that land use designation. Therefore, the proposed Project is considered planned growth and to the extent that the project would require new or expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical and natural gas facilities, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.

Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Response b): Less than Significant. The City of Manteca has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP 2020) that predicts the water supply available to the City of Manteca in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years out to 2045.

The construction of the proposed Project would increase water demand on-site. The General Plan designates the Project site for Residential use and the proposed Project is consistent with that land use designation. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR concluded that the City of Manteca will have sufficient water supplies to meet the projected demands from development allowed by the General Plan, and therefore has sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The proposed Project is considered planned growth and to the extent that the proposed Project would require additional water supply, this was ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 123
previously considered by the General Plan EIR. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

Responses d), e): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would not generate significant or abnormal volumes of solid waste. Because the General Plan EIR determined that solid waste capacity is adequate to serve the demand resulting from General Plan build-out and the proposed Project’s use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site and would not result in new or increased impacts. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR concluded that construction and operation of development allowed under the General Plan would not conflict with State and local regulations governing solid waste disposal and diversion, and the proposed General Plan includes policies and actions to promote consistency with other solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste. To the extent that the proposed Project would generate both construction and operational solid waste, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR.

For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan FEIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 124
XX. WILDFIRE
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
Project Impacts
The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The City of Manteca is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire.

Prior Environmental Review:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of wildland fires that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, impairment, or interference with implementation of emergency response and evacuation plans and cumulative hazard impacts (City of Manteca General Plan Draft EIR, page

3.16-7). The analysis concluded that because there are no High or Very High FHSZs within the EIR planning area, and because existing State and local regulations, combined with General Plan policies and actions, would further prevent the exposure of people and structures to significant risks from wildland fires, the impact would be less than significant.

As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that support effective response in the event of an emergency, including from a wildfire. In addition, the General Plan ensures that there are adequate fire protection service providers in the event of a fire by directing the City to maintain adequate staffing levels to support achieving the City’s service level goals for fire protection. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.16 of the General Plan EIR, State ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 125
and City regulations have established structural fire resistance and protection standards, as well as requirements regarding debris and vegetation in wildfire hazard areas.

Mitigation Measures from Uniformly Applied Development Policies and Standards:

All applicable policies and standards, including the mitigation measures addressing impacts of urban development under the General Plan on wildland fire and emergency response incorporated as goals and policies in the General Plan, will be applied to the proposed Project.

These serve as uniformly applied development policies and standards and/or as conditions of approval for this project to ensure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with City rules and regulations.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. The Project site would connect to an existing network of City streets. The appropriate turning radiuses have been planned to accommodate fire trucks onsite. The proposed circulation improvements would allow for greater emergency access relative to existing conditions. Moreover, the proposed Project would require building construction to meet the fire code requirements, and would have fire hydrants consistent with the standards of the City; such fire hydrants would assist with fire suppression efforts if a fire was to occur on or near the Project site. The proposed Project would also not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter any roadways, access points, or otherwise degrade traffic operations and access to the area in such a way as to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to adopted emergency response plans or evacuation plans. Moreover, the project would also be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): Less than Significant. The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The Project site is in an area that is predominately residential, which is not considered at a significant risk of wildfire. There are no steep slopes on or near the Project site. Development of the project would not exacerbate fire risks. Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to the spread of wildfire. Moreover, the project would also be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Response c): Less than Significant. The project includes development of infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage) to serve the proposed residential buildings. The project does not ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 126
include the construction of fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or power lines. As noted above, the proposed Project would require fire hydrants consistent with the standards of the City, and such fire hydrants would assist with fire suppression efforts if a fire was to occur. The proposed infrastructure improvements would allow for decreased fire risk relative to existing conditions.

Therefore, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Moreover, the project would also be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

Response d): Less than Significant. The proposed Project would require the installation of storm drainage infrastructure to ensure that storm waters properly drain from the Project site and does not result in downstream flooding or major drainage changes. Overall, impacts from project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Moreover, the project would also be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 127
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Does the project have the potential to 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, 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?
X
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)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Project Impacts:

The preceding analysis demonstrates that these effects will not occur because of the proposed Project.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Less than Significant. As discussed in this document, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR and would comply with applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. Therefore, these are less than significant impacts.

Response b): Less than Significant. The General Plan EIR assumed full development and buildout of the Project site, consistent with the use and density proposed by the project. The cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the City of Manteca General Plan, including the Project site, were fully addressed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, as described throughout the analysis above, the proposed Project would not result in any significant individual or cumulative impacts that would not be reduced to less than significant levels through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Response c): Less than Significant. As described throughout the analysis above, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that would have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans. The analysis in the relevant sections above provides the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards reduce any ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 128
potentially significant impacts on humans to less than significant levels. A variety of requirements including those related to aesthetics and light and glare, GHG and air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials, seismic hazards, water pollution and water quality, and noise, ensure any adverse effects on humans are reduce to an acceptable standard. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 129

REFERENCES
• Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. • Barbour and Major 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. • Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, Murray Ranch Subdivision. March 3, 2021.
• Bovee Environmental Management. Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

July 29, 2018.
• C Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.
• California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf.
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (SRA). Adopted by CAL FIRE on October 2, 2007. Available at:
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_joaquin/fhszs_map.39.pdf • California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007.

Available: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_joaquin/fhszl06_1_map.39.pdf • California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2017. EnviroStor database.

Accessed on October 15, 2021. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ • California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmlands Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
• California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act/Land Conservation Act. Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife. CNDDB BIOS viewer. Version 6, Available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. “California State Scenic Highways.” Last updated July 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. • California Energy Commission. 2024. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2023 Edition. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data • City of Manteca. City of Manteca General Plan. Adopted July 18, 2023. • City of Manteca, 2023. Manteca General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Certified July 18, 2023.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 130
• City of Manteca. 2018. Municipal Service Review and Sphere Of Influence Plan. • City of Manteca. 2024. Manteca Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance O2024-10 and the May 2024 code supplement.
• Department Of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database. 2024. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/.
• Fehr & Peers. Trip Generation and Preliminary Transportation CEQA Analysis for the Proposed 4-C Ranch Project in Manteca, CA. July 11, 2024. • Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. (Staff Final Report), California Energy Commission, 2006.
• Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment, 2003, D.C.

Ahrens.
• Peak & Associates. Cultural Resources Analysis. August 2024. • San Joaquin Council of Governments, Airport Land Use Commission. July 2009, Amended January 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update, San Joaquin County Aviation System, San Joaquin County, California.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. March 19, 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL).

November 2020. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI-SPAL.PDF. • Saxelby, Luke. 2024. Environmental Noise Assessment 4-C Ranch Subdivision Project.

