Dupont Court Initial Study

Initial Study-16-62

Initial Study - Dupont Court 1 IS-16-62

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY (Completed by Community Development Staff)

A. BACKGROUND:

1. Project Proponent: HPA – Teresa Goodwin 2. Proponent Phone Number: 925-413-6896

3. Proponent Address: 383 4th St. Suite 101 Oakland CA 94609 4. Property Owner: Todd Berryhill

5. Owner Phone Number: 510-899-8302 6. Owner Address: 3569 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Suite 220, Lafayette CA 94549

7. Project Title: Dupont Court 8. Project Location: 1340 Dupont Court, Manteca, CA 95336

9. Questionnaire Submittal Date: September 21, 2015 10. Assessor’s Parcel No: 221-210-200

11. Staff Contact Person: Rochelle Henson, Senior Planner 12. Staff Contact Phone Number: 209-456-8516

13. General Plan Designation: Heavy Industrial (HI) 14. Zoning Designation: Heavy Industrial (M-2)

This Initial Study identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The information and analysis presented in this document are organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures that shall be applied to the project are prescribed. The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this Initial Study will be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA. The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project through project conditions of approval. The City will adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the project in conjunction with its approval of the project. On October 6, 2003, the City of Manteca City Council certified the 2023 Manteca General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which addressed the potential impacts associated with full buildout of the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The General Plan Update designates the Dupont Court Project (proposed project) site as Heavy Industrial (HI). The proposed warehouse distribution center project is consistent with the HI Land Use Designation; therefore, in accordance with Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study will tier from the previously certified EIR (SCH# 2002042088) prepared for the 2023 Manteca General Plan.

B. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: (Describe the whole action involved, including project characteristics and features, and later phases and any secondary, support, off-site features necessary for its implementation. Describe the physical characteristics and other features of the project and the project site.) The proposed project is located at 1340 Dupont Court in Manteca, California (see Figure 1). The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215 square foot (sf) warehouse distribution center on a 19.41-acre site. The proposed project includes 275,215 sf of warehouse space (36 feet of clearance height), 10,000 sf of office space, 50 truck dock doors, 158 standard parking spaces, and 71 truck trailer spaces. Site access is provided to the proposed project via the existing Dupont Court (see Figure 2). The project site is identified as San Joaquin County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 221-210-200, which is designated HI and zoned Heavy Industrial (M-2). The proposed warehouse distribution center is an allowed use within the M-2 zoning district per Table 17.22.020-1 of the Manteca Zoning Code, and therefore would not require the approval of a use permit. However, according to Section 17.10.060 of the Manteca Zoning Code, the proposed project would need Major Site Plan Review approval by the City of Manteca Planning Commission.

C. PROJECT SETTING: (Describe surrounding land uses and the project’s setting.)

The project site is part of the existing Spreckels Business Park located northwest of the intersection of State Route (SR) 99 and SR 120. Commonly referred to as Lot 19, the project site is currently vacant and unoccupied and surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses to the north and east (see Figure 3). A railroad spur runs along the south and east perimeters extending from the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks to the west. The project site has relatively flat topography and currently consists of ruderal vegetation and bare soil.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 1 Regional Map

Project Site

N

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 2 Conceptual Site Plan

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 3 Surrounding Uses

Project Site

N

State Route 99

State Route 120

Spreckels Business Park

Juniper Apartments Manteca Commerce

Park

BMX Park

Railroad Spur

Initial Study-16-62


D. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES APPROVAL: (List public agencies whose approval is required, eq., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement, etc.)

The applicant would be required to receive approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: (The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project.)

Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utility/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

F. DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on

the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially

significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Planner, Document Preparer (Signature) Date

Rochelle Henson, Senior Planner 209-456-8516 Printed Name Phone Number

Initial Study-16-62


G. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: (Describe mitigation measures and explain how they reduce the identified impact to a less than significant level and/or cross-reference an earlier analysis. Any potentially significant impact identified in the Initial Environmental Study and for which mitigation is not incorporated will necessitate the preparation of an EIR.)

1. Aesthetics. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage a scenic resource, including, but not

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

X

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

X

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

X

a-c) The 19.41-acre project site is currently vacant and is designated Heavy Industrial (HI) in the 2023 Manteca General Plan. The proposed project site is located within an existing commercial and industrial development known as Spreckels Business Park, and is bordered by SR 120 to the south and SR 99 to the east. The proposed project would convert a currently vacant and unoccupied industrial zoned land to a 285,215 sf warehouse, changing the current view of the site for motorists traveling along SR 99 and SR 120 (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). However, according to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System, SR 120 and SR 99 are not identified as Officially Designated Scenic Highways.1 In addition, the Manteca General Plan does not identify scenic vistas within the City. The proposed project would convert the existing vacant site to a 285,215 sf warehouse distribution center including 10,000 sf foot of office space (see Figure 6). Although views of the site would be permanently altered, the proposed project is considered infill development and would be consistent with the existing surrounding industrial uses. In addition, according to Section 17.10.060 of the Manteca Zoning Code, the proposed project would need Major Site Plan Review approval by the City of Manteca Planning Commission. The purpose of Site Plan Review is to provide a process to promote excellence in site planning and design, to encourage the harmonious appearance of buildings and sites, to ensure that new and modified uses and development would be compatible with the existing and potential development of the surrounding area, and to produce an environment of stable, desirable character. Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission would confirm that the proposed project is consistent with the City’s community design policies and standards and would not degrade the visual character of the site, the surroundings, or the community. Based on the above considerations, the development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or damage any scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway and pending Site Plan Review approval, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site and surrounding areas would be less than significant. d) The proposed project site is currently undeveloped, but was previously mass graded concurrently with construction of the Spreckels Business Park. As the project site does not have any existing on-site buildings or structures, development of the 285,215 sf warehouse distribution center and associated parking lot would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project area that could potentially affect day or nighttime views in the area. Because the project site is located within an existing commercial and industrial development known as Spreckels Business Park, and is bordered by SR 120 to the south and SR 99 to the east, sensitive receptors would not be in the vicinity of the project. The Manteca General Plan EIR determined the impact of new sources of light and glare could be minimized by incorporating design features and operating requirements into new developments that limit light and glare. Policy CD-P-45 requires the use of directionally shielded lighting for all exterior lighting. Policy CD-P-46 also requires automatic shut-off or motion sensors for lighting features in newly developed areas. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Section 17.50.060C of the City’s Municipal Code, which states the following:

…all outdoor lighting shall be constructed with full shielding and/or recessed to reduce light trespass to adjoining properties. Each fixture shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no light fixture directly illuminates an area outside of the site. Fixtures located higher

1 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed on April 7, 2016.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 4 View of the Project Site from State Route 99

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 5 View of the Project Site from State Route 120

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 6 Proposed Project Elevations

Initial Study-16-62

Initial Study - Dupont Court IS-16-62

than 6 feet above the ground shall have shielding that limits to angle of the cone of direct illumination to 60 degrees or less.

Glare is typically associated with reflections from windows, building materials, and vehicles. The City of Manteca’s Municipal Code contains few limitations related to glare and complete elimination of project-related glare would be impossible; however, compliance with the City of Manteca’s Zoning Code would help to reduce the amount of reflective surfaces and materials that could contribute to glare. As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with Manteca’s General Plan; therefore, in accordance with Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study will tier from the previously certified EIR prepared for the City’s General Plan. The Manteca General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of goals and policies, light and glare from new development that is contiguous with existing development would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project requires Major Site Plan Review and, per Section 17.50.070 of the Manteca Municipal Code, a preliminary outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted as part of Site Plan Review application. Therefore, because development of the project site would be contiguous and consistent with surrounding buildings and the proposed project would be required to incorporate the necessary design features to minimize the effects of light and glare in accordance with existing City policies and standards, the development of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Initial Study-16-62


2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource Board. Would the project:

`

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

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 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

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

a, e) The 2006 San Joaquin County Important Farmland Map identifies the proposed project area as “Urban and Built-Up Land”. The project area is currently vacant and has been mass graded concurrent with the surrounding development. Agricultural operations do not exist in the project vicinity, and agriculture could not be conducted in an economical manner on the property, given the location and surrounding uses. The project site is designated and zoned for industrial uses and development of this area was contemplated in the Manteca General Plan. As such, development of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact related to agricultural resources would occur. b) The project area is not under any Williamson Act contract and the area is not zoned for agricultural uses. In addition, the project area is currently disturbed and is surrounded by current industrial development. Therefore, because buildout of the proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract or existing zoning for agriculture, the project would result in no impact. c, d) The project area is not considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.

Initial Study-16-62


3. Air Quality. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

X

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

X

c. 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

X

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

X

a-c) Areas not meeting federal and State ambient air quality standards are designated as nonattainment areas, which are required to have an air quality plan containing strategies and control measures to attain the ambient air quality standards. The City of Manteca, including the proposed project site, is located within the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The area is designated as extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the federal particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) standard, and attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. At the State level, the area is designated as severe nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone, particulate matter particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and PM2.5 standards, and attainment or unclassified for all other State standards. Due to the nonattainment designations, the SJVAPCD has developed plans to attain the State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The plans include the 2014 RACT SIP, 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard, the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard, the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan. The SJVAPCD thresholds of significance are based on the SJVAPCD source review offset requirements, which are a major component of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. Thus, according to the SJVAPCD, projects with emission below the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants would be determined to not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SJVAPCD’s air quality plans. The SJVAPCD’s adopted thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions are presented in Table 1. If the proposed project’s emissions exceed the applicable thresholds of significance presented in the table, the project could violate an air quality standard, contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans.

Table 1 SJVAPCD Criteria Pollutant Thresholds of Significance

Pollutant Construction Emissions (tons/yr) Operational Emissions (tons/yr)ROG 10 10 NOX 10 10 CO 100 100 SOX 27 27 PM10 15 15 PM2.5 15 15

Source: SJVAPCD, March 2016.

To streamline the process of assessing significance of criteria pollutant emissions from common projects, the SJVAPCD has developed the screening tool, Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). Using project type and size, the SJVAPCD has pre-quantified mass emissions and determined a size below which mass emissions from a project would be reasonably considered not to exceed the thresholds of significance presented above for criteria pollutants. Projects less than the sizes identified by the SJVAPCD are deemed to have a less-than-significant impact on air quality due to criteria pollutant mass emissions and are excluded from quantifying criteria pollutant emissions for CEQA purposes. For a heavy industrial development, the SPAL is 920,000 sf, and for a general industrial development, the SPAL is 510,000 sf. The SPAL for a general office building is 106,000 sf. The SPAL by vehicle trips for an industrial use is 1,506 trips per day and for an office use is 1,628 trips per day.

Initial Study-16-62


The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215 sf warehouse distribution center, would include 275,821 sf of warehouse space and 10,000 sf of office space, which would be below the size limit for either a heavy industrial or general industrial land use. In addition, according to the Dupont Court Warehouse IS/MND Draft Traffic Study that was prepared for the proposed project, the project would generate approximately 1,214 vehicle trips per day. Thus, according to the SJVAPCD, the proposed project would be expected to result in a less-than-significant impact related to air quality. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with what has been anticipated by the City for the site per the General Plan and zoning designations. Accordingly, the emissions associated with buildout of the project site with industrial uses have been addressed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, the proposed project would not involve any construction activities or operations that would be considered out of the ordinary for an industrial use and mass grading was completed when the surrounding industrial park was completed. It should be noted that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibition), Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions), Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), Rule 4641 (Cutback Slow Cure, Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations), Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions), and Rule 4102 (Nuisance). All buildings within the State of California are required to comply with the mandatory standards within the current California Green Building Standards Code and California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Code. Accordingly, the project would be required to comply with the aforementioned mandatory standards, which would help to contribute to a reduction in project emissions. The proposed project’s compliance with such would be verified as part of the City’s building approval review process. Cumulative Emissions A cumulative impact analysis considers a project over time in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects whose impacts might compound those of the project being assessed. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development. Future attainment of ambient air quality standards is a function of successful implementation of SJVAPCD attainment plans. Consequently, the SJVAPCD’s application of thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants is relevant to the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. A lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program, including, but not limited to an air quality attainment or maintenance plan that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located [CCR §15064(h)(1)]. Thus, as stated in Section 7.14 of the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, if project-specific emissions would exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, the project would be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the area is in non-attainment under applicable ambient air quality standards. As further discussed in Section 8.8 of the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, the SJVAPCD would consider projects consistent with the following to result in a less-than-cumulatively-significant impact related to air quality:

SJVAPCD attainment plans; SJVAPCD rules and regulations; State air quality regulations; Project emissions below SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, localized carbon monoxide

(CO), and toxic air contaminants (TACs); and Project emissions below ambient air quality standards.

As presented above, the proposed project would be below the SJVAPCD’s SPAL and is, thus, expected to result in construction-related and operational emissions below the applicable thresholds of significance. In addition, as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project would be below the applicable thresholds of significance related to localized CO and TAC concentrations. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the area is under nonattainment for a federal or State ambient air quality standard (i.e., ozone and PM). Consequently, in accordance with SJVAPCD guidance, because the proposed project would result in emissions less than the thresholds of significance, the proposed project would correspondingly be considered to result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact to air quality. Conclusion Based on the above, the proposed project would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance for air pollutant emissions during construction or operation and, thus, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Because the proposed project would not result in emissions of criteria pollutants that would exceed the applicable thresholds of significance,

Initial Study-16-62


the proposed project would not be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and a less-than-significant impact would result. d) Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by preexisting health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, childcare centers, playgrounds, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The proposed project would not be considered a sensitive receptor. The proposed project site is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses and is bound on the south and east by SR 120 and 99, respectively. The nearest sensitive receptors to the site would be the existing residences of the Juniper Apartments located approximately 550 feet to the southwest (measured from fence line to fence line), separated from the site by SR 120, existing railroad spurs, and Moffat Boulevard. The major pollutant concentrations of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) emissions, which are addressed in further detail below. Localized CO Emissions Localized concentrations of CO are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes on streets near the project site; therefore, the project could be expected to increase local CO concentrations. Concentrations of CO approaching the ambient air quality standards are only expected where background levels are high, and traffic volumes and congestion levels are high. In accordance with the State CO Protocol, the SJVAPCD has established preliminary screening criteria for determining whether the effect that a project would have on any given intersection would cause a potential CO hotspot. If either of the following is true for the proposed project, further CO analysis would be required:

A traffic study for the project indicates that the Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity would be reduced to LOS E or F; or

A traffic study indicates that the project would substantially worsen (i.e., increase delay by more than five percent) an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at more or more intersections in the project vicinity.

According to the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the proposed project, all intersections in the project area currently operate and would continue to operate at LOS D or better with implementation of the proposed project, with the exception of the Spreckels Avenue / Moffat Boulevard intersection under cumulative conditions. The intersection would operate at LOS E under cumulative conditions with and without the project during the AM peak hour; as such, the proposed project’s traffic would not cause the LOS at the intersection during the AM peak hour to be reduced from an acceptable level to LOS E or F. During the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions, the intersection would be degraded from LOS E to LOS F due to the proposed project’s increase in traffic. However, the delay would only be increased by 4.9 percent. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 16.1 set forth in the Transportation/Traffic section of this IS/MND, which requires either payment of the project’s fair share fee for the intersection improvement or restriping of the eastbound approach on Moffat Boulevard, would improve operations at the Spreckels Avenue / Moffat Boulevard intersection such that the delay would be reduced to below the cumulative conditions without the project. Thus, further CO analysis would not be required, as the intersection would operate at acceptable levels with implementation of the required mitigation measures set forth in this IS/MND. Based on the above, the project’s impact related to a contribution to local mobile-source concentrations of CO would be less than significant. TAC Emissions Another category of environmental concern is TACs. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (Handbook) provides recommended setback distances for sensitive land uses from major sources of TACs, including, but not limited to, freeways and high traffic roads, distribution centers, and rail yards. The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. Health risks from TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure. Health-related risks associated with DPM in particular are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer. The CARB Handbook considers distribution centers as a potential major source of TACs and recommends a setback of 1,000 feet between a sensitive receptor and 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.

Initial Study-16-62


Based on trip generation data provided by Fehr & Peers, the proposed project is anticipated to involve approximately 1,214 daily vehicle trips, seven percent of which would be trucks. Accordingly, the proposed project is anticipated to involve approximately 85 truck trips to and from the site per day, which would equate to approximately 43 total trucks at the site per day, which is less than 100 trucks per day. The specific operation of the distribution center is unknown at this time; as such, an estimate for the number of TRUs expected at the site per day, if any, would be speculative at this time. However, the likelihood that the future operations would involve only perishable goods requiring all of the 43 trucks at the site per day to be TRUs is low. In addition, although the truck schedule for the proposed project is currently unknown, generally, warehouse distribution centers typically involve truck trips that occur at intermittent times throughout the day, usually during off-peak hours to avoid traffic delays and/or traffic-related impacts. As such, any emissions associated with the diesel truck traffic would likely be of short duration and occur intermittently throughout the day. As noted in Figure 2, the project site would include only 50 dock doors. The loading docks, where trucks would congregate at the project site, would be located approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest existing apartment building within the Juniper Apartments development. According to research conducted by CARB, DPM dissipates relatively quickly in the atmosphere and is reduced by 70 percent at a distance of approximately 500 feet. According to the SJVAPCD, winds in the region most frequently blow from the northwesterly direction, especially in the summer. Consistent with such data, according to weather data collected from the nearest weather station at the Stockton Airport, the prevailing winds in the area is from the west. With the predominant winds being from the westerly direction, the wind would help to direct potential pollutants generated at the project site away from the nearby sensitive receptors who are located southwest of the site. Furthermore, all owners and operators of diesel-fueled TRUs, TRU generator sets, and facilities where TRUs operate in California are required to comply with the CARB-adopted TRU Airborne Toxic Control Measure, which is intended to help reduce DPM emissions associated with TRUs. Given the number of total trucks expected at the site per day, the location of the loading docks with respect to the nearest sensitive receptors, the prevailing winds, and the dissipative nature of DPM, the proposed project truck traffic would not be expected to generate substantial pollutant concentrations. Although the project site is located in close proximity to freeways, which are considered potential major sources of TACs, the proposed project is not a sensitive receptor. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with the nearby freeways. In addition, as stated above, the proposed project would be consistent with what has been planned and anticipated for the site by the City, and the project would not involve any construction activities or operations that would be considered out of the ordinary for an industrial use. Therefore, the proposed project’s operations would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Short-term, construction-related activities could result in the generation of TACs, specifically DPM, from on-road haul trucks and off-road equipment exhaust emissions. However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration in comparison to the operational lifetime of the proposed project. Construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the course of a day, would be restricted to daytime hours per the City’s Noise Ordinance, and would likely only occur over portions of the improvement area at a time. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. Because health risks associated with TACs are a function of both the concentration of emissions and the duration of exposure, where the higher the concentration and/or the longer the period of time that a sensitive receptor is exposed to would correlate to a higher health risk, considering the short-term nature of construction activities, as well as the regulated and intermittent nature of the operation of construction equipment, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time would be low. Furthermore, the predominant prevailing wind direction in the area is from the west, which would help to direct any potential pollutants associated with the site away from the nearby sensitive receptors located southwest of the site. For the aforementioned reasons, project construction would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Conclusion Based on the above, the proposed project would not cause or be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, including localized CO or TACs, and impacts related to such would be less than significant. e) While offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable annoyance and distress among the public and can generate citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Due to the subjective nature of odor impacts, the number of variables that can influence the potential for an odor impact, and the variety of odor sources, quantitative or formulaic methodologies to determine the presence of a significant odor impact do not exist. Adverse effects of odors on residential areas and other sensitive receptors warrant the closest scrutiny; but consideration should also be given to other land use types where people congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas. The intensity of an odor source’s operations and its proximity to sensitive receptors influences the potential significance of odor emissions. Common types of facilities that have been known to produce odors in the San Joaquin Valley include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment facilities, landfills, composting facilities, petroleum refineries, food processing facilities, feed lots, and/or dairies. The proposed project does not propose any such land uses and is not located in the vicinity of any such land uses. Although less common, diesel fumes associated with substantial diesel-fueled equipment and heavy-duty trucks, such as from construction activities, freeway traffic, or distribution centers, could be found to be objectionable. As such, the proposed project

Initial Study-16-62


activities could cause diesel fumes, which could be considered objectionable, during the temporary construction period and/or associated with the heavy-duty truck traffic. Diesel fumes from construction equipment are often found to be objectionable; however, construction is temporary and construction equipment would operate intermittently throughout the course of a day, would be restricted to daytime hours per the City’s Noise Ordinance, and would likely only occur over portions of the improvement area at a time. In addition, all construction equipment and operation thereof would be regulated per the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. Project construction would also be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, particularly associated with permitting of air pollutant sources. The aforementioned regulations would help to minimize air pollutant emissions as well as any associated odors. The proposed project site is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses and is bound on the south and east by SR 120 and 99, respectively. The nearest sensitive receptors to the site would be the existing residences of the Juniper Apartments located approximately 550 feet to the southwest. As mentioned above, the prevailing winds in the area is from the west or northwest, which would help to direct potential objectionable odors emanating from the project site away from the nearby sensitive receptors. Considering the short-term nature of construction activities, the regulated and intermittent nature of the operation of construction equipment, the number of sensitive individuals in the immediate vicinity, and the prevailing wind direction, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project would involve diesel truck traffic at the site. Although the truck schedule for the proposed project is currently unknown, generally, warehouse distribution centers typically involve truck trips that occur at intermittent times throughout the day, usually during off-peak hours to avoid traffic delays and/or traffic-related impacts. As such, similar to the discussion above related to construction equipment odors, any odors associated with the diesel truck traffic would likely be of short duration and occur intermittently throughout the day. Again, because nearest sensitive receptors are located southwest of the site and the predominant prevailing wind direction in the area is from the west and northwest, the wind would help to direct any potential objectionable odors emanating from the project site away from the nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the truck traffic associated with the proposed project would not be expected to create substantial objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The SJVAPCD regulates objectionable odors through Rule 4102, Nuisance, which prohibits any person or source from emitting air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public. Rule 4102 is enforced based on complaints. If complaints are received, the SJVAPCD is required to investigate the complaint, as well as determine and ensure a solution for the source of the complaint, which could include operational modifications. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are made after the proposed project is approved, the SJVAPCD would ensure that such odors are addressed and any potential odor effects reduced to less than significant. For the aforementioned reasons, construction and operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact related to objectionable odors would result.

Initial Study-16-62


4. Biological Resources. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or US 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, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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 provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

X

a,b,c,f) On February 5, 2001 the City of Manteca adopted and is now covered by the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). The SJMCP was developed to minimize and mitigate impacts to plant and wildlife habitat resulting from the conversion of 109,302 acres of open space to non-open space use to occur in San Joaquin County between 2001 and 2051. Ninety-seven species are covered by the SJMSCP, which is intended to provide comprehensive mitigation, pursuant to local, State and federal regulations, for impacts to these species from SJMSCP permitted activities. A search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was performed for the proposed project location to determine the records of sensitive plant and wildlife species within the general vicinity of the area. A total of 54 federally listed, State listed, or special-status plant and wildlife species were identified for the proposed project’s quadrangle and the site’s surrounding eight quadrangles (i.e., Avena, Lathrop, Manteca, Peters, Ripon, Salida, Stockton East, Stockton West, and Vernalis).2 Many of the plant and wildlife species occur in specialized habitats, such as riparian, wetlands, marshes, ponds, and other aquatic habitats. The proposed project site is currently vacant and consists of ruderal vegetation and bare soil on relatively flat topography. According to the City’s General Plan, riparian woodland is found mainly along the San Joaquin River and Walthall Slough located approximately five miles southwest of the project site.3 Free-running streams, vernal pools, or natural bodies of water also do not exist within the City.4 Therefore, the proposed project site does not contain and is not considered, associated with, or located within the vicinity of any riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural community. Given the nature of the site and surrounding area and the absence of suitable habitat, the potential for many of the special-status species to occur on site would be eliminated. In addition, according to the SJMSCP, the best habitat for Swainson’s hawk is concentrated along permanent waterways with a more or less continuous canopy of trees with grassland, irrigated pasture, alfalfa or grain fields nearby. Swainson's hawks require large trees in which to nest, and nearby open grasslands, pastures, grain or alfalfa fields in which to forage.5 The project site is surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses to the north and west and SR 120 to the south and SR 99 to the east; therefore, the site is

2 California Department of Wildlife. RareFind 5. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed on March 23,

2016. 3 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 6-1]. Certified October 6, 2003. 4 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 6-26]. Certified October 6, 2003. 5 San Joaquin County Council of Governments. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan [page 2-54].

November 14, 2000.