July 26, 2024.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Sense Guide. Available At https://www.epa.gov/watersense/program-guidelines.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS), Accessed July 2024.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 131
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 132
Appendix A: AQ-GHG Data
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 1 / 48
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 2 / 48

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 3 / 48

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 4 / 48

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 5 / 48

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 6 / 48

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 7 / 48

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision
Construction Start Date 3/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.40
Precipitation (days) 9.00
Location 37.814026186143195, -121.1867325447024
County San Joaquin
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2131
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing

68.0 Dwelling Unit 22.1 132,600 796,474 0.00 220 —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 8 / 48
City Park 2.09 Acre 2.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.02 3.38 31.7 31.1 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,784 6,784 0.28 0.06 1.41 6,810 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 41.7 41.6 31.7 30.9 0.05 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 5,442 5,442 0.22 0.06 0.04 5,462 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.17 3.03 9.41 10.6 0.02 0.39 1.56 1.94 0.36 0.66 1.02 — 2,160 2,160 0.08 0.04 0.34 2,173 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.58 0.55 1.72 1.94 < 0.005 0.07 0.28 0.35 0.06 0.12 0.19 — 358 358 0.01 0.01 0.06 360

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 9 / 48
2025 4.02 3.38 31.7 31.1 0.06 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 6,784 6,784 0.28 0.06 1.41 6,810 2026 1.39 1.17 10.2 14.2 0.02 0.38 0.26 0.64 0.35 0.06 0.41 — 2,821 2,821 0.11 0.06 1.26 2,842 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.01 3.38 31.7 30.9 0.05 1.37 19.8 21.2 1.26 10.1 11.4 — 5,442 5,442 0.22 0.06 0.04 5,462 2026 41.7 41.6 10.2 14.0 0.02 0.38 0.26 0.64 0.35 0.06 0.41 — 2,800 2,800 0.11 0.06 0.03 2,820 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.25 1.05 9.41 10.6 0.02 0.39 1.56 1.94 0.36 0.66 1.02 — 2,160 2,160 0.08 0.03 0.30 2,173 2026 3.17 3.03 6.56 9.06 0.02 0.25 0.17 0.41 0.23 0.04 0.27 — 1,784 1,784 0.07 0.04 0.34 1,797 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.23 0.19 1.72 1.94 < 0.005 0.07 0.28 0.35 0.06 0.12 0.19 — 358 358 0.01 0.01 0.05 360 2026 0.58 0.55 1.20 1.65 < 0.005 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.05 — 295 295 0.01 0.01 0.06 298

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.5 8.38 5.10 55.3 0.14 2.35 7.41 9.76 2.26 1.89 4.15 407 10,660 11,067 5.94 0.40 32.3 11,367 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.95 7.82 5.65 45.5 0.14 2.35 7.41 9.76 2.26 1.89 4.15 407 9,995 10,403 5.97 0.43 1.76 10,681 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.42 6.65 4.79 35.8 0.10 0.61 7.37 7.99 0.59 1.87 2.47 121 9,599 9,720 4.61 0.41 14.5 9,973 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 10 / 48
Unmit. 1.35 1.21 0.87 6.53 0.02 0.11 1.35 1.46 0.11 0.34 0.45 20.0 1,589 1,609 0.76 0.07 2.40 1,651

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.56 3.22 3.75 35.6 0.09 0.07 7.41 7.48 0.07 1.89 1.95 — 8,957 8,957 0.29 0.38 31.3 9,108 Area 6.91 5.13 0.85 19.4 0.05 2.24 — 2.24 2.16 — 2.16 370 726 1,096 1.74 < 0.005 — 1,140 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 958 958 0.11 0.01 — 963 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 18.3 23.6 0.55 0.01 — 41.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 32.6 0.00 32.6 3.25 0.00 — 114 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.95
Total 10.5 8.38 5.10 55.3 0.14 2.35 7.41 9.76 2.26 1.89 4.15 407 10,660 11,067 5.94 0.40 32.3 11,367 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.34 3.00 4.34 29.7 0.08 0.07 7.41 7.48 0.07 1.89 1.95 — 8,303 8,303 0.32 0.41 0.81 8,433 Area 6.55 4.79 0.81 15.6 0.05 2.24 — 2.24 2.15 — 2.15 370 716 1,085 1.74 < 0.005 — 1,129 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 958 958 0.11 0.01 — 963 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 18.3 23.6 0.55 0.01 — 41.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 32.6 0.00 32.6 3.25 0.00 — 114 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.95
Total 9.95 7.82 5.65 45.5 0.14 2.35 7.41 9.76 2.26 1.89 4.15 407 9,995 10,403 5.97 0.43 1.76 10,681 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 3.34 3.00 4.09 30.2 0.08 0.07 7.37 7.44 0.07 1.87 1.94 — 8,457 8,457 0.31 0.39 13.5 8,595 Area 4.03 3.62 0.20 5.40 0.01 0.50 — 0.50 0.48 — 0.48 83.0 166 249 0.39 < 0.005 — 259 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 958 958 0.11 0.01 — 963 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 11 / 48
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 18.3 23.6 0.55 0.01 — 41.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 32.6 0.00 32.6 3.25 0.00 — 114 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.95
Total 7.42 6.65 4.79 35.8 0.10 0.61 7.37 7.99 0.59 1.87 2.47 121 9,599 9,720 4.61 0.41 14.5 9,973 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.61 0.55 0.75 5.50 0.02 0.01 1.35 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,400 1,400 0.05 0.07 2.24 1,423 Area 0.73 0.66 0.04 0.99 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 13.7 27.5 41.2 0.06 < 0.005 — 42.9 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 159 159 0.02 < 0.005 — 159 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.88 3.03 3.91 0.09 < 0.005 — 6.83 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 5.39 0.00 5.39 0.54 0.00 — 18.9 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.16
Total 1.35 1.21 0.87 6.53 0.02 0.11 1.35 1.46 0.11 0.34 0.45 20.0 1,589 1,609 0.76 0.07 2.40 1,651

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 12 / 48
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.16 0.13 1.22 1.09 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 188 188 0.01 < 0.005 — 188 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.02 0.22 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.1 31.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 125 125 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 127 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.04 7.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.15 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 13 / 48
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.18 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 14 / 48
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 162 162 0.01 0.01 0.60 165 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 146 146 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 148 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 15 / 48
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.11 4.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.68 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.69 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 16 / 48
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.36 0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.88 0.88 — 0.35 0.35 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.08 0.06 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 185 185 0.01 0.01 0.69 188 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.7 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 17 / 48
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.72 2.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 18 / 48
Off-Roa 0.56 0.47 4.33 5.41 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 995 995 0.04 0.01 — 998 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.09 0.79 0.99 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 165 165 0.01 < 0.005 — 165 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.07 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 226 226 0.01 0.01 0.84 230 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 206 206 < 0.005 0.03 0.57 216 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.09 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 205 205 0.01 0.01 0.02 207 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 206 206 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 215 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.0 87.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 88.3 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 85.4 85.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 89.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.6 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 19 / 48
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.1 14.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.77 0.64 5.92 7.79 0.01 0.23 — 0.23 0.21 — 0.21 — 1,440 1,440 0.06 0.01 — 1,445 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 20 / 48
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.14 0.12 1.08 1.42 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 238 238 0.01 < 0.005 — 239 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.06 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 222 222 < 0.005 0.01 0.76 225 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 202 202 < 0.005 0.03 0.50 212 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 200 200 0.01 0.01 0.02 203 Vendor 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 202 202 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 211 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 < 0.005 0.01 0.20 125 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 121 121 < 0.005 0.02 0.13 127 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20.4 20.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 20.7 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.1 20.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.0 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 21 / 48
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.91 0.76 7.12 9.94 0.01 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.39 0.54 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 22 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 123 123 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 124 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.90 6.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.14 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.16 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 23 / 48
Architect 41.5 41.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.32 7.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.34 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.27 2.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.22 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.41 0.41 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.1 40.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 40.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 24 / 48
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.25 2.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 324 324 0.05 0.01 — 327
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 25 / 48
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 324 324 0.05 0.01 — 327
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 324 324 0.05 0.01 — 327
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 324 324 0.05 0.01 — 327
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 53.6 53.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 54.2
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 53.6 53.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 54.2