Initial Study-16-62


unsuitable foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. Furthermore, the SJMSCP designates the project site for urban development and is located within a Category A Exempt No Pay Zone.6 As a result, the majority of the species identified by the CNDDB search to potentially occur in the area would not be present at the project site and would not be affected by implementation of the proposed project. Birds and their nests are protected under California Fish and Wildlife Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, the proposed project is void of trees and has been mass graded and regularly disked; therefore, the potential for migratory bird species to be present on-site does not exist. The proposed project lacks essential habitat for special-status plants and wildlife species; therefore, the development of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with a substantial adverse effect on sensitive or special-status species, any riparian habitat, natural community, federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. d) According to the City’s General Plan, known native wildlife corridors passing through the Manteca Study Area do not exist.7 The proposed project site is surrounded by development to the north and west, SR 120 to the south, and SR 99 to the east and would not support the existence of a wildlife movement corridor. Given the lack of known movement corridors on-site and within the vicinity of the project site, the proposed residential development associated with the project would have a less-than-significant impact on wildlife movement corridors. e) The project site has been previously graded with the surrounding development; therefore, trees are not currently located on the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and no impact would occur.

6 San Joaquin Council of Governments. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Compensation Map –

Manteca. Available at: http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/771. Accessed on March 18, 2016. 7 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 6-27]. Certified October 6, 2003.

Initial Study-16-62


5. Cultural Resources. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

X

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

X

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

X

e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074?

X

a-d) The prehistory of the Manteca area is based on the archaeology of the greater Sacramento Delta region. The Northern Valley Yokuts are believed to be the prehistoric occupants of Manteca and the northern San Joaquin Valley. Unfortunately, little is known with respect to ethnography and archaeology in the northern San Joaquin Valley. Because the native people were decimated by disease, missionization, and effects of the Gold Rush, anthropologists were too late to gather much useful information from the native people themselves. Nonetheless, scholars have characterized the core of the Northern Valley Yokuts’ homeland as the San Joaquin River with its maze of channels and sloughs. A search of the cultural resources files within the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Central California Information Center was conducted for the proposed project site. According to the CHRIS search results, recorded cultural resources do not occur within the project area and cultural resources are not known to exist at the project site. The project site does not contain structures that could possibly yield important prehistoric or historic information. The CHRIS search results indicated that the project area has a low sensitivity for the possible discovery of historical resources, either prehistoric or historic. The project site is not located adjacent to a waterway and is primarily dry, which suggests that the project site has a low potential for containing prehistoric sites. The project site does not contain structures that could possibly yield important prehistoric or historic information. In addition, the project site has been entirely disturbed given the surrounding development and regular disking for weed abatement. Given the disturbed nature of the project site, surface cultural resources would not likely be found on-site during grading and construction. However, unknown resources below the surface could be encountered during grading and excavation. Therefore, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact related to damaging or destroying prehistoric cultural resources. Mitigation Measures(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 5.1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project improvement plans shall identify if buried archeological resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or human bone, are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City and other appropriate agencies. Mitigation Measure 5.2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project improvement plans shall identify if human remains of Native American origin are discovered during project construction, it is necessary to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, which, according to the California Health and Safety Code (Section 8100), consist of six or more human burials at one location, excavation or disturbance of the location must be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the County Coroner contacted. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity, which shall be carried out by the project contractor under supervision of a qualified archaeologist, hired at the applicant’s expense. e) Tribal cultural resources are generally defined by Public Resources Code 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. A Sacred Lands File

Initial Study-16-62


search, performed by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the immediate project area on April 21, 2016, failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The project site is currently developed and within an existing urban, developed environment. As such, given the results of the NAHC sacred lands file search, and the existing disturbed, developed environment of the project site, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to tribal cultural resources.

Initial Study-16-62


6. Geology and Soils. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. 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

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. 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

a-1, 2, 3, c & d) According to the Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft EIR, the City of Manteca is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the City does not have any known active surface fault ruptures.8 Therefore, the proposed project site possesses a very low fault rupture potential. However, the proposed project would be located in an area that is considered seismically active. The San Francisco Bay area is one of the most seismically active areas in the Country. While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2007 estimates a 63 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2007 and 2036. As seen with damage in San Francisco and Oakland due to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that was centered about 50 miles south of San Francisco, significant damage could occur at considerable distances. Higher levels of shaking and damage would be expected for earthquakes occurring at closer distances. Given the known faults in the region, significant earthquakes from regional fault systems have affected all of San Joaquin County in the past; therefore, some level of regional ground shaking in the future is possible. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary loss of shear strength due to pore pressure buildup under the cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are: strong ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater). Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile. However, the 2023 Manteca General Plan Draft EIR determined that the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and liquefaction are less-than-significant impacts within the City of Manteca with implementation of the following policies: Policy S-P-1 The City shall require preparation of geological reports and/or geological engineering reports for proposed

new development located in areas of suspected significant geological hazards, including potential subsidence (collapsible surface soils) due to groundwater extraction.

Policy S-P-2 The City shall require new development to mitigate the potential impacts of geologic hazards through

Building Plan review. S-P-3 The City shall avoid potential seismic induced settlement of uncompacted fill and liquefaction (water-saturated soil) due to the presence of a high water table.

8 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 8-13]. Certified October 6, 2003.

Initial Study-16-62


Policy S-P-4 The City shall maintain an inventory of pre-1940 unreinforced masonry buildings within the city. No change

in use to a higher occupancy or more intensive use shall be approved in such structures until an engineering evaluation of the structure has been conducted and any structural deficiencies corrected. The Redevelopment Agency shall be encouraged to assist property owners in reinforcing buildings.

Policy S-P-5 The City should ensure that all public facilities, such as buildings, water tanks, and reservoirs, are

structurally sound and able to withstand seismic shaking and the effects of seismically induced ground failure.

Policy S-P-6 The City shall comply with the California State seismic and building standards in the design and siting of

critical facilities, including police and fire stations, school facilities, hospitals, hazardous materials manufacturing and storage facilities, and large public assembly halls.

Policy SG-I-1 Comply with the current Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 3, which stipulates

building structural material and reinforcement. Policy SG-I-2 Comply 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 caused earthquakes and wind.

Policy SG-I-3 The City shall inventory potentially hazardous buildings within the City and adopt a mitigation program,

including requirements for strengthening buildings, changing the use of the buildings to an acceptable occupancy level, or demolishing the buildings.

Expansive soils are those that increase in volume when they absorb water and shrink when they dry out, commonly referred to as “shrink-swell” potential. Soil surveys generally rate “shrink-swell” potential in soils on a low, medium, and high basis. If the shrink-swell potential is rated moderate to high, shrinking and swelling could cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures; as a result, special design is often needed. According to the Manteca General Plan EIR, four of the 22 General Plan Study Area soils have been identified as expansive soils: Egbert (152), Egbert (153), Guard (169), and Galt (160). As indicated in Figure 7, none of these soil types are found on the proposed project site. The entire project site soil surface texture is listed as Veritas fine sandy loam, a moderately well-drained soil.9 Therefore, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Science (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the project site is not located within an area known for expansive soils. In addition, the State regulates development in California through a variety of tools that reduce hazards from earthquakes and other geologic hazards. The 2013 California Building Code (CBC) contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The City of Manteca’s building regulations are included in the City’s Municipal Code as chapter 15.04. The proposed project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the 2013 CBC, which would further reduce hazards from strong seismic ground shaking and other seismic-related effects, including liquefaction. The proposed project is consistent with Manteca’s General Plan; therefore, in accordance with Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study will tier from the previously certified EIR prepared for the City’s General Plan. Therefore, with implementation of the Manteca General Plan Policies discussed above and because the project would be required to comply with the 2013 CBC requirements, the impacts related to rupture of a known fault, strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and expansive soils would be less than significant. a-4) The proposed project site is not susceptible to landslides because the area is essentially flat. Therefore, no impact would occur.

b) The development of the 31.18 acre site would cause ground disturbance of mostly top soil related to construction activity. The ground disturbance would be limited to the areas proposed for grading and excavation, including the warehouse building pad and drainage, sewer, water infrastructure alignments, and parking lot. After grading and excavation and prior to overlaying the disturbed ground surfaces with impervious surfaces and structures, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to occur, which could adversely affect downstream storm drainage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. See Section 9 of this IS/MND, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional erosion discussion as related to water quality.

9 United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Science. Web Soil Survey. Available at:

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on March 22, 2016.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 7 Project Site Soils

Source: NRCS Web Soil Survey for San Joaquin County.

San Joaquin County, California (CA077)

Map Unit

Symbol Map Unit Name

Acres in

AOI

Percent of

AOI

266 Veritas fine sandy loam, 0 to 2

percent slopes 17.0 100.0%

N

Project Site

Initial Study-16-62


Mitigation Measures(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 6.1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, the project Improvement Plans shall indicate compliance with Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Uniform Building Code (UBC), Chapter 70, regulating grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. e) The proposed development is planned to connect to City sewer service and storm drains. Therefore, septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be required, and no impact would occur from soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks.

Initial Study-16-62


7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 gases?

X

a, b) 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 could 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 along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would contribute GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Sources of GHG emissions include area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, utilities (electricity and natural gas), water usage, wastewater generation, and the generation of solid waste. In September 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was enacted, which requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. AB 32 delegated the authority for implementation to the CARB and directs the CARB to enforce the statewide cap. In accordance with AB 32, CARB prepared the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) for California, which was approved in 2008. The Scoping Plan set forth a statewide reduction goal of 29 percent relative to a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario necessary to meet 1990 levels by the year 2020. The Scoping Plan was revised in 2011 to account for the economic downturn and State regulation emission reductions (i.e., Pavley, Low Carbon Fuel Standard [LCFS], and Renewable Portfolio Standard [RPS]). The Scoping Plan emission reduction target required to meet 1990 levels by 2020 was modified based on the revisions. The amended Scoping Plan was re-approved August 24, 2011. The Scoping Plan must be updated every five years. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan Update) was approved by CARB on May 22, 2014 and builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The Scoping Plan Update highlights the State’s progress towards the 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan and evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. According to the Scoping Plan Update, the State is on track to meet the 2020 GHG goal and has created a framework for ongoing climate action that could be built upon to maintain and continue economic sector-specific reductions beyond 2020, on the path to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as required by AB 32. On October 15, 2013, the City of Manteca adopted their Climate Action Plan (CAP), which is intended to support the goals of AB 32. The CAP is designed to reduce community-related and City operations-related GHG emissions to a degree that would not hinder or delay implementation of AB 32. In order to do such, the City has outlined a course of action for the City government and the community of Manteca to reduce per capita GHG emissions. Projects showing consistency with the CAP would be considered not to contribute significant GHG emissions impacts. For new development projects constructed in the City of Manteca, the CAP requires the development projects to achieve GHG emissions reductions by implementing the following reduction strategies:

Comply with the applicable land use, sustainable development, and resource conservation policies of the

Manteca General Plan; Construct project transportation infrastructure that supports walking, bicycling, and transit use; Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs in projects with large numbers of employees; Design and construct project buildings to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards by at least 10 percent; Implement project buildings including water conservation measures that meet or exceed the California Green

Building Code standards 20 percent requirement; Install project landscaping that meets or exceeds water conservation standards of the City’s adopted

landscaping ordinance 20 percent reduction requirement; and

Initial Study-16-62


Develop programs to exceed state recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent.