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.06 0.03 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 634 634 0.06 < 0.005 — 636 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 634 634 0.06 < 0.005 — 636 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 26 / 48
Single
Family
Housing

0.06 0.03 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 634 634 0.06 < 0.005 — 636 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.06 0.03 0.50 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 634 634 0.06 < 0.005 — 636 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 105 105 0.01 < 0.005 — 105 City
Park

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 105 105 0.01 < 0.005 — 105

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 3.48 1.72 0.81 15.6 0.05 2.24 — 2.24 2.15 — 2.15 370 716 1,085 1.74 < 0.005 — 1,129 Consum
er
Product
s

2.84 2.84 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.23 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.36 0.34 0.04 3.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.4 ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 27 / 48
Total 6.91 5.13 0.85 19.4 0.05 2.24 — 2.24 2.16 — 2.16 370 726 1,096 1.74 < 0.005 — 1,140 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 3.48 1.72 0.81 15.6 0.05 2.24 — 2.24 2.15 — 2.15 370 716 1,085 1.74 < 0.005 — 1,129 Consum
er
Product
s

2.84 2.84 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.23 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 6.55 4.79 0.81 15.6 0.05 2.24 — 2.24 2.15 — 2.15 370 716 1,085 1.74 < 0.005 — 1,129 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.64 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 13.7 26.6 40.4 0.06 < 0.005 — 42.0 Consum
er
Product
s

0.52 0.52 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.04 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.84 0.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.85 Total 0.73 0.66 0.04 0.99 < 0.005 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 13.7 27.5 41.2 0.06 < 0.005 — 42.9

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 28 / 48
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 18.3 23.6 0.55 0.01 — 41.2
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 18.3 23.6 0.55 0.01 — 41.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 18.3 23.6 0.55 0.01 — 41.2
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.30 18.3 23.6 0.55 0.01 — 41.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.88 3.03 3.91 0.09 < 0.005 — 6.83 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.88 3.03 3.91 0.09 < 0.005 — 6.83

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 29 / 48
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 32.5 0.00 32.5 3.24 0.00 — 114
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 — 0.34
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 32.6 0.00 32.6 3.25 0.00 — 114 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 32.5 0.00 32.5 3.24 0.00 — 114
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 — 0.34
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 32.6 0.00 32.6 3.25 0.00 — 114 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.37 0.00 5.37 0.54 0.00 — 18.8
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.02 0.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 — 0.06 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.39 0.00 5.39 0.54 0.00 — 18.9

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 30 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.95
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.95
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.95
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.95
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.16
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.16

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 31 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 32 / 48
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 33 / 48

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 34 / 48
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 3/1/2025 3/29/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/30/2025 4/13/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 4/14/2025 6/2/2025 5.00 35.0 —
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 35 / 48
Building Construction Building Construction 6/3/2025 11/3/2026 5.00 370 — Paving Paving 11/4/2026 12/2/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/3/2026 12/31/2026 5.00 20.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 36 / 48
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 24.5 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 7.27 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 37 / 48
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 4.90 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 268,515 89,505 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Ton of
Debris)
Material Exported (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 15.0 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 105 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 38 / 48

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 0.75 0%
City Park 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 708 708 708 258,420 10,410 10,410 10,410 3,799,650

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 39 / 48
Gas Fireplaces 34
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 34
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 3
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 3
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
268515 89,505 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 579,748 204 0.0330 0.0040 1,978,122 City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 40 / 48

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 2,765,817 13,663,654
City Park 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 60.2 —
City Park 0.18 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 41 / 48

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 42 / 48

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 19.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.65 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 43 / 48
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 44 / 48

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 58.2
AQ-PM 54.5
AQ-DPM 76.7
Drinking Water 99.1
Lead Risk Housing 13.8
Pesticides 95.2
Toxic Releases 55.0
Traffic 68.9
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00
Groundwater 26.7
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 7.35
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 89.9
Cardio-vascular 93.1
Low Birth Weights 86.2
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 53.9
Housing 36.2
Linguistic 34.6
Poverty 49.5
Unemployment 83.2
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 45 / 48

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 60.6698319
Employed 39.71512896
Median HI 47.04221737
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 32.09290389
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 22.25073784
Transportation —
Auto Access 27.46054151
Active commuting 20.45425382
Social —
2-parent households 66.36725266
Voting 71.65404851
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 46.88823303
Park access 46.09264725
Retail density 20.64673425
Supermarket access 39.47132042
Tree canopy 43.39792121
Housing —
Homeownership 47.45284229
Housing habitability 37.82882074
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 84.42191711 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 39.40716027
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 46 / 48
Uncrowded housing 48.81303734
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 56.82022328
Arthritis 10.7
Asthma ER Admissions 4.8
High Blood Pressure 11.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 15.0
Asthma 40.2
Coronary Heart Disease 13.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 23.6
Diagnosed Diabetes 48.6
Life Expectancy at Birth 19.5
Cognitively Disabled 28.0
Physically Disabled 33.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 9.4
Mental Health Not Good 50.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 27.1
Obesity 39.2
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 46.9
Stroke 26.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 48.9
Current Smoker 45.9
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 41.9
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 47 / 48
Children 56.6
Elderly 16.8
English Speaking 66.0
Foreign-born 20.2
Outdoor Workers 34.6
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 50.4
Traffic Density 69.9
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 52.3

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 76.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 44.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

ATTACHMENT 9
Manteca 4-C Ranch Subdivision Detailed Report, 8/8/2024 48 / 48

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
ATTACHMENT 9
MANTECA 4-C RANCH SUBDIVISION PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST
City of Manteca PAGE 134
Appendix B: Cultural Report
ATTACHMENT 9

CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR THE
4-C RANCH, CITY OF MANTECA,

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20 PMB 329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405
Prepared for
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
August 8, 2024
(Job #24-027)
ATTACHMENT 9

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, for which an EIR was prepared and certified, and there are no site-specific or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Project that have not been fully addressed in a previous environmental document, or that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. The findings presented below demonstrate that no additional environmental analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to approval of the proposed Project.

The Project site is 19.68+/- acres in San Joaquin County, within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Manteca, California. The Project site is located along E. Lousie Avenue to the northeast of the City of Manteca in Assessor’s Parcel Number 208-080-100. The Project site is currently in agricultural production. Structures on the Project site include a single-family residence, a mobile home, and several outbuildings in fair to poor condition.

The proposed Project consists of a subdivision of land for the development of 68 single-family lots, a park/basin, streets, and utilities. The entitlements requested include a Tentative Subdivision Map, Prezone to Residential, Low (RL), and annexation. The property has a gentle slope with elevations ranging from 41-44’. The proposed Project may be developed in phases.

The Project Area will require annexation into the City of Manteca but does not require adjustment to the SOI. The proposed development consists of:

Low-density Residential The low-density residential area would consist of 68 single family detached units on lots ranging in size from 6,500 to 14,005 square feet. Given that the Project site is 19.68+/- acres, the project density would be 3.4 units to the acre. This is consistent with the General Plan density limit of 2.1 to 8 units per acre.