Projects implementing the above-listed strategies would be considered consistent with the CAP and would be considered not to contribute significant GHG emissions impacts. The project site is located within an existing commercial and industrial development known as Spreckels Business Park. The project would be considered infill development, would be consistent with the existing surrounding industrial uses, and would serve as an extension of the existing development. The proposed warehouse distribution center is an allowed use within the Heavy Industrial (HI) land use designation and Heavy Industrial (M-2) zoning designation of the site. According to Section 17.10.060 of the Manteca Zoning Code, the proposed project would need Major Site Plan Review approval by the City of Manteca Planning Commission. Site Plan Review provides a process to promote excellence in site planning and design, to encourage the harmonious appearance of buildings and sites, to ensure that new and modified uses and development would be compatible with the existing and potential development of the surrounding area, and to produce an environment of stable, desirable character. It should be noted that a number of the policies from the General Plan listed in the City’s CAP strategies are not directly applicable for industrial projects and are targeted toward residential, mixed-use, and commercial projects. Nonetheless, Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission would confirm that the proposed project is consistent with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Accordingly, consistency with the applicable land use, sustainable development, and resource conservation policies of the Manteca General Plan, as well as with the minimum mandated water conservation measures of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) of 20 percent and the landscaping water conservation measures of the City’s landscaping ordinance of 20 percent, would be verified during the Site Plan Review process. As the proposed project would be located within an existing commercial and industrial development, new roadways or transportation infrastructure are not proposed as part of the proposed project, with the exception of site access and parking lots. In accordance with Table 17.52.110-1 within Section 17.52.110 of the Manteca Zoning Code, the proposed project would be required to include eight (8) bicycle parking spaces, based on the proposed number of vehicle parking spaces of 229. According to the CAP, the SJVAPCD has adopted Rule 9410, Employer Based Trip Reduction, which requires employers with over 100 employees to implement trip reduction programs. If more than 100 employees would be expected at the site, the proposed project would be required to implement a TDM program, which would include measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and trips by increasing transit use, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or other measures. As the future tenant of the proposed building is currently unknown, the total number of employees anticipated at the site is likewise currently unknown. Using data compiled as part of the San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan Background Report, the average employee per square foot for an industrial land use type within the County is one employee per 850 square feet. Based on this information, the proposed project could generate a total of 336 employees, which would exceed 100 employees. As such, a TDM program may be required to be implemented at the project site. The proposed project is required to comply with the City of Manteca’s CAP. Projects considered consistent with the CAP would be considered not to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may result in a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. Without providing proof of compliance with the required measures of the City’s CAP, the proposed project could be considered to result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emission and global climate change. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 7.1: Prior to issuance of building permit, the project applicant shall prepare a GHG Mitigation Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The GHG Mitigation Plan shall provide proof that the proposed project would comply with the strategies within the City’s CAP, specifically by including the following:

Identification of the land use, sustainable development, and resource conservation policies of the Manteca General Plan that are directly applicable to the proposed project and a discussion specifying how the proposed project would comply with each;

Show on project plans that the proposed project shall include a minimum of eight (8) bicycle parking spaces on-site; Provide proof (through calculations or other) that the proposed project would exceed current Title 24 Energy

Efficiency Standards by 10 percent. If the project design cannot meet this requirement, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City to determine alternative options (e.g., solar energy, exterior lighting, water savings, etc.);

Provide proof (through calculations, notation on project plans, or other) that the proposed project shall include water conservation measures sufficient to meet or exceed the minimum mandated CALGreen requirement of a 20 percent reduction;

Initial Study-16-62


Provide proof (through calculations, notation on project plans, or other) that the proposed project landscaping design shall include water conservation measures sufficient to meet or exceed the City’s adopted landscaping ordinance requirement of a 20 percent reduction; and

Provide proof (through calculations, notation on project plans, or other) that the proposed project shall implement a recycling or waste diversion program sufficient to exceed the State recycling and diversion targets by at least 10 percent.

Initial Study-16-62


8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 for people residing or working in the project area?

X

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

X

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

X

a) The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are regulated by existing federal, State, and local regulations. Generally, uses that involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are typically industrial in nature, which is consistent with the proposed project. Construction activities would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. The project contractor is required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local City ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Should an accidental release of hazardous materials occur during construction, the City (or City crews) and/or contractor, is required to notify the Manteca Fire Department (MFD) who would then monitor the conditions and recommend appropriate remediation measures. Although the tenant is unknown at this time, the proposed project includes the development and operation of a 285,215 square foot warehouse distribution center. Therefore, during project operation, the potential exists for the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project. However, the 2023 Manteca General Plan Draft EIR determined the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials is a less-than-significant impact within the City of Manteca with implementation of the following policy and implementation measures from the Safety Element of the City of Manteca General Plan (Subsection 7.3): Policy S-P-15 The City shall maintain an awareness of hazardous materials throughout the Manteca region.

Implementation Measure S-I-9 Require businesses that manufacture, store, use, or transport significant quantities of hazardous materials to identify annually such materials and their quantities.

Implementation Measure S-I-10 Require the submittal of lists of hazardous materials used in existing and

proposed industrial and commercial businesses within the City of Manteca. The list shall be maintained through the Manteca Fire Department and updated through periodic review.

The proposed project is consistent with Manteca’s General Plan; therefore, in accordance with Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study will tier from the previously certified EIR prepared for the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the level of significance could be mitigated to less than significant if the above policy and implementation measures are

Initial Study-16-62


implemented. For example, the requirement for businesses and others manufacturing, storing, using, and transporting hazardous materials to identify such activities annually to the MFD would reduce the risks of increased exposure. As a result, the impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. b) A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the proposed project by Basics Environmental, Inc. dated April 7, 2015 (Appendix A). The Phase 1 ESA included the following: Field reconnaissance and personal interviews to evaluate environmental land-use conditions on the project site and

view adjacent properties; Aerial photograph, City Directory and/or Fire Insurance/Topographic Map review to evaluate former environmental land-

use conditions on the project site and adjacent properties; Review of federal, State and county files and environmental database search report obtained from a commercial service

providing up to date and current information; Evaluation of the physical setting (geomorphic, geologic and hydrogeologic) of the project site property; and Findings and professional opinions regarding potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) on the site. According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project, the project site was originally a part of the Spreckels Sugar Company Plant No. 2, which processed sugar from beets from 1916 until it closed in 1995/1996. Field Reconnaissance Observations of the on-site vegetation and bare soil did not reveal any obvious evidence of hazardous materials, stains or spills. In addition, obvious evidence of present or former agricultural chemical storage, rinsing or dumping, underground storage tanks, wells, distressed vegetation, or surface impoundments was not observed. Lead-based paint, asbestos, or mold surveys were not conducted at the site as part of this assessment. However, structures are not currently located at the project site, and obvious evidence of dumping of lead-based paint and mold or water damage-containing materials or of friable or non-friable suspect asbestos-containing materials were not observed on the project site. Furthermore, information obtained from the site inspection indicated that Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)-containing electrical equipment is not currently used nor it has ever been used in connection with the property. Radon testing was not conducted at the property as a part of this assessment. However, based on the Map of Radon Zones provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the project site has a moderate potential that radon concentrations at, or above, four picocuries per liter (pCi/l) are present at the site. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that is odorless, invisible, and without taste. Radon is released during the natural decay of uranium, which could be present in rock, soil and water. Concentrations at, or above, four pCi/l are considered to be concentrations of concern per California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) and EPA. Based on the map, radon has been detected in San Joaquin County at average levels less than two pCi/l. To confirm if any radon is present on-site, testing should be performed by an EPA-authorized State certified radon testing professional. During the field reconnaissance, visual observations of the immediate adjacent properties did not reveal any obvious business activity indicative to the use, storage and/or treatment of hazardous materials. In addition, obvious evidence was not noted at the immediate adjacent properties that would represent a significant environmental concern to the project site. Historical Review Site historical information was obtained from a review of Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps, aerial photographs, Polk and Haines City Directories. In addition, local building department records were reviewed. Historically, the project site was primarily in agricultural row crops as part of the Spreckels Sugar Refinery. The majority of the sugar facilities were shown approximately 1,500 feet to the northwest along the east side of Spreckels Road. The facilities included several buildings and four 15-story sugar silos. During this time, agricultural row crops surrounded the project site. The 2005 aerial photo showed the project site as undeveloped land/fields, and the entire Spreckels Sugar Refinery facility appeared to have been redeveloped into a business park. During this time, bordering the site is Duncan Court to the north; a commercial building to the northeast; a commercial building to the northwest; railroad spur track and beyond SR 120 to the south; railroad spur track and beyond SR 99 on/off ramps to the east; and commercial building to the west.

Initial Study-16-62


Environmental Database Review Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to compile data from available government agency databases on locations of actual and potentially impacted sites within a one-mile radius of the subject property. The results of the database search by EDR revealed 46 mapped sites and 42 unmapped sites within a one-mile radius, of which 11 mapped sites are within a one-eighth mile radius of the project site. Based on distance from the project site and regional hydrogeology the following selected site(s) identified by EDR were deemed to have the highest potential to impact the site. In addition, a Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) pursuant to ASTM E2600-10 was performed on the following selected site(s) to assess whether a potential vapor encroachment condition (VEC) exists at the subject property caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil or groundwater either on or near the project site. The following sites identified by EDR were located either at, adjacent to, or possibly upgradient of the project site.

Amstar Corp Spreckels Sugar Plant No. 2/Gold & Son - Soil samples of the pond bottom sludge and chemical analysis of water samples obtained from the wells did not reveal any organic chemicals in concentrations that appear to be of concern.

Manteca Composting Facility - The probability of a subsurface environmental impact and/or potential vapor encroachment from this site to the project site is low

On March 25, 2015, a Basics representative contacted the Cal-EPA DTSC, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Division (SJCEHD) in regards to any information concerning the project site. Information from the Cal-EPA DTSC, RWQCB, and SJCEHD indicated that specific information regarding hazardous materials, underground storage tanks or unauthorized releases was not available for the project site as part of the former Spreckels Sugar Company facility. On March 27, 2015, a Basics representative reviewed the files maintained by the City of Manteca Fire Prevention Bureau (MFPB) and the Manteca Community Development Department in regards to any information regarding the site. According to the Phase I ESA, specific information pertaining to the project site was not noted for the former Spreckels Sugar Company. According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project, previous Phase I and Phase II Environmental Reports were prepared as part of the redevelopment of the approximately 350-acre site occupied by the former Spreckels Sugar Manteca Processing Plant and associated property. The previous environmental reports prepared for the project area identified limited areas of contamination. The contamination encountered appeared to be of concentrations which were not of particular concern to the proposed development or was reported to be easily cleaned up with the exception of the following sites: Former Agricultural Use Agricultural chemicals were reported to have been used at the Spreckels property as part of normal crop production. Obvious evidence of the misuse of such chemicals was not noted in the Phase I ESA. According to the Phase I ESA, proper application of agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers to crops does not pose a major concern for industrial or commercial development. Chemical analysis of soil samples obtained in the area did not show any agricultural chemicals of concentrations that were of concern. Suspect Landfill Locations Seven suspected landfill burn dump locations were identified on the Spreckels property, three of which on or nearby the project site. Wastes known to have been disposed of on-site via landfilling or burning include garbage, lead acetate and asbestos. Wastes suspected of being disposed of via landfilling include waste oil, empty and/or full 55-gallon storage drums, PCBs, and empty pesticide/herbicide containers. Investigation of the seven suspected landfill locations revealed two disposal areas, one containing lime waste and the second containing construction debris. According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project, major impacts to the subsurface were not reported at the two disposal areas. Former Adjacent Railroad Spur Various herbicides or waste oil may have been used for weed control along the railroad tracks. Hazardous substances may have been transported on-site via railcars. Creosote or pentachlorophenol may have been used to treat the railroad ties in the rail bed. Locomotive maintenance was also reported to have been conducted on-site wherever necessary. PCBs, oils, and solvents may be associated with said maintenance. The Phase I ESA states the concentrations encountered in the soil samples around the rail spur do not appear to be of significance for industrial redevelopment, except for an isolated area of lead contamination which was required to be removed. Conclusion

Initial Study-16-62


The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project by Basics Environmental Inc., determined that the project site does not show any signs of hazardous materials, stains or spills, and obvious evidence of underground storage tanks, distressed vegetation, or surface impoundments were not observed throughout the site during the inspection. The project site was relatively clean without obvious indications of the present use or storage of appreciable amounts of hazardous materials. In addition, obvious evidence of collection drains, sumps, underground tanks, underground hydraulic hoists or other conduits to the subsurface within project site facilities were not noted during the site visit, which would suggest a high potential discharge of hazardous materials to the subsurface. Furthermore, compelling evidence was not discovered that a hazardous substance has been released from its operation onto (or into) the surface. Based on the Phase I ESA findings, the project site does not contain the presence or likely presence of any RECs, CRECs, or HRECs. However, based on the Map of Radon Zones provided by the EPA, the project site has a moderate potential that radon concentrations at or above four pCi/l are present at the site. As a result, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact related to the development of the proposed project creating 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. Mitigation Measure 8.1: Prior to commencement of construction activities on-site, radon testing shall be performed by an EPA-authorized State-certified radon testing professional to confirm that radon concentrations are below four pCi/l. If radon concentrations are below four pCi/l, further action is not required. If radon concentrations exceed four pCi/l, site remediation shall be conducted, pursuant to applicable State regulations. A written summary of the testing results shall be submitted to the City’s Building Official. c) The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing school. The nearest school, Walter Woodward Elementary School, is located approximately 1.3 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d) According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, known as the Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, the project area is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites.10 Therefore, the proposed project is not 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, no impact would occur. e, f) The nearest airport to the project site is the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, which is located more than seven miles north of the project site. In addition, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur related to the proposed project located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. g) The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215 sf warehouse distribution center, which is consistent with what has been anticipated by the City for the site per the General Plan and zoning designations. In addition, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors prepared and adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which is intended to provide strategies for the County and other local jurisdictions to identify and implement mitigation actions for reducing damages from various potential natural and technological disasters. However, the San Joaquin LHMP was never formally adopted by the City of Manteca. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and a less-than-significant impact would result. h) According to the Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft EIR, the threat to Manteca from wildland fires is extremely low due to the agricultural lands surrounding the City.11 The proposed project is infill, surrounded by development, and wildlands are not located within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, wildland fires would pose a less-than-significant impact to the proposed project.