Park/Basin The park/basin land area would consist of a 2.09 acre lot and be primarily utilized for detention of storm water utilities.

Street Design The streets within the proposed residential subdivision are designed consistent with the right-of-way and curb-to-curb widths of the current City of Manteca standards. The curb and sidewalk design are also designed to match the existing surrounding neighborhoods such that the proposed subdivision becomes an extension of the existing neighborhood. This includes roll curb with monolithic sidewalks.

ATTACHMENT 9
ATTACHMENT 9
SITE

LOUISE AVE AUSTIN RD
HIGHWAY 99

LATHROP RD

YOSEMITE AVE VASCONELLOS AVE PESTANA AVE
WILSON
APN: 208-080-120
MUNOZ APN: 208-080-090
LIN
APN: 208-080-040
CONSOLI APN: 208-080-100
COOPER
APN: 208-080-240
DIAMOND OAKS UNIT NO. 1
DIAMOND OAKS UNIT NO. 2

LO ESTATES

LO ESTATES
140-070

CORK OAK LANE
STREET 2
STREET 1

BLACK PINE WAY VASCONCELLOS AVENUE
STREET 3
LOUISE AVENUE STREET 4
53 55
60 44
43 62
61 58
59 57
56 54
42 41
52 51 50
49 48
47 46
45 68 67
66 65
64 63
7 8
9 6
5 4 3 2 1
14 15
12 13
10 11
27 26
28 29
30 31
37 36 35
38 39
34 33
40 32
19 17
18 16
25 24 23 22 21
20 LOT A PARK/BASIN
ROW
18'
50'
23'
WALK
5'
CL
18'
23'
5'
WALK
ROW
2%
2%
& SIDEWALK

CURB, GUTTER

DRIVE-OVER DRIVE-OVER

CURB, GUTTER
& SIDEWALK
ROW
22'
44'
60'
27'
WALK
5'
CL
22'
27'
5'
WALK
ROW
2%
2%

SIDEWALK

GUTTER &

VERTICAL CURB, DRIVE-OVER

CURB, GUTTER
& SIDEWALK
2%
2%
2%
2%
36'
50' RESIDENTIAL STREET
N.T.S. 1
N.T.S.
2 60' RESIDENTIAL STREET @ PARK (VASCONCELLOS)
ROW
20' 54'
11'
CL

SIDEWALK

GUTTER &

VERTICAL CURB,
6' 8'
2%
68' 20'
N.T.S.
3 108' LOUISE AVENUE
WALK
SCAPE
LAND6'
SCAPE
LANDROW
108'

VERTICAL CURB,

SIDEWALK

GUTTER &
6' 8'
2%
20'
WALK LANDSCAPE
6'
SCAPE
LAND34'

RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION
11' 11' 5' 11' 14' 5'
3' 3'
2' 2'
PER P.F.I.P 4-LANE STREET SECTION PLATE E-2.03
1 GENERAL NOTES, KEY MAP AND LEGEND

PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

DR. BY:

SCALE:

NO.

DATE:

JOB NO.:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 FAX :

TEL :

MANTECA , CA 95336
1242 DUPONT COURT
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m

ENGINEERING
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow.
before you dig. Call
R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR:

DE

SLS/RP/RBP
JANUARY, 2024
20-117 4-C RANCH 9683 E LOUISE AVENUE MANTECA, CA
4 SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR:

TRACT NO. 4087
BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 27, T.1S., R.7E., M.D.B.M.,

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
4-C RANCH

11. THIS SITE CONTAINS A SUBDIVISION WITH 68 LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS

10. APN: 208-080-10
IRRIGATION: S.S.J.I.D.

GAS & ELECTRIC: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
TELEPHONE: VERIZON
SEWER: CITY OF MANTECA

9. UTILITIES: WATER: CITY OF MANTECA

8. GENERAL PLAN: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)

7. ZONING: R1

6. LAND USE: EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL

5. PROPOSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY HOME

4. NO. OF LOTS: 68 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) & 1 PARK/BASIN MANTECA, CA 95336
1242 DUPONT COURT

3. ENGINEER: MCR ENGINEERING, INC.

MANTECA, CA 95336
1463 MOFFAT BOULEVARD, SUITE 5

RAYMUS HOMES

2. APPLICANT: TONI RAYMUS
MANTECA, CA 95336
9683 EAST LOUISE AVENUE

PAULINE CONSOLI DECLARATION OF TRUST

1. OWNER: PAULINE CONSOLI
NOTES
AND A PARK/RESIDENTIAL BASIN LOT ON 20 +/- ACRES.

14. EXISTING UTILITIES BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

13. BOUNDARY LINES ARE BASED ON RECORD INFORMATION.

12. THE PROPERTY HAS A GENTLE SLOPE WITH ELEVATIONS RANGING FROM 44'-41'.

BENCHMARK: CITY OF MANTECA BENCHMARK NO. 30.

ELEVATION: 41.44

15. ANY EXISTING WELLS AND/OR SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON SITE SHALL BE ABANDONED PER SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY STANDARDS.

16. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE DEDICATED ALONG ALL STREET FRONTAGES. P.U.E. NOT PROVIDED ALONG LOUISE AVENUE FRONTAGE.

17. UTILITIES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY GOVERNING

AGENCIES

18. THIS PROJECT MAY BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES. PARCEL MAPS MAY BE FILED ON PHASE BOUNDARIES FOR PURCHASE OF SALE OR FARMING.

NORTH
0 100
50 NORTH
SHEET 4 - UTILITY PLAN
SHEET 3 - DIMENSION PLAN
SHEET 2 - TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
SHEET 1 - COVER SHEET

SHEET INDEX

STREET SECTIONS
ATTACHMENT 9

BLACK PINE WAY CORK OAK LANE

CHERRY OAK LANE
WILSON
APN: 208-080-120
MUNOZ APN: 208-080-090
LIN
APN: 208-080-040
CONSOLI APN: 208-080-100
COOPER
APN: 208-080-240
DIAMOND OAKS UNIT NO. 1
DIAMOND OAKS UNIT NO. 2 661.79'
S01°54'01"E 1323.06'
S01°54'01"E 1323.06' 661.75' S89°38'20"W S89°38'20"W
20'R
(TYP)
(TYP)
20'R
(TYP)
20'R
(TYP)
20'R

CORK OAK LANE
STREET 1
STREET 2 BLACK PINE WAY

VASCONCELLOS AVENUE
STREET 3

LOUISE AVENUE
STREET 4 60' ROW 60' ROW 50' ROW 50' ROW
60' ROW
60' ROW
60' ROW
60' ROW
50' ROW
50' ROW
50' ROW
R=250'
R=500'
R=730'
R=400'
R=1000'
R=1000'
64' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 100' 97'
96'
95'
99'
100'
100'
100'
100' 100'
100' 142'117' 104' 100' 100'
113'
105'
105'
108'
114' 100'
100'
100'
100'
90'
147' 90' 100' 100'
66'
65'
66'
65' 110' 110' 110' 129' 115' 107' 104' 108' 115'119' 129' 100'
100'
100' 133' 121' 110' 110' 110'
66' 66' 67'
67'
72'
65' 65'
67'
67'
66' 75' 70' 70' 75' 145' 145'
67' 66' 66' 66' 66' 66' 66' 66'
99' 70' 52'
48' 95'
119'
34'
66'
66' 65' 65' 66'
68'
69' 77'
79' 70' 53' 70'
81'
74' 79' 92' 77'
100' 100' 79' 91'399' 72' 65' 73' 65' 72'
65'
114'
102'
106'
48'
72' 73' 50'
86' 100'
64' 65' 65' 65' 65' 75' 55' 139' 56'
76'
388'
125'
43'
66'
65'
70'
50'
52'
71' 69' 69' 69' 52'
79' 69' 70' 69' 69' 70' 154'
160' 65' 65' 70' 74'
52' 65' 66'
83' 75' 75' 75' 75' 80' 74'
60' 75' 75' 75' 75' 61' 81'
70' 65' 87' 104' 107' 91'
61' 67'
61' 65' 65' 50' 65'
65' 50' 80' 67' 146'
105' 105' 51' 65'
60' 49' 68'
100' 65' 65' 65' 52'
60'
53 8,819 SF
55 8,127 SF
60 7,187 SF
44 7,287 SF
43 7,287 SF
62 8,973 SF
61 7,904 SF
59 6,842 SF
58 6,859 SF
57 7,239 SF
56 7,687 SF
54 9,149 SF
42 7,287 SF
41 7,400 SF
52 7,000 SF
51 7,000 SF
50 7,265 SF
49 9,510 SF
48 8,413 SF
47 7,662 SF
46 7,288 SF
45 7,288 SF
68 6,829 SF
67 6,634 SF
66 6,850 SF
65 7,789 SF
64 9,628 SF
63 7,792 SF
9 6,914 SF
8 6,478 SF 7
6,862 SF
6 14,005 SF
5 7,339 SF
4 6,494 SF
3 6,500 SF
2 6,500 SF
1 6,908 SF
15 8,056 SF
14 7,500 SF
13 7,500 SF
12 7,500 SF
11 7,516 SF
10 7,914 SF
26 6,580 SF
27 6,500 SF
28 6,565 SF 29
7,115 SF
30 8,353 SF 31
11,230 SF
37 7,362 SF
36 7,656 SF
35 6,833 SF
38 7,695 SF
39 8,029 SF 34
6,832 SF
33 7,095 SF
40 10,288 SF
32 8,780 SF
19 9,893 SF
18 6,233 SF
17 6,500 SF
16 7,042 SF
25 7,043 SF
24 6,900 SF
23 6,900 SF
22 6,900 SF
21 6,714 SF
20 10,919 SF
67' 65'
66'
65'
34' ROW

DEDICATION
34' ROW

DEDICATION
(E) MASONRY WALL IN DIAMOND OAKS UNIT 1

MATCH THE (P) MASONRY WALL WITH THE

LOT A - BASIN/PARK

2.09 AC
(UPLAND 1.03 AC)

PLAN REVISIONS
DATE
CK. BY:

DR. BY:

SCALE:

NO.

DATE:

JOB NO.:

DESCRIPTIONS
SHEET NO.

OF SHEET

AS SHOWN
7 6
5 4
3 2
1 FAX :

TEL :

MANTECA , CA 95336
1242 DUPONT COURT
w w w . m c r e n g . c o m

ENGINEERING
( 209 ) 239 - 8839
( 209 ) 239 - 6229
APPROVED:

Know what'sbelow.
before you dig. Call
R
811 / 800-227-2600 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR:

DE

SLS/RP/RBP
JANUARY, 2024
20-117 4-C RANCH 9683 E LOUISE AVENUE MANTECA, CA
4 3 DIMENSION PLAN NORTH
0 50
25 ATTACHMENT 9
Utilities Utilities will be located within public utility easements and shall be maintained by governing agencies. Public utilities will be constructed with the proposed Project, including the extension of water, sewer, storm, and dry utilities.

The Project site is within the City of Manteca’s Sphere of Influence but located outside the city limits and will require annexation approval by the City of Manteca and San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission. The annexation request will not require adjustment to the Sphere of Influence.

The Manteca General Plan designates the Project site Low Density Residential. The Manteca General Plan defines this use as follows:

Low Density Residential. This designation provides for a mix of single-family housing, including small lots, clustered lots, attached homes, and conventional large lot detached residences. The maximum density is 2.1 to 8 units per acre.

The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.

The Project site is currently outside the city limits; therefore, the City Zoning Ordinance does not designate a zoning district on the Property. As part of the annexation request, the proposed Project includes a request for a pre-zone to R-1 (Residential, Low Density) District. The Zoning Code Section 17.20.020 indicates that the R-1 District is the corresponding zoning district for the General Plan Designation of Low Density Residential. Thus, the proposed prezone is consistent with the General Plan designation on the Project site. The R-1 zoning District is described below:

R-1 (One-Family Dwelling Zoning District). This designation allows for substantial flexibility in selecting dwelling unit types and parcel configurations to suit site conditions and housing needs.

The types of dwelling units include small lots and clustered lots as well as conventional large-lot detached residences.

Cultural Resources
Melinda Peak served as principal investigator for the project, with Michael Lawson completing the field survey. Resumes for Peak and Lawson are included in Appendix 1.

STATE REGULATIONS
State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code sections ATTACHMENT 9
21083.2 and 21084.1 and sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA Section 15064.5 requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. Public Resources Code Section 21098.1 further cites: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

An “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code section 5020.1).

Advice on procedures to identify such resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several agency publications such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CEQA and Archaeological Resources, 1994. The technical advice series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations and societies be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of the antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Codes Sections 5097.94 et al).

ATTACHMENT 9
The California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Properties listed, or formally designated as eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

For the purposes of CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. When a project will impact a site, it needs to be determined whether the site is an historical resource. The criteria are set forth in Section 15064.5(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and are defined as any resource that does any of the following:

A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition, the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) (4) states:

The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, And 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such ATTACHMENT 9
remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.

California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e)
This law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. The section establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission as the entity responsible to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains.

Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. This legislation, which amended §65040.2, §65092, §65351, §65352, and §65560, and added §65352.3, §653524, and §65562.5 to the Government Code; also requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to include in the General Plan Guidelines advice to local governments on how to conduct these consultations. The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.).

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts. AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that consultation address project alternatives, mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be considered ATTACHMENT 9
concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Under AB 52, such measures shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and adopted mitigation monitoring program if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource.

CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
The Central Valley region was among the first in the state to attract intensive fieldwork, and research has continued to the present day. This has resulted in a substantial accumulation of data.

In the early decades of the 1900s, E.J. Dawson explored numerous sites near Stockton and Lodi, later collaborating with W.E. Schenck (Schenck and Dawson 1929). By 1933, the focus of work was directed to the Cosumnes locality, where survey and excavation studies were conducted by the Sacramento Junior College (Lillard and Purves 1936). Excavation data, in particular from the stratified Windmiller site (CA-Sac-107), suggested two temporally distinct cultural traditions.

Later work at other mounds by Sacramento Junior College and the University of California, Berkeley, enabled the investigators to identify a third cultural tradition, intermediate between the previously postulated Early and Late Horizons. The three-horizon sequence, based on discrete changes in ornamental artifacts and mortuary practices, as well as on observed differences in soils within sites (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939), was later refined by Beardsley (1954). An expanded definition of artifacts diagnostic of each time period was developed, and its application extended to parts of the central California coast. Traits held in common allow the application of this system within certain limits of time and space to other areas of prehistoric central California.