10 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Accessed on March 22, 2016.


Initial Study-16-62


9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

X

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

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, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site?

X

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site?

X

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped

on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

X

i. Expose people or structures to a significance risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

X

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

a, f) The proposed project’s potential to result in water quality impacts during construction and operations are discussed in further detail separately below. Construction Water Quality Impacts Construction would require grading, excavation, and other construction-related activities that could cause soil erosion at an accelerated rate during storm events. All of these activities have the potential to affect water quality and contribute to localized violations of water quality standards if stormwater runoff from construction activities enters receiving waters. Topsoil erosion during construction is addressed in Question ‘b’ of the Geology and Soils section of this IS/MND. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, staging area, or building sites also have the potential to enter runoff. Typical pollutants include, but are not limited to, petroleum and heavy metals from equipment and products such as paints, solvents, and cleaning agents, which could contain hazardous constituents. Leaks or spills from equipment, or inadvertent release of building products could result in water quality degradation if runoff containing the contaminants should enter receiving waters in sufficient quantities. Impacts from construction-related activities would generally be short-term and of limited duration. Water quality degradation is regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, established by the Clean Water Act, which controls and reduces pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point discharges. Operational Water Quality Impacts After project completion, new impervious surfaces on the project site could increase the amount of surface runoff, as well as convey non-point-source contaminants to surface waters via South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) facilities during

Initial Study-16-62


storm events. Additional runoff could result in an increase in the amount of pollutants entering waterways. Contaminated runoff waters could flow into French Camp Slough or, ultimately, to the San Joaquin River and could degrade the water quality of those water bodies. During the dry season, vehicles and other urban activities may release contaminants onto the impervious surfaces, where they would accumulate until the first storm event. During the initial storm event, or first flush, the concentrated pollutants would be transported via stormwater runoff from the site to the stormwater drainage system and eventually a downstream waterway. The proposed project includes several bio retention areas throughout the site to detain stormwater during major storm events, and in part to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff (see Figure 8). In addition, the proposed project would implement the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Program, which would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to maximize stormwater quality and be consistent with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Stormwater Permit. The BMPs would include a combination of source control, structural improvements, and treatment systems to the extent required in order to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Because the proposed project has the potential to release urban pollutants in runoff that could enter and potentially pollute the local water systems, a potentially significant impact would occur. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 9.1: Prior to approval of any improvement plans, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Stormwater Quality Plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Plan shall identify multiple BMPs to reduce or eliminate water quality effects from polluted runoff from the project in areas with a potential to drain into storm drainage systems or surface waters. The BMPs may include a combination of source control, structural elements, and treatment systems identified in the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Best Management Practices Handbook. BMPs may include, but would not be necessarily limited to, the practices below:

Dry detention basins—which are typically dry except after a major rainstorm, when they temporarily fill with stormwater—will be created and designed to decrease runoff during storm events, prevent flooding, and allow for off-peak discharge. Basin features will include maintenance schedules for the periodic removal of sedimentation, excessive vegetation, and debris that may clog basin inlets and outlets.

Grass buffer strips, high infiltration substrates, and grassy swales will be used where feasible throughout the project site to reduce runoff, serve as biofilters, and provide initial stormwater treatment. This type of treatment will apply particularly to parking lots.

Physical devices will be placed at outlets of pipes and channels to reduce the velocity or the energy of exiting water. Outlet protection helps to prevent scour and minimize the potential for downstream erosion by reducing the velocity or energy of concentrated stormwater flows.

The City, contractors, or the project applicant shall select a combination of BMPs that is expected to remove contaminants from stormwater discharges. The final selection and design of BMPs shall provide maximum contaminant removal, represent the best available technology that is economically achievable, and explicitly identify the expected level of effectiveness at contaminant removal. The City shall conduct inspections following the construction to ensure that all identified BMPs have been properly installed. The project shall adopt a regular maintenance and monitoring schedule to ensure that these BMPs function properly during project operations. If necessary, the City shall require that additional BMPs be designed and implemented if those originally constructed do not achieve the identified performance standard. b,c) Development of the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces that currently do not exist on the site. Thus, an incremental reduction in the amount of natural soil surfaces available for the infiltration of rainfall and runoff to the underlying groundwater basin would occur. However, due to a general lack of streams or alluvial fan conditions in the area of the City, notable groundwater recharge areas are not identified. In addition, the project site is only a small percentage of the total 38 square miles of the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin utilized by the City, and would not be expected to substantially interfere with the overall recharge of the subbasin. The majority of runoff from the project site would drain to the local storm drainage system and eventually to the San Joaquin River, which is where the majority of recharge to the subbasin occurs. Project development would involve the construction of a 285,215-sf warehouse distribution center, which would require grading, excavation, and other construction-related activities that could cause soil erosion at an accelerated rate during storm events. All of these activities have the potential to affect water quality and contribute to localized violations of water quality standards if stormwater runoff from construction activities enters receiving waters.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 8 Preliminary Utility Plan

Initial Study-16-62


Construction activities such as grading, excavation, and trenching for site improvements would result in the disturbance of on-site soils. The exposed soils have the potential to affect water quality in two ways: 1) suspended soil particles and sediments transported through runoff; or 2) sediments transported as dust that eventually reach local water bodies. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, staging areas, or building sites also have the potential to enter runoff. Typical pollutants include, but are not limited to, petroleum and heavy metals from equipment and products such as paints, solvents, and cleaning agents, which could contain hazardous constituents. Sediment from erosion of graded or excavated surface materials, leaks or spills from equipment, or inadvertent releases of building products could result in water quality degradation if runoff containing the sediment or contaminants should enter receiving waters in sufficient quantities. Impacts from construction-related activities would generally be short-term and of limited duration. Because the proposed project would require construction activities that would result in a land disturbance greater than one acre, the applicant would be required by the State to obtain a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), which pertains to pollution from grading and project construction. Compliance with the Permit requires the project applicant to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to construction. The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs in order to prevent, or reduce to the greatest extent feasible, adverse impacts to water quality from erosion and sedimentation. However, as the proposed project could potentially result in short-term impacts to surface water quality related to construction, impacts would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 9.2: Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project developer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed by a qualified engineer or erosion control specialist in accordance with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) requirements for NPDES compliance. The City Engineer will review the SWPPP for compliance with the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Program, including coverage under the General Construction Permit. The SWPPP shall be kept on-site during construction activity and shall be made available upon request to representatives of the CVRWQCB. BMPs to be implemented as part of the Storm Water Management Program and General Construction Permit (and SWPPP) may include the following practices, or other BMPs identified in the CASQA Construction BMP Handbook.

Temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) will be employed to control erosion from disturbed areas;

Use a dry detention basin (which is typically dry except after a major rainstorm, when it will temporarily fill with stormwater), designed to decrease runoff during storm events, prevent flooding, and allow for off-peak discharge. Basin features will include maintenance schedules for the periodic removal of sediments, excessive vegetation, and debris that may clog basin inlets and outlets;

Cover, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to, inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more) that could contribute sediment to waterways;

Enclose and cover exposed stockpiles of dirt or other loose, granular construction materials that could contribute sediment to waterways;

Ensure that no earth or organic material will be deposited or placed where it may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water;

Prohibit the following types of materials from being rinsed or washed into the streets, shoulder areas, or gutters: concrete, solvents and adhesives, thinners, paints, fuels, sawdust, dirt, gasoline, asphalt and concrete saw slurry, and heavily chlorinated water;

Ensure that grass or other vegetative cover will be established on the construction site as soon as possible after disturbance; or

Prior to commencement of construction activities on-site, the developer shall file an NOI with the SWRCB and provide proof of filing to the City.

d, e) Development of the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces that currently do not exist on the site. As a result, additional runoff would be generated during storm events, which would contribute to the flood potential of receiving drainage facilities if adequate capacity does not exist within the facilities. However, the proposed project includes bio retention areas throughout the site that would detain stormwater accumulated on the site during major storm events. The bio retention areas are required to be designed in accordance with the City’s 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP), particularly Section 3.7, including, but not limited to, the following:

Sized adequate to hold a 10‐year, 48‐hour duration storm runoff volume resulting from 3.56 inches of rainfall

occurring over the entire contributing area; Include a positive shut-off control; Include water quality treatment sufficient to meet stormwater NPDES permit requirements;

Initial Study-16-62


Be multi-purpose facilities when practical; and Provide volume without allowance for percolation or outlet facilities.

In addition, the proposed project would include construction of storm drain lines, which would collect and convey stormwater runoff to the detention basins for temporary storage as well as water quality treatment.

The proposed project would implement the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Program, including BMPs to maximize stormwater quality, and would be consistent with the City’s NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit. However, because the design of the required stormwater facilities have yet to be determined at a project-level basis, runoff from the project site could potentially contribute to an exceedance of the capacity of the City’s stormwater facilities and have a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 9.3: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The drainage plan shall address the following requirements:

Calculations of pre-development runoff conditions and post-development runoff scenarios, using appropriate engineering methods, to evaluate potential changes to runoff through specific design criteria and account for increased surface runoff;

Assessment of existing drainage facilities within the project area and an inventory of necessary upgrades, replacements, redesigns, and rehabilitation; and

A proposed maintenance program for the on-site drainage system. Drainage systems, including any detention area(s), shall be designed in accordance with the City’s and other applicable flood control design criteria. As a performance standard, measures to be implemented from the drainage plan shall provide for no net increase in peak stormwater discharge relative to current conditions, ensure that 100-year flooding and its potential impacts are maintained at or below current levels, and ensure that people and structures are not exposed to additional flood risk. Prior to issuing a grading permit, the City shall require the project applicant to demonstrate that the portion of the project subject to the grading permit is consistent with the recommendations and conclusions of the drainage plan and shall implement the measures identified in the plan. If the plan does not adequately address the drainage impacts of the specific development, the City shall require the applicant to prepare additional analysis and incorporate measures consistent with the scope and performance standards associated with the plan to ensure that drainage and flooding impacts are avoided. g-i) Based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), (Map Number ID: 06077C0640F), the project site is within Zone X, which is described by FEMA as an area determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (see Figure 9). Thus, development of the proposed project would not place structures within a 100-year floodplain or expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam. Accordingly, restrictions on development or special requirements associated with flooding are not required for the project. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to flooding. j) Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement. A tsunami poses little danger away from shorelines; however, when the tsunami reaches the shoreline, a high swell of water breaks and washes inland with great force. Waves may reach 50 feet in height on unprotected coasts. As Manteca is many miles inland, the project site is not exposed to flooding risks from tsunamis and adverse impacts would not result.

A seiche is a long-wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir, whose destructive capacity is not as great as that of tsunamis. The project is not located near a closed body of water. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project site would be impacted by seiches in the future. Mudflows typically occur in mountainous or hilly terrain. The project site is not considered hilly terrain and mudflows do not pose a threat. In summary, tsunamis, seiches, and mudflows would have no impact on the project.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 9 FEMA FIRM Map

Source: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Effective October 16, 2009.