The Windmiller Culture (Early Horizon) is characterized by ventrally-extended burials (some dorsal extensions are known), with westerly orientation of heads; a high percentage of burials with grave goods; frequent presence of red ocher in graves; large projectile points, of which 60 percent are of materials other than obsidian; rectangular Haliotis beads; Olivella shell beads (types A1a and L); rare use of bone; some use of baked clay objects; and well-fashioned charm stones, usually perforated.

The Cosumnes Culture (Middle Horizon) displays considerable changes from the preceding cultural expression. The burial mode is predominately flexed, with variable cardinal orientation and some cremations present. There are a lower percentage of burials with grave goods, and ocher staining is common in graves. Olivella beads of types C1, F and G predominate, and there is abundant use of green Haliotis sp. rather than red Haliotis sp. Other characteristic artifacts include ATTACHMENT 9
perforated and canid teeth; asymmetrical and “fishtail” charmstones, usually unperforated; cobble mortars and evidence of wooden mortars; extensive use of bone for tools and ornaments; large projectile points, with considerable use of rock other than obsidian; and use of baked clay.

Hotchkiss Culture (Late Horizon) -- The burial pattern retains the use of the flexed mode, and there is wide spread evidence of cremation, lesser use of red ocher, heavy use of baked clay, Olivella beads of Types E and M, extensive use of Haliotis ornaments of many elaborate shapes and forms, shaped mortars and cylindrical pestles, bird-bone tubes with elaborate geometric designs, clam shell disc beads, small projectile points indicative of the introduction of the bow and arrow, flanged tubular pipes of steatite and schist, and use of magnesite (Moratto 1984:181-183). The characteristics noted are not all-inclusive, but cover the more important traits.

Schulz (1981), in an extensive examination of the central California evidence for the use of acorns, used the terms Early, Middle and Late Complexes, but the traits attributed to them remain generally the same. While it is not altogether clear, Schulz seemingly uses the term “Complex” to refer to the particular archeological entities (above called “Horizons”) as defined in this region. Ragir's (1972) cultures are the same as Schulz’s complexes.

Bennyhoff and Hughes (1984) have presented alternative dating schemes for the Central California Archeological Sequence. The primary emphasis is a more elaborate division of the horizons to reflect what is seen as cultural/temporal changes within the three horizons and a compression of the temporal span.

There have been other chronologies proposed, including Fredrickson (1973), and since it is correlated with Bennyhoff's (1977) work, it does merit discussion. The particular archeological cultural entities Fredrickson has defined, based upon the work of Bennyhoff, are patterns, phases and aspects. Bennyhoff's (1977) work in the Plains Miwok area is the best definition of the Cosumnes District, which likely conforms to Fredrickson's pattern. Fredrickson also proposed periods of time associated heavily with economic modes, which provides a temporal term for comparing contemporary cultural entities. It corresponds with Willey and Phillips’ (1958) earlier “tradition”, although it is tied more specifically to the archeological record in California.

Ethnohistory
The Project site lies within the northern portion of the ethnographic territory of the Yokuts people.

The Yokuts were members of the Penutian language family which held all of the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the Pacific Coast from Marin County to near Point Sur. The Yokuts ATTACHMENT 9
differed from other ethnographic groups in California as they had true tribal divisions with group names (Kroeber 1925; Latta 1949). Each tribe spoke a particular dialect, common to its members, but similar enough to other Yokuts that they were mutually intelligible (Kroeber 1925).

The Yokuts held portions of the San Joaquin Valley from the Tehachapi mountains in the south to Stockton in the north. On the north they were bordered by the Plains Miwok, and on the west by the Saclan or Bay Miwok and Costonoan peoples. Although neighbors were often from distinct language families, differences between the people appear to have been more influenced by environmental factors as opposed to linguistic affinities. Thus, the Plains Miwok were more similar to the nearby Yokuts than to foothill members of their own language group. Similarities in cultural inventory co-varied with distance from other groups and proximity to culturally diverse people. The material culture of the southern San Joaquin Yokuts was therefore more closely related to that of their non-Yokuts neighbors than to that of Delta members of their own language group.

Trade was well developed, with mutually beneficial interchange of needed or desired goods.

Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley, was obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni groups on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, where numerous sources of this material are located, and to some extent from the Napa Valley to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns, rare in the Great Basin, were among many items exported to the east by Yokuts traders (Davis 1961).

Economic subsistence was based on the acorn, with substantial dependency on gathering and processing of wild seeds and other vegetable foods. The rivers, streams, and sloughs that formed a maze within the valley provided abundant food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles.

Game, wild fowl, and small mammals were trapped and hunted to provide protein augmentation of the diet. In general, the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley provided a lush environment of varied food resources, with the estimated large population centers reflecting this abundance (Cook 1955; Baumhoff 1963).

Settlements were oriented along the water ways, with their village sites normally placed adjacent to these features for their nearby water and food resources. House structures varied in size and shape (Latta 1949; Kroeber 1925), with most constructed from the readily available tules found in the extensive marshes of the low-lying valley areas. The housepit depressions for the structures ranged in diameter from 3 meters to 18 meters (Wallace 1978:470).

Historical Background
The first extensive wheat-growing in the San Joaquin Valley took place on the sand plains in the region between Stockton and Manteca and on the west side of the valley between Tracy and ATTACHMENT 9
Newman. The wheat growing was due to an initial experiment of John Wheeler Jones, who planted 160 acres to wheat in 1855 which included the central town site of what is now Manteca. He plowed his fields with a walking plow. The famous Stockton gang-plow was reported to be invented near the present site of Manteca (Smith 1960: 221, 243).

When the Visalia Branch of the Central Pacific Railroad (later the Fresno Branch of the Southern Pacific) was completed through the San Joaquin Valley, a shipping point was set up in the region and named Cowell or Cowell Station for Joshua Cowell, who had donated the right of way for the railroad. Maps of the area printed in the early San Joaquin County history shows scattered ranches in the area on large tracts of land (Thompson and West 1879). The town became a supply center for the region.

The station was re-named Manteca in 1904 or 1905 by the Southern Pacific for a local creamery that had taken its name from the Spanish word for “butter” or “lard” (Gudde 1969: 191). Another version of the naming of the town is that the Southern Pacific misprinted the name of the “Monteca” as “Manteca”, and would not change the spelling (Hillman and Covello 1985).

After irrigation systems were developed, the large tracts of land formerly cultivated by dry land crops such as grain could be converted to use for orchards, alfalfa, diversified crops and largescale dairying. Within a short time after the completion of the first irrigation system in the region by the Stanislaus and San Joaquin Water Company, the population of the town grew from 80 to about 500. Further growth occurred with the creation of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District in 1909 and the completion of Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus River and associated canals in 1913 (Hillman and Covello 1985).

Industries in the area were agricultural in nature for many years, with stockyards, dairy farms, pumpkins and sugar beets being important economically. The Spreckels Sugar Company opened a mill in 1918 that remained an important industry in the region for many years.

The population of Manteca began to grow at a rapid rate in the early 1950s, with the town serving as a bedroom community for industrial plants in San Joaquin County communities. Beginning in the 1970s, improvements to community infrastructure and the attractive pricing of homes brought even more growth (Hillman and Covelo 1985). The pattern of rapid growth continues to this day, with industrial development in the area, as well as many residents commuting regularly to the Bay Area.