Project Site

N

Initial Study-16-62


10. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation

of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

X

a) The project site is located within an existing commercial and industrial development known as Spreckels Business Park and is bordered by SR 120 to the South, and SR 99 to the east. The proposed 285,215-sf warehouse distribution center is considered infill development and would be consistent with the existing surrounding industrial uses and would serve as an extension of the existing development. In addition, the site is designated for Heavy Industrial (HI) and zoned for Heavy Industrial (M-2) uses. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur. b) The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215-sf warehouse distribution center on a 19.41-acre vacant and unoccupied site, which is surrounded by commercial and industrial land uses. The project site is designated for HI and zoned for M-2. The proposed warehouse distribution center is an allowed use within the M-2 zoning district per Table 17.22.020-1 of the Manteca Zoning Code, and therefore would not require the approval of a use permit. However, according to Section 17.10.060 of the Manteca Zoning Code, the proposed project would need Major Site Plan Review approval by the City of Manteca Planning Commission. Site Plan Review provides a process to promote excellence in site planning and design, to encourage the harmonious appearance of buildings and sites, to ensure that new and modified uses and development would be compatible with the existing and potential development of the surrounding area, and to produce an environment of stable, desirable character. Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission would confirm that the proposed project is consistent with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. c) On February 5, 2001 the City of Manteca adopted and is now covered by the SJMSCP. The SJMCP was developed to minimize and mitigate impacts to plant and wildlife habitat resulting from the conversion of 109,302 acres of open space to non-open space use to occur in San Joaquin County between 2001 and 2051. Ninety-seven species are covered by the SJMSCP, which is intended to provide comprehensive mitigation, pursuant to local, State and federal regulations, for impacts to these species from SJMSCP permitted activities. According to the SJMSCP, the project site is within a Category A: Exempt – No Pay Zone. In addition, the Biological Resources section of this IS/MND determined the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Initial Study-16-62


11. Mineral Resources. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

X

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

X

a-b) According to the Manteca General Plan 2023 EIR, the California Division of Mines and Geology has identified one location within the Manteca General Plan Study Area as a Zone MRZ-2, Significant Mineral Resource Zone, near the San Joaquin River,12 which is not in close proximity (approximately 5 miles west) to the proposed project site. The proposed project is not located in an area of known mineral resources, nor are any expected to be encountered during project development. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to known mineral resources of value or locally-important mineral resources.


Initial Study-16-62


12. Noise. Would the project result in:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

X

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

X

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

X

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

X

a, c) The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215-sf warehouse distribution center on a 19.41-acre site surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses. The primary noise associated with the proposed project would be truck traffic. The truck traffic associated with the operation of the proposed project would occur on Dupont Court and Spreckels Avenue, which currently is an existing truck route for the surrounding commercial and industrial uses. In addition, the nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project would be located to the south across SR 120 approximately 550 feet (property line to property line) from the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards or cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result. b) The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading and utility placement occur. 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. A significant groundborne noise impact would be identified if construction-related groundborne noise would temporarily increase noise levels at sensitive receptors. Groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.1 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) would have the potential to result in “architectural” damage to normal buildings. Table 2 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

Table 2 Vibration Levels for Varying Construction Equipment

Type of Equipment

Peak Particle Velocity @ 25 feet

(inches/second


(inches/second)


(inches/second)

Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011

Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010

Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000

Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011

Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004

Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009

Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210 0.074 0.026 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

Initial Study-16-62


Sensitive receptors could be impacted by construction related vibrations and groundborne noise, especially from vibratory compactors/rollers. The nearest receptors are located more than 550 feet from any areas of the project site that might require grading or paving. At this distance 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. The proposed project would be located more than 80 feet away from the surrounding building, and the Table 2 data indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.1 in/sec criteria at distances of 50 feet. Therefore, construction vibrations are not predicted to cause damage to existing buildings or cause annoyance to sensitive receptors. Accordingly, development of the proposed project would have a less-than-significant vibration impact. d) Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. The highest maximum noise levels generated by project construction would typically range from about 76 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of approximately six dBA per doubling of distance between the source and receptor. Because the nearest sensitive receptors are located at least 550 feet from areas of the site on which construction would occur, construction noise at sensitive receptors is anticipated to be a maximum of approximately 14 dBA (550 feet/50 feet = 11 x 6 dBA = 66 dBA reduction) (90 dBA – 66 dBA = 14 dBA). In addition, shielding by buildings or terrain often results in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors. All exterior construction at the project site would be completed first, and once construction moves indoors, minimal noise would be generated at off-site locations. Noise generated by construction activities would temporarily elevate noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive receptors. However, all construction activities would be required to comply with the provisions of the City of Manteca Municipal Code, which states that operating or causing the operation of tools or equipment on private property used in alteration, construction, demolition, drilling, or repair work shall not occur between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, daily, except for emergency work of public service utilities. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result.

e,f) The nearest airport to the project site is the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, which is located more than seven miles north of the project site. In addition, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As such, the project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport, and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Initial Study-16-62


13. Population and Housing. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Induce substantial 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 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

a) The 19.41-acre project site is a vacant lot, which is located within the City of Manteca’s existing Spreckels Business Park. The proposed project consists of the development and operation of a 285,215 sf warehouse distribution center; as such, the project would not directly induce population growth in the developed area. Using data compiled as part of the San Joaquin County 2035 General Plan Background Report, the average employee per square foot for an industrial land use type within the County is one employee per 850 square feet. Based on this information, the proposed project could generate a total of 336 employees. However, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. As such, the increase in employees associated with buildout of the project site would be consistent with what has been anticipated by the City. Furthermore, the project would not indirectly induce population growth because road extensions or added infrastructure would not occur in previously undeveloped areas. Thus, development of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to inducing substantial population growth either directly or indirectly. b, c) The 19.41-acre project site is vacant land unoccupied and located within the City of Manteca’s existing Spreckels Business Park. Given the vacant state of the site and developed character of the site’s immediate vicinity, the project would have no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Initial Study-16-62


14. Public Services. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Fire protection? X

b. Police protection? X

c. Schools? X d. Parks? X e. Other public facilities? X

a) The project site is currently within the Manteca City limits and is served by the MFD. The MFD is responsible for the provision of fire service and emergency medical response for the City of Manteca and is organized into the following three divisions: Administration, Operations, and the Fire Prevention Bureau. The MFD serves approximately 71,000 residents throughout approximately 17.7 square miles within the City limits, as well as an additional 9.4 square mile area outside the City limits within the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Manteca’s 10-Year Planning Horizon. The MFD operates out of four fire stations within the City limits. MFD is staffed by 42 fire fighters, three battalion chiefs, one fire marshal, and one fire chief.13 The Manteca General Plan includes policies and implementation measures that would allow for the MFD to continue providing adequate facilities and staffing levels. On September 11, 2013 Fire Station No. 4 opened in northwest Manteca and the response time dropped by 42 percent.14 The MFD does have a fifth fire station planned for the vacant parcel located northwest of the intersection of Atherton Drive and Woodward Avenue, located approximately 0.6 mile south of the project site. When completed, this new MFD station would serve the proposed project. The construction of Fire Station No. 5 would have a similar impact on response times and response effectiveness. The MFD’s response time objective is to be on-scene within five minutes of dispatch. The project is consistent with the type of development anticipated for the site, and would be designed in accordance with all applicable regulations, goals, and/or policies associated with fire protection. The project design would include fire water mains throughout the site, as well as a fire suppression system. As the surrounding area is currently served by the MFD and the site would be designed in accordance with regulations, the increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services due to implementation of the proposed project has been previously anticipated. Because the project would not result in an increased residential population in the City, and only a minimal increase in the daytime population (employees) would occur, the existing MFD staff and equipment is anticipated to be sufficient to meet the demands of the project. In addition, the project would be required to pay the City’s Fire Facility Fee in accordance with Ordinance 1500. Current Fire Facility Fee for industrial development is $0.09 per sf. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services would not cause a substantial degradation in the MFD’s level of service, and would not require the construction or expansion of any MFD facilities that would have a significant effect on the environment. The MFD has the ability to adequately provide service to the proposed project with the existing staffing and equipment. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times. b) The proposed project area is currently within the Manteca City limits and is served by the Manteca Police Department (MPD), which is located at 1001 W. Center Street, approximately 2.3 miles northwest of the project site. The MPD currently has 42 sworn officers including one chief, one captain, nine sergeants, and 31 police officers. The Department divides calls for service into the following three categories:

Priority 1 calls are defined as life threatening situations; Priority 2 calls are not life threatening, but require immediate response; and Priority 3 calls cover all other calls received by the police.

The average response times for the MPD during 2013 are 4:46 minutes for Priority 1 calls (an increase of 0:30 seconds from 2012), 17:54 minutes for Priority 2 calls (a decrease of 0:45 seconds from 2012), and 37:49 minutes for Priority 3 calls

13 Personal Communication with David Marques, City of Manteca Fire Department Battalion Chief. April 19, 2016 14 City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Services Review. July 16, 2015.

Initial Study-16-62


(an increase of 0:32 seconds from 2012).15 The MPD currently serves the area surrounding the project site without any known issues. New residences or residents would not be introduced to the area as a result of the proposed project, and the proposed uses would not be expected to cause a substantial increase in the crime rate in the area. As the surrounding area is currently served by the MPD and a substantial increase in criminal activity would not be expected as a result of the proposed project, additional demand for police protection services resulting from development of previously vacant land would be expected to result with development of the proposed project. However, the project is consistent with the type of development anticipated within the General Plan for the site, and the development of the proposed project is not anticipated to hinder police protection services within the City such that the MPD could not adequately serve the project site with existing resources. While, the effect of growth from the General Plan will result in an incremental increase in the number of service calls from the Manteca Police Department, the General Plan requires the City to maintain the minimum feasible police response times for police calls and to provide police services to serve the existing and projected population of the City. The MPD obtains funds from several revenue streams including Manteca’s Public Safety tax, the City’s Government Building Facilities Fee, and residential property tax collected by the General Fund. The project would contribute funding for the MPD through paying applicable City fees and contributing property tax dollars to the General Fund. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not increase the demand for police protection services to require the construction or expansion of any MPD facilities that would have a significant effect on the environment. As a result, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or response times. c) The proposed project consists of the development and operation of a 285,215 sf warehouse distribution center adjacent to an existing commercial/industrial area. Such a use would not generate additional students requiring accommodation in the surrounding school system. As a result, the proposed project would not result in a need for new, or improvements to existing, school facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts; and no impact would occur. d) The proposed project is a warehouse distribution center, and therefore does not include the need for park facilities. In addition, the Population and Housing section of this IS/MND determined the project would not directly or indirectly increase substantial population growth; therefore, an increased demand for new, or expansion of any existing, park facilities would not occur. As a result, no impact to park facilities would occur. e) The proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the site; therefore, the project site has been anticipated for development. As a result, the proposed project would not result in 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 other public services. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

15 City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Services Review. July 16, 2015.

Initial Study-16-62


15. Recreation.

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

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

a, b) As described above in the Public Services section of this IS/MND, the proposed project is a warehouse distribution center, and therefore does not include the need for park facilities. In addition, the Population and Housing section of this IS/MND determined the project would not directly or indirectly increase substantial population growth, an increased demand for new, or expansion of any existing, park facilities would not occur. Therefore, no impact to park facilities would occur.

Initial Study-16-62


16. Transportation/Traffic. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

X

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

X

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

X

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

X

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs supporting

alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X

a, b) The following discussion is based on a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, dated April 15, 2016. The following three intersections were selected for analysis in the TIS:

Spreckels Avenue / Dupont Court; Spreckels Avenue / East Yosemite Avenue; and Spreckels Avenue / Moffat Boulevard.

The following scenarios were analyzed in the TIS:

Existing Conditions; Existing Plus Project Conditions; and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

Applicable Policies and Significance Criteria All study intersections are located within the City of Manteca’s jurisdiction and are required to abide by the policies outlined in the City of Manteca 2023 General Plan. Policy C-P-2 of the 2023 General Plan requires a minimum Level of Service (LOS) D for all streets and intersections. Policy C-P-3, at the discretion of City staff, allows certain locations to fall below the City’s LOS standard under the following circumstances:

a) Where constructing facilities with enough capacity to provide LOS D is found to be unreasonably expensive. This applies to facilities, for example, on which it would cost significantly more per dwelling unit equivalent (DUE) to provide LOS D than is deemed reasonable by City staff.

b) Where it is difficult or impossible to maintain LOS D because surrounding facilities in other jurisdictions operate at LOS E or worse.

c) Where maintaining LOS D will be a disincentive to use of existing alternative modes or to the implementation of new transportation modes that would reduce vehicle travel. Examples include roadway or intersection widening in areas with substantial pedestrian activity or near major transit centers.

d) In the Downtown area the City cannot maintain the vehicular LOS D standard because of the historic nature of development and limited street right-of-way. However, it is the City’s goal to maintain high quality access and mobility in the area with a priority toward non-auto modes. Therefore, the City shall require that new discretionary land use action within the Downtown area, which generate net new PM peak hour auto trips, to participate in enhancing access and mobility for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes.

Initial Study-16-62


Significance Criteria In consideration of the above policies, the following significance criteria are applied for this analysis, consistent with previous environmental documents in Manteca. An impact is considered significant if the project would:

Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection (Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court) o Worsen operation of the highest delayed side-street movement from LOS D or better to LOS E or worse if

the intersection operates acceptably under the “no project” scenario OR increase the average delay for the highest delayed side- street movement by three seconds or more if the intersection operates unacceptably under the “no project” scenario; AND

o Cause the peak hour volume signal warrant to be met.

Signalized Intersections o Worsen operation from LOS D or better to LOS E or worse if the intersection operates acceptably under

the “no project” scenario OR increase the average delay by three seconds or more if the intersection operates unacceptably under the “no project” scenario.

Existing Conditions Figure 10 shows the three study intersections selected for analysis based on their potential to be impacted by the development of the proposed project. Traffic counts were collected at all study intersections on Thursday, March 3, 2016. Weather conditions were dry and unusual traffic patterns were not observed. Figure 11 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, lane configurations, and traffic controls. The existing Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) truck route through the study area accommodates trucks longer than California legal trucks, which have large turning radii that most local roads are unable to accommodate (see Figure 12). Railroad tracks intersect Moffat Boulevard approximately 100 feet south of the Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection. During preemption, the intersection defaults to flashing red on all approaches with the most impacted movements being those traveling to and from the south on Industrial Park Drive. To reflect preemption at the intersection, the capacity of the affected movements was reduced based on the proportional amount of time during the peak hour that preemption occurs. Table 3 displays the existing AM and PM peak hour operation at each intersection. Individual intersection peak hours were used for the analysis based on the count data. All intersections were analyzed using 2010 HCM methodology in the Synchro traffic modelling software.

Table 3 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Conditions

Intersection Control1,2

Peak Hour Delay3 LOS

1. Spreckels Ave / Dupont Court Side Street Stop Control AM PM 13 (1) 13 (1)

B (A) B (A)

2. Spreckels Ave / E Yosemite Ave Traffic Signal AM PM 27 33

C C

3. Spreckels Ave / Moffat Blvd Traffic Signal AM PM 22 26

C C

Notes: 1 . For signalized intersections, intersection delay is reported in seconds of average delay for all approaches. 2. For side-street stop controlled intersections, LOS and average delay for the worst movement are reported along with the overall

intersection delay in parentheses. 3. All intersections analyzed using Synchro Traffic model.

Source: Fehr and Peers, 2016.

As seen in Table 3, all study intersections operate at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours. Project Travel Characteristics The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215 sf warehouse distribution center on a 19.41-acre site located at the terminus of Dupont Court in Manteca, California. The project site is part of the existing Spreckels Business Park located northwest of the intersection of SR 99 and SR 120. Commonly referred to as Lot 19, the project site is currently vacant and unoccupied and surrounded by existing commercial and industrial land uses to the north and east. Project access would be via two driveways within the cul-de-sac.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 10 Study Intersections

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2016.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 11 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations - Existing Conditions


Initial Study-16-62


Figure 12 Existing Truck Facilities


Initial Study-16-62


Trip Generation Table 4 displays the project’s expected trip generation. Trip generation of the 285,215 sf warehouse was calculated using trip rates provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) 9th Edition Trip Generation Manual.

Table 4 Weekday Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates

Land Use ITE Code Quantity

Trips

Daily

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

In Out Total In Out Total

Warehouse 150 285,215 sf 1,214 116 31 147 29 88 117

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (2012).

As seen in Table 4, the project would generate 147 AM peak hour trips and 117 PM peak hour trips, which results in an average trip rate of 0.51 trips per thousand sf in the AM peak hour and 0.41 trips per thousand sf in the PM peak hour. Truck trips that would be generated by the proposed project (and represent a portion of the total trips displayed in Table 4) were estimated based on review of existing vehicle classification counts at the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court. All parcels located along Dupont Court, including the project site, are zoned as M-2 according to the City of Manteca Zoning Map. Because zoning at the project site is consistent with that of adjacent land uses along Dupont Court, project truck generation is expected to be proportionally similar to that of existing vehicle classification counts. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to generate 18 truck trips during the AM peak hour and 11 truck trips during the PM peak hour, which corresponds to 15 percent and six percent of the total project trip generation, respectively. Trip Distribution To account for the various types of trips that would be generated by the proposed project, two project distributions were created: one for visitors/employees and one for trucks. Figure 13 and Figure 14 display the trip distributions for employees/visitors and trucks, respectively. The distribution for each was determined based on existing vehicle classification counts at the study intersections and travel patterns that would likely characterize the trips. The methodology for determining trip distribution at each intersection is as follows:

1. Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court: Existing vehicle classification counts entering and exiting Dupont Court were used to determine trip distribution at Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court. The count data at Dupont Court indicates that inbound and outbound trips are evenly split between travel to/from the north and to/from the south during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, inbound trips are also evenly split between travel from the north and from the south; outbound trips, however, travel to the north twice that of travel to the south. To account for potential deviation of project distribution from existing counts, this analysis conservatively assumes that outbound PM peak hour project trips would have a slightly higher proportion of left turns exiting Dupont Court than the proportion of existing counts.

2. Spreckels Avenue/Yosemite Avenue: The distribution of project employees and visitors through the study intersection is

based on existing count data and likely travel patterns to prominent regional travel facilities such as SR 99. Existing vehicle classification counts and the STAA truck route were used to determine the distribution of project trucks through the intersection. Existing vehicle classification counts document that truck traffic only travels along the eastern and southern legs of the intersection. Additionally, only the eastern and southern legs of the intersection are designated as an STAA truck route. Therefore, project truck trips are only distributed on to the eastern and southern legs of the intersection.

3. Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard: The distribution of project employees and visitors through the study intersection is

based on existing count data and likely travel patterns to prominent regional travel facilities, such as SR 99 and SR 120. Existing vehicle classification counts and field observations document that truck traffic deviates from the STAA truck route. Although not designated as an STAA route, the eastern leg of Moffat Boulevard accommodates significant truck traffic that likely uses the roadway to provide southerly access to SR 99. Because the proposed project truck trips would have similar travel patterns to existing truck traffic, existing vehicle classification counts were used to determine the distribution of project truck trips at the intersection.

Trip Assignment For analysis of the “plus project” scenarios, project trips were manually assigned to the roadway network based on the project trip generation and distribution detailed above. A mode split of project trips was considered but deemed unsuitable for this study due to the project’s proposed land use. Similar to the assignment of project trips, project truck trips were manually assigned to the network to obtain new truck percentages for each turn movement under “plus project” scenarios.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 13 Project Trip Distribution – Visitors/Employees


Initial Study-16-62


Figure 14 Project Trip Distribution – Trucks


Initial Study-16-62


Existing Plus Project Conditions The Existing Plus Project scenario analyzes potential impacts of project trips added to the existing volumes at study intersections to yield the Existing Plus Project volumes shown in Figure 15. Table 5 displays the AM and PM peak hour operation at each study intersection under Existing Plus Project Conditions. All intersections were analyzed using the Synchro traffic modelling software.

Table 5 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Plus Project Conditions

Intersection Control1,2 Peak Hour

Existing Existing Plus

Project

Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS

1. Spreckels Ave / Dupont Court Side Street Stop

Control AM PM

13 (1) 13 (1)

B (A) B (A)

15 (2) 13 (2)

B (A) B (A)

2. Spreckels Ave / E Yosemite Ave Traffic Signal AM PM

27 33

C C

29 33

C C

3. Spreckels Ave / Moffat Blvd Traffic Signal AM PM

22 26

C C

24 26

C C

Notes: 1. For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds of average delay for all approaches. 2. For side-street stop controlled intersections, LOS and average delay for the movement with the most delay are reported in parentheses along

with the overall intersection delay. 3. All intersections analyzed using Synchro Traffic model. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2016.

As displayed in Table 5, all study intersections would operate acceptably at LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Cumulative Conditions The Cumulative Plus Project Scenario analyzes the impacts of the project under cumulative conditions. The analysis reflects long-term development in the City of Manteca and other nearby jurisdictions using the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) Model that has been developed for the 2023 General Plan Buildout in the City of Manteca. The TDF model was used to generate AM and PM peak hour turning movement forecasts for the study intersections. Similar to the methodology used to calculate Existing Plus Project volumes, Cumulative Plus Project volumes were calculated by adding project trips to Cumulative volumes. Cumulative Plus Project volumes are shown in Figure 16. Table 6 displays the AM and PM peak hour operation at each study intersection under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

Table 6 Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions


Cumulative Cumulative Plus

Project

Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS

1. Spreckels Ave / Dupont Court Side Street Stop

Control AM PM

14 (1) 15 (1)

B (A) C (A)

16 (2) 18 (2)

C (A) C (A)

2. Spreckels Ave / E Yosemite Ave Traffic Signal AM PM

29 50

C D

31 51

C D

3. Spreckels Ave / Moffat Blvd Traffic Signal AM PM

59 78

E E

61 82

E F


with the overall intersection delay. 3. All intersections analyzed using Synchro Traffic model. Bold and underlined text indicates unacceptable operations. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2016.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 15 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Existing Plus Project Conditions


Initial Study-16-62


Figure 16 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions


Initial Study-16-62


As shown in Table 6, all study intersections would operate acceptably at LOS D or better during both the AM and PM peak hours except for the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard. Under Cumulative Conditions, the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard is forecast to operate unacceptably at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. Under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, the intersection is forecast to continue to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the AM peak hour and worsen to LOS F during the PM peak hour. Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures As displayed in Table 6, average delay at the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard is forecast to increase under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions from 78 seconds (LOS E) to 82 seconds (LOS F) during the PM peak hour. The increase in average delay is greater than the three-second threshold identified in the significance criteria presented above. Therefore, the project would create a cumulatively significant impact at the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard. Conclusion Based on the TIS prepared for the proposed project, all study intersections would operate acceptably under Existing Plus Project Conditions; however, the average delay at the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard would increase under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions greater than the allowable three-second threshold. Therefore, because development of the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system or exceed an established level of service standard, a potentially significant traffic impact would occur. It should be noted that the City of Manteca is considering adding the Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection to the Manteca Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP). Mitigation Measure(s) Although under Cumulative Conditions the Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection would still operate unacceptably at LOS E with implementation of following mitigation measure, the average delay would be reduced below Cumulative Conditions without the proposed project (see Table 7).

Table 7 Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project with Mitigation


Cumulative Cumulative Plus

Project

Cumulative Plus Project with Mitigation

Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS Delay3 LOS

3. Spreckels Ave / Moffat Blvd Traffic Signal

AM PM

59 78

E E

61 82

E F

60 69

E E


with the overall intersection delay. 3. All intersections analyzed using Synchro Traffic model. Bold and underlined text indicates unacceptable operations. Source: Fehr and Peers, 2016.

As a result, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 16.1: If prior to Building Permit issuance, the Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection has been added to the City of Manteca PFIP, the applicant shall pay their fair share fee for the Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection improvement. If the Spreckels Avenue/Moffat Boulevard intersection has not been added to the City of Manteca PFIP, prior to Building Permit issuance and subject to review and approval of the City of Manteca Public Works Department, the applicant shall restripe the eastbound approach on Moffat Boulevard as follows:

Single left turn lane, single through lane, and single shared through/right lane; and Turn pocket length of 400 feet, which is 200 feet longer than the existing striping.

c) The nearest airport to the project site is the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, which is located more than 7 miles north of the project site. In addition, the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur related to the proposed project located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.

Initial Study-16-62


d,e) The following section is based on the TIS prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, dated April 15, 2016. Intersection Operation at Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court Under cumulative conditions, traffic volumes along Spreckels Avenue between Moffat Boulevard and Yosemite Avenue are forecasted to increase over existing conditions by 28 percent during the AM peak hour and 33 percent during the PM peak hour. As a result of this growth and traffic generated by the proposed project, the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court meets the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) signal warrant under cumulative PM peak hour conditions. The significance criteria designate that the intersection must both operate unacceptably and meet the peak hour signal warrant for an impact to be considered significant. As displayed in Table 4 above, the intersection of Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court would operate acceptably under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. In addition, a continuous two-way left turn lane is provided to assist left turn traffic from the minor street. Therefore, signalization of the Spreckels Avenue/Dupont Court intersection would not be required to serve cumulative traffic volumes. Site Evaluation The proposed project is characterized by a triangular parcel of land that creates unique challenges for designing a logical site plan. To accommodate the triangular parcel, numerous parking spaces are arranged at angles and non-continuous circulation exists within the parking lot. Parking arranged in this manner increases the number of conflict points and can make navigating the parking lot a challenge for some motorists. Project access would be via two driveways within the cul-de-sac of Dupont Court that are planned to be spaced about 50 feet apart, which would result in four driveways within the Dupont Court cul-de-sac, which has the potential to create vehicle conflicts due to sight distance and a high amount of merging onto Dupont Court. During the Cumulative Plus Project PM peak hour, approximately one vehicle every 17 seconds exits Dupont Court on to Spreckels Avenue. Conservatively assuming that all traffic exiting Dupont Court is generated by the cul-de-sac driveways, the level of traffic would not be high enough for conflicts to frequently exist within the cul-de-sac. Article III, Chapter 17.52 of the City of Manteca Zoning Code identifies parking standards of site planning. Specific policies applicable to this analysis include the following:

1. Location. Off-street parking facilities shall be located at the rear of sites in commercial and industrial zones; street frontages shall be devoted to building architecture and landscaping where possible.