RESEARCH
Records of previously recorded cultural resources and cultural resource investigations were examined by the Central California Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information ATTACHMENT 9
System on for the Project site and a ¼-mile radius (CCIC File # 13004L, Appendix 2) on July 11, 2024. There are no resources recorded in either the Project site or in the ¼-mile radius search area.

Three other surveys have been completed in the search radius (complete citations in the Report List in Appendix 2).

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
Michael Lawson completed a survey of the Project area on August 5, 2024. The survey area consists of approximately 20 acres of agricultural land currently planted in corn and a farm complex adjacent to Louise Ave., with a primary residence, secondary modular home, partially burned barn, chicken coup, 2 large animal or equipment sheds, and a modern shed.

Soil within the cultivated corn field is uniformly light brown silty loam with very light fraction of angular siltstone and quartzite and metavolcanic alluvial pebbles. No cobbles or outcrops were observed. The soil around the barnyard and residences varies from silty loam to loam. Organic deposits from farming activities, feed storage and animal waste have resulted in slightly darker coloration and texture. Gravel observed is imported road gravel for driveways.

Imported decorative trees and bushes surround the two residences including Chinese privet and an unidentified species. Native plants and trees include helianthus, Russian thistle, oat grass, coyote melon, California walnut, and ash.

Overall, visibility was acceptable due to plant spacing in the field, weed mitigation and human traffic around the barnyard and buildings.

In the cornfield, rows were followed at parallel intervals of no more than 5-10 meters apart.

Meandering transects were used within the building complex with 5-meter-wide intervals.

Closer attention was given to areas where excavation or ground disturbance by humans or animals occurred.

No prehistoric artifacts, features or other cultural resources were observed in the survey area. A building complex with a mix of older (WWII era) and recent structures located in the southeastern corner of the property.

No prehistoric period artifacts or other features were observed during the survey.

Recorded Site
The site is a complex of 7 buildings crowded into the southeast corner of the land parcel apparently to leave as much land as possible available for farming. These include a residence dating to 1943 ATTACHMENT 9
per County Assessor and 4 outbuildings (barn, chicken coop, horse sheds) of the same era. A modern home and a modern shed are clearly much more recent. None are significant for associations with important individuals or events in history, nor ar e good examples of a particular style of architecture. A site form has been prepared to record the buildings for the permanent record.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There is always a possibility that a site may exist in the project area and be obscured by vegetation, siltation, or historic activities, leaving no surface evidence. If artifacts, exotic rock, shell, or bone are uncovered during the construction, work should stop in that area immediately. A qualified archeologist should be contacted to examine and evaluate the deposit.

Discovery of Human Remains
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the San Joaquin County Coroner has determined that the remains are not subject to any provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The County Coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.

If the San Joaquin County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the County Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

After notification, the NAHC will follow the procedures outlines in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. that include notifications of the most likely descendants (MLDs), and recommendations for the treatment of the remains. The MLDs will have 48 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendations (PRC Section 5097.98).

ATTACHMENT 9

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baumhoff, Martin A.
1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2):155-236.

Berkeley.

Beardsley, Richard K.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 11). University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.

Bennyhoff, James A.
1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 5. University of California, Davis.

Bennyhoff, James A. and Robert F. Heizer
1958 Cross-Dating Great Basin Sites by Californian Shell Beads. University of California Archaeological Survey Report, 42:60-92. Berkeley.

Cook, Sherburne F.
1955 The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley.

Davis, James T.
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1-71. Berkeley.

Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Gilbert, Colonel F.T.
1879 History of San Joaquin County, California. Thompson & West, Oakland.

ATTACHMENT 9
Gudde, Erwin
1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hillman, Raymond W. and Leonard A. Covello
1985 Cities & Towns of San Joaquin County Since 1847. Panorama West Books, Fresno.

Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch and William N. Abeloe 1990 Historic Spots in California (Fourth Edition), revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1953 Handbook of the California Indians. California Book Company, Ltd., Berkeley.

Latta, F. F.
1949 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.

Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.

Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves
1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.

Sacramento.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Ragir, Sonia
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. University of California Research Contributions 15. Berkeley.

ATTACHMENT 9
Schulz, Peter D.
1981 Osteoarchaeology and Subsistence Change in Prehistoric Central California.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289-413. Berkeley.

Shippee, L. W.
1890 An Illustrated History of San Joaquin County, California. The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago.

Smith, Wallace
1960 Garden of the Sun. Eighth edition. Original publication in 1939, privately printed.

Thompson and West
1879 History of San Joaquin County, California, with Illustrations. Reprinted in 1968 by Howell-North Books, Berkeley.

Tinkham, George H.
1923 History of San Joaquin County, California. The Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

Wallace, William J.
1978 Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 462-470.

Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

ATTACHMENT 9
APPENDIX 1
Resumes
ATTACHMENT 9
PEAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.

RESUME
MELINDA A. PEAK January 2024
Senior Historian/Archeologist
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20 #329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Peak has served as the principal investigator on a wide range of prehistoric and historic excavations throughout California. She has directed laboratory analyses of archeological materials, including the historic period. She has also conducted a wide variety of cultural resource assessments in California, including documentary research, field survey, Native American consultation and report preparation.

In addition, Ms. Peak has developed a second field of expertise in applied history, specializing in sitespecific research for historic period resources. She is a registered professional historian and has completed a number of historical research projects for a wide variety of site types.

Through her education and experience, Ms. Peak meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for historian, architectural historian, prehistoric archeologist and historic archeologist.

EDUCATION
M.A. - History - California State University, Sacramento, 1989 Thesis: The Bellevue Mine: A Historical Resources Management Site Study in Plumas and Sierra Counties, California
B.A. - Anthropology - University of California, Berkeley

PROJECTS
In recent years, Ms. Peak has led the team completing the cultural resource sections for General Plan and General Plan Updates, for a number of cities/neighborhoods including Campbell, Milpitas, Yountville, Manteca, The Springs, Sebastopol, Martinez, Brentwood, Colusa County and Foster City.

Older General Plan efforts include Wheatland, Rocklin, Sheridan, Granite Bay and South Sutter County.

ATTACHMENT 9
In recent months, Ms. Peak has completed a number of determinations of eligibility and effect documents in coordination with the Corps of Engineers for projects requiring federal permits, assessing the eligibility of a number of sites for the National Register of Historic Places.

She has also completed historical research projects on a wide variety of topics for a number of projects including the development of a winery in a ranch in Folsom, commercial buildings in the City of Davis, a lumber mill in Clovis, older farmhouses dating to the 1860s, an early roadhouse, bridges, canals, former small-town site, and a section of an electric railway line.

In recent years, Ms. Peak has prepared a number of cultural resource overviews and predictive models for blocks of land proposed for future development for general and specific plans. She has been able to direct a number of surveys of these areas, allowing the model to be tested.

Ms. Peak completed the cultural resource research and contributed to the text prepared for the DeSabla-Centerville PAD for the initial stage of the FERC relicensing. She also served cultural resource project manager for the FERC relicensing of the Beardsley-Donnells Project. For the South Feather Power Project and the Woodleaf-Palermo and Sly Creek Transmission Lines, her team completing the technical work for the project.