4. Driveways/driveway approach width and grade. The minimum driveway width shall comply with public improvement and fire safety standards.

13. Maneuverability. Parking spaces, other than parallel parking spaces, shall be designed such that no more than two turning movements are necessary to access the space.

The recommendations provided below are intended to improve site access based on the above policies and are not required mitigations for significant project impacts.

Explore a standard parking design that reduces the number of parking spaces at unusual angles. If altering the parking design causes a loss in parking below adequate supply, the current design may be deemed appropriate. A standard parking design would help the project comply with Policy 13 listed above.

Incorporate stop signs at the project driveways on to Dupont Court to reduce the speed of traffic exiting the project. To the extent feasible, off-street parking should be relocated to the rear of the site to comply with Policy 1 listed

above. If the existing parking design is used, include a hammerhead at the dead-end drive aisle located in the west corner

of the northern parking lot to avoid the need for motorists to exit in reverse should all spaces be occupied. Conclusion According to the TIS prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, the level of traffic resulting from the development of the proposed project would not be high enough for conflicts to frequently exist within the cul-de-sac. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to substantially increasing hazards due to a design feature or inadequate emergency access. f) Tidewater Bikeway, a Class I bike path, maintains independent right-of-way from the roadway along the west side of Spreckels Avenue between Moffat Boulevard and Norman Drive and along Moffat Boulevard west of Spreckels Avenue. Class

Initial Study-16-62


II and III bike routes that share right-of-way with automobiles exist along Industrial Park Drive and Van Ryn Avenue. Dupont Court and parts of Spreckels Avenue and Moffat Boulevard currently do not have sidewalks; however, through much of the residential neighborhoods west and north of the project site, sidewalk connectivity is strong (see Figure 17). The City of Manteca is serviced by transit routes operated by the City of Manteca and San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD). Both weekday and weekend service is offered with nearby transit stops to the project site being located at Spreckels Avenue/Norman Drive and Cottage Avenue/North Street. Transit lines travel along Spreckels Avenue only north of Norman Drive (see Figure 18). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or precludes any transit service or facility, cause an unmet demand for public transit, or conflict with existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 17 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Network


Initial Study-16-62


Figure 18 Existing Transit Facilities


Initial Study-16-62


17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project:

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

X

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

X

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

X

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

X

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste?

X

a, b & e) Wastewater from the proposed project would connect to the existing sewer line in the Dupont Court right-of-way adjacent to the project site (see Figure 19). The project site would be served by City wastewater facilities upon project development. The Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facility (WQCF) has capacity for 9.87 million gallons/day (mgd) and is operating at approximately 70 percent of design capacity. The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215-sf warehouse distribution center and would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations for the site; therefore, the project site has been anticipated for this type of development. As a result, the development of the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the City’s wastewater conveyance and treatment capacity resulting in the construction of new wastewater facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Because sufficient wastewater facilities exist a less-than-significant impact on the City’s sewer system would occur with the development of the proposed project. It should also be noted that the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees and connection fees related to sewer infrastructure, which would represent the project’s fair share towards city-wide sewer system improvements. Sewer system improvements are part of the Public Facilities Improvements Plan (PFIP) of the City. c) The City operates and maintains the storm drainage system, which serves the existing community. Development of the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces that currently do not exist on the site. As a result, additional runoff would be generated during storm events, which would contribute to the flood potential of receiving drainage facilities if adequate capacity does not exist within the facilities. However, the proposed project would include construction of storm drain lines, which would collect and convey stormwater runoff to several bioretention areas that would detain stormwater accumulated on the site during major storm events (see Figure 19). The bioretention areas are required to be designed in accordance with the City’s 2013 SDMP, particularly Section 3.7, including, but not limited to, the following:

Sized adequate to hold a 10‐year, 48‐hour duration storm runoff volume resulting from 3.56 inches of rainfall occurring over the entire contributing area;

Include a positive shut-off control; Include water quality treatment sufficient to meet stormwater NPDES permit requirements; Be multi-purpose facilities when practical; and Provide volume without allowance for percolation or outlet facilities.

Initial Study-16-62


Figure 19 Preliminary Utility Plan

Initial Study-16-62


The proposed project would implement the requirements of the City’s Storm Water Management Program, including BMPs to maximize stormwater quality, and would be consistent with the City’s NPDES Phase II Stormwater Permit. Although preliminary plans for storm drainage have been prepared, the possibility still exists that runoff from the project site could potentially contribute to an exceedance of the capacity of the City’s stormwater facilities and have a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s) Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 17.1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9.3. d) The project would receive water from the City, which participates in a conjunctive use program, using groundwater and surface water from the SSJID, through the South County Surface Water Supply Project (SCSWSP), as sources. The conjunctive use program included in the City’s Water Master Plan (WMP) would reduce Manteca’s water supply demand and use of groundwater to an aquifer yield of one acre-feet a year (afa/yr) (from 2.4 afa/yr). According to 2015 Manteca MSR, the City currently has an existing groundwater supply capacity of 13,900 afa/yr and the City has a surface groundwater capacity allotment of 11,500 afa/yr from SSJID under Phase I, although the City is not using its full allotment. Phase II allotment would be 18,500 afa/yr, although the Phase II allotment is not projected to be needed through 2035 based on population projections. Project allotments are subject to the availability of surface water, which could be affected by drought conditions. An analysis of normal, single-dry years, and multi-dry years shows that there is sufficient capacity of groundwater and Phase I surface water to support the projected demand in Manteca through 2035.16 Water would be provided to the project site via new connections to the existing water infrastructure located within Dupont Court adjacent to the project site (see Figure 19 above). As sufficient groundwater (at a sustainable yield of one afa/yr) and SSJID surface water exists to serve the City, and because the project has previously been accounted for in the City’s WMP and the SSJID Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a less-than-significant water supply impact would result. It should be noted that the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees related to water supply, which would represent the project’s fair share toward the city-wide water supply system as part of the PFIP of the City. f, g) Solid waste is collected by the City and deposited at the Forward Landfill on South Austin Road. Recyclables are taken to a mini transfer station adjacent to the Forward Landfill where the recyclables are subsequently put into transfer trucks and hauled to Sacramento Recycling in Sacramento. The proposed project would include the development and operation of a 285,215-sf warehouse distribution center. The project would be consistent with the type and intensity of land uses assumed for the site within the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR. According to Cal Recycle, the Forward Landfill is currently operating at approximately 50 percent capacity.17 The Forward Landfill has a closure date of 2053 and a remaining capacity of 1,608,752 cubic yards, which, as identified in the Manteca General Plan EIR, is adequate to serve the solid waste removal needs of Manteca General Plan buildout,18 which includes the construction and operation of the proposed project. Because the Forward Landfill has adequate capacity for the construction and operation of the proposed project, a less-than-significant solid waste impact would occur as a result of the project.

16 City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Services Review. July 16, 2015. 17 CalRecycle. Facility Operations: Forward Landfill, Inc & Resource Recovery Facility. Available at:

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/Facility/Operations.aspx?FacilityID=18912. Accessed on March 17, 2016. 18 City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 14-5]. Certified October 6, 2003.

Initial Study-16-62


18. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

With

Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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

a) As mentioned previously, the project site has a low sensitivity for biological resources and cultural resources. Although unlikely, the possibility exists that subsurface excavation of the site during grading and other construction activities could unearth deposits of cultural significance. However, the mitigation measures included in this initial study would reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the proposed project would have less-than-significant overall impacts to the quality of the environment, plant and wildlife species, and important examples of California history or prehistory. b) The proposed project in conjunction with other development within the City of Manteca could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, mitigation measures for all potentially significant project-level impacts identified for the proposed project in this Initial Study have been included that would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. All future development projects in the area would be required to undergo the same environmental analysis and mitigate any potential impacts, as necessary. In addition, long-term environmental goals, both broad and specific, were previously addressed in the Manteca General Plan EIR. The type and intensity of land uses associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the land uses anticipated for the site within the cumulative environmental analysis contained in the City’s General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any impacts that would be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant. c) The proposed project site would be developed in a generally urbanized and built-up area of the City of Manteca. Development of the proposed project would not be expected to result in adverse impacts to human beings, either directly or indirectly. The potential for environmental effects on human beings is addressed within this Initial Study and all impacts have been identified as less-than-significant or less-than-significant after incorporation of mitigation measures, in limited cases. Based on the analysis with this Initial Study, new unmitigated impacts to human beings would not occur; and a less-than-significant impact would result.

Initial Study-16-62


H. INCORPORATIONS BY REFERENCE

All mitigation of potential impacts identified within the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Manteca General Plan 2023 and applicable to the subject project, is hereby incorporated by reference and become part of this environmental document. In accord with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines (Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code), the previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #2002042088), and findings and mitigations contained therein, prepared for the Manteca General Plan 2023 has been incorporated into this Initial Study. The Final EIR for the Manteca General Plan 2023 was certified by the City Council on October 6, 2003. The aforementioned environmental documents are available for review at, City of Manteca, Community Development Department, 1001 W. Center Street, Manteca, California.

I. REFERENCES The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis:

1. Basics Environmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. April 7, 2015. 2. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. 3. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. RareFind 5. Available at:

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed on March 23, 2016. 4. CalRecycle. Facility Operations: Forward Landfill, Inc & Resource Recovery Facility. Available at:

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/FacIT/Facility/Operations.aspx?FacilityID=18912. Accessed on March 17, 2016. 5. City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report [pg. 14-5]. Certified October 6, 2003. 6. City of Manteca. 2005 Water Master Plan. May 12, 2005 7. City of Manteca. 2012 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. January 2013. 8. City of Manteca. 2013 Storm Drain Master Plan. March 2013. 9. City of Manteca. Climate Action Plan. August 21, 2013 10. City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report. Certified October 6, 2003. 11. City of Manteca. Manteca General Plan 2023 Policy Document. Certified October 6, 2003. 12. City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Code, Chapter 17, Zoning. 1988 (amended through June 2010). 13. City of Manteca. Manteca Municipal Services Review. July 16, 2015. 14. City of Manteca. Public Facilities Implementation Plan Update. February 26, 2013. 15. City of Manteca. Storm Water Management Program. July 28, 2003. 16. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Available at:

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Accessed on March 22, 2016.

17. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006. 18. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Map Number ID: 06077C0640F). Available at:

https://msc.fema.gov/portal. Accessed on March 16, 2016 19. Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. Dupont Court Warehouse IS/MND - Traffic Impact Study. April 15, 2016 20. Mintier Harnish. San Joaquin County General Plan Background Report Public Review Draft. July 2, 2009. 21. Personal Communication with David Marquez, City of Manteca Fire Department Battalion Chief. April 19, 2016 22. San Joaquin County Council of Governments. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open

Space Plan. November 14, 2000. 23. San Joaquin County Council of Governments. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open

Space Plan – Draft 2015 Annual Report. December 31, 2015. 24. San Joaquin Council of Governments. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan

Compensation Map – Manteca. Available at: http://www.sjcog.org/DocumentCenter/View/771. Accessed on March 18, 2016.

25. San Joaquin County. San Joaquin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. January 2011. 26. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Air Quality Thresholds of Significance – Criteria Pollutants. Available

at: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/0714-GAMAQI-Criteria-Pollutant-Thresholds-of-Significance.pdf. Accessed on March 22, 2016.

27. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ozone Plans. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone_Plans.htm. Accessed on March 2016.

28. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Particulate Matter Plans. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/PM_Plans.htm. Accessed on March 2016.

29. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Ambient Air Quality Standards & Valley Attainment Status. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed on March 2016.

30. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Final Draft Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March 19, 2015.

Initial Study-16-62


31. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL). June 2012. 32. South San Joaquin Irrigation District. Urban Water Management Plan. August 2011. 33. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Science. Web Soil Survey. Available at:

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed on March 22, 2016. 34. Western Regional Climate Center. Prevailing Wind Direction. Available at:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwinddir.html#CALIFORNIA. Accessed March 2016. J. INITIAL STUDY PREPARATION

Rochelle Henson, Senior Planner

Documents

Dupont Court Initial Study