She served as principal investigator for the multi-phase Twelve Bridges Golf Club project in Placer County. She served as liaison with the various agencies, helped prepare the historic properties treatment plan, managed the various phases of test and data recovery excavations, and completed the final report on the analysis of the test phase excavations of a number of prehistoric sites. She is currently involved as the principal investigator for the Clover Valley Lakes project adjacent to Twelve Bridges in the City of Rocklin, coordinating contacts with Native Americans, the Corps of Engineers and the Office of Historic Preservation.

Ms. Peak has served as project manager for a number of major survey and excavation projects in recent years, including the many surveys and site definition excavations for the 172-mile-long Pacific Pipeline proposed for construction in Santa Barbara, Ventura and Los Angeles counties. She also completed an archival study in the City of Los Angeles for the project, and served as principal investigator for a major coaxial cable removal project for AT&T.

Additionally, she completed a number of small surveys, served as a construction monitor at several urban sites, and conducted emergency recovery excavations for sites found during monitoring. She has directed the excavations of several historic complexes in Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado Counties.

Ms. Peak is the author of a chapter and two sections of a published history (1999) of Sacramento County, Sacramento: Gold Rush Legacy, Metropolitan Legacy. She served as the consultant for a children’s book on California, published by Capstone Press in 2003 in the Land of Liberty series.

ATTACHMENT 9
PEAK & ASSOCIATES, INC.

RESUME
MICHAEL LAWSON January 2024
Archeological Specialist
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95672
(916) 939-2405

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mr. Lawson has compiled an excellent record of supervision of excavation and survey projects for both the public and private sectors over the past twenty-four years. He has conducted a number of surveys throughout northern and central California, as well as serving as an archeological technician and crew chief for a number of excavation projects.

EDUCATION
B.A. - Anthropology - California State University, Sacramento Special Course: Comparative Osteology. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Forensic Anthropology Center. January 2018.

Intensive lab and outdoor study with human example from outdoor research facility, including typical and non-metric examples, compared with fifty non-human species most commonly confused with human remains. Outdoor research facility “The Body Farm” study included survey, photography, collection and identification of faunal and human bone fragments, with a Power Point presentation discussing finds.

EXPERIENCE
• Extensive monitoring of open space, streets and project development areas for prehistoric period and historic period resources. Areas monitored include Sutter Street in Folsom; Mud Creek Archeological District in Chico; Camp Roberts, San Luis Obispo County; Avila Beach, San Luis Obispo County; Edgewood Golf Course, South Lake Tahoe; Davis Water Project, Davis; Star Bend levee section, Sutter County; Feather River levees, Sutter County; Bodega Bay, Sonoma County; San Jose BART line extension, Santa Clara County; and numerous sites for PG&E in San Francisco.
• Over twenty years of experience working in CRM, volunteer, and academic settings in California historic, proto-historic, and prehistoric archaeology. • Expertise in pedestrian survey, excavation, feature (including burial) exposure, laboratory techniques, research. Field positions include crew chief and lead technician.

ATTACHMENT 9
APPENDIX 2
Record Search
ATTACHMENT 9

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties Date: 7/31/2024 Records Search File No.: 13004L
Project: 4-C Ranch
Robert Gerry
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive, Ste 30-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
916-939-2405 [email protected]
Dear Mr. Gerry:

The Central California Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Manteca 7.5’ quadrangle in San Joaquin County. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project study area and radius:

As per data currently available at the CCaIC, the locations of resources/reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS Data/shape files
Summary Data:

Resources within the project area: None formally reported to the Information Center.

Resources within the 1/4-mile radius: None formally reported to the Information Center.

Reports within the project area: 3: SJ-02759, 4786, 4982 Reports within the 1/4-mile radius: 2: SJ-00729, 6625
Resource Database Printout (list): ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed ATTACHMENT 9
OHP Historic Properties Directory: New Excel File: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Dated 9/23/2022
Not all resources listed in the BERD are mapped in GIS, nor do we have records on file for; if you identify additional resources in the BERD that you need copies of, contact the IC. ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
Archaeological Resource Directory (ARD excerpt):☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed See also: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov>topoview
Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed See also: https://glorecords.blm.gov
Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at CaCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: ☒ not available at CCaIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email by our Financial Services office* ($329.70), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.

ATTACHMENT 9
If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services ATTACHMENT 9
SJ-04982
SJ-04786
SJ-02759
S
J-0
6 6
2 5
S
J
0- 6
6 2
5 SJ-06625
SJ-06625
S
J
0- 6
6 2
5 SJ-06625
S
J-0
6 6
2 5
SJ-00729
SJ-06625
01S 07E
MDB&M
02S 07E 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 Miles MDB&M
¯
CCaIC 13004L 4-C Ranch
Reports 1/4-mile radius 1:24,000-scale
Manteca USGS 7.5' Quadrangle
ATTACHMENT 9
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SJ-00729 1981 Cultural Resource Evaluation for the Manteca Wastewater Project, San Joaquin County,
California
David Chavez, Consulting
Archaeologist; for James M.

Montgomery Consulting
Engineers, Inc.

NADB-R - 1361539 Chavez, D.

SJ-02759 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project, Final.

Woodward Clyde
Consultants, prepared for
Mojave Pipeline Company
Hatoff, Brian, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waechter,
Stephen Wee, and Vance
Bente
24-000085, 24-000086, 24-000087,
24-000088, 24-000089, 24-000090,
24-000091, 24-000092, 24-000093,
24-000094, 24-000096, 24-000097,
39-000015, 39-000064, 39-000065,
39-000074, 39-000075, 39-000076,
39-000077, 39-000078, 39-000079,
39-000080, 39-000081, 39-000082,
39-000083, 39-000084, 39-000085,
39-000086, 39-000087, 39-000088,
39-000089, 39-000090, 39-000091,
39-000092, 39-000093, 39-000094,
39-000095, 39-000096, 39-000097,
39-000098, 39-000099, 39-000100,
39-000101, 39-000102, 39-000103,
39-000104, 39-000105, 39-000106,
39-000107, 39-000108, 39-000109,
39-000112, 50-000063, 50-000070,
50-000071, 50-000072, 50-000073,
50-000074, 50-000075, 50-000076,
50-000077, 50-000078, 50-000079,
50-000080, 50-000083
NADB-R - 1362256
SJ-04786 2002 City of Manteca--General Plan Update,
Background Reports: Archaeological
Resources, Historical Resources, Records
Search Results
Ric Windmiller, Consulting
Archaeologist (and) Donald
Napoli, of Historic
Preservation Planning; for
Wade Associates,
Sacramento, CA
Windmiller, Ric and
Donald Napoli
39-000002, 39-000015, 39-000098,
39-000099, 39-000102, 39-000103,
39-000111, 39-000282, 39-000354,
39-000681, 39-000682, 39-000683,
39-000684, 39-004148, 39-004188,
39-004189, 39-004190, 39-004191,
39-004192
NADB-R - 1364725
SJ-04982 1988 Manteca: City in Transition. San Joaquin County Historical Society
NADB-R - 1364868 Shideler, H.

SJ-06625 1998 Cultural Resources Survey, South County
Surface Water Project, San Joaquin County,
California, South San Joaquin Irrigation
District
ASI Archaeology and
Cultural Resource
Management (prepared for
Environmental Science
Associates, Inc.)
ASI Archaeology and
Cultural Resource
Management
39-000002, 39-000098, 39-000129,
39-000317, 39-000531, 39-000548,
50-000001
NADB-R - 1367290