City Council and Concurrent Authorities
March 22, 2022

FINAL
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
WHI
STLER WAY ANNEXATION
Stockton, CA
January 27, 2022
Pr
epared for:

City of Stockton
Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Prepared by:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 W. Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ii
FINAL

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

WHISTLER WAY ANNEXATION
JANUARY 27, 2022

The Whistler Way Annexation Project proposes annexation of six parcels totaling 8.76 acres to the City of Stockton, along with adjacent road right-of-way. The annexation area would be pre-zoned to the City of Stockton CG (Commercial General) zoning district.

These actions would permit development of Upon annexation, the project proposes to develop 7.26 acres as a self-storage facility totaling ten buildings, 570 storage units and 100,850 square feet of floor area. The project site is located at the intersection of Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road in unincorporated San Joaquin County, adjacent to the City of Stockton. This Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) describes the potential environmental effects that would result from project approval and development.

The City of Stockton, which is the “lead agency” for the project, prepared and processed the IS/MND in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. A Public Review Draft IS/MND was prepared and made available for local public review from November 17, 2021 through December 6, 2021. No substantive comments related to the content or processing of the IS/MND were received by the City. One comment letter from the Auburn Rancheria requested cooperation in the implementation of the required IS/MND cultural resource mitigation measures. No responses to public review comments are required.

In parallel with the public review process, the City of Stockton also provided notification of the project under AB 52 to 13 tribal representatives including the Auburn Ranch eria, the Wilton Rancheria and the Northern Valley Yokuts . Only the Wilton Rancheria responded to the notice, requesting consultation on the project. The City opened consultation with the Auburn Rancheria and the Wilton Rancheria on December 27, 2021, but the City received no reply was received to the initiation of consultation.

Followup calls were made to the tribes on January 18, 2022 with no response.This Final IS/MND includes a copy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND and appendices as well as documentation related to the conduct of the public review process , which is shown on the following pages. The Final IS/MND will be presented to the Stockton Planning Commission and City Council for adoption in conjunction with project consideration and approval. Subsequent to City approval, the IS/MND will be used by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission in its consideration of the project.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

CITY OF STOCKTON

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
345 N EL DORADO ST
STOCKTON, CA 95203

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING

Notice is hereby given that the City of Stockton has prepared an Initial Study (IS) of environmental effects and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Whistler Way Annexation project. The City of Stockton is the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The subject project is the annexation, pre-zoning and development of six parcels totaling 8.76 acres to the City of Stockton, including two developed parcels, along with adjacent street right-of-way for Grider/Whistler Way.

The project includes construction of a self-storage facility of ten buildings with a total of 570 storage units and an office/onsite manager residence. The project will include improvement of the project site frontage on Grider/Whistler with additional pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk.

The IS/MND analyzes the potential environmental effects of the project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on this analysis, the IS/MND finds that the project will not involve any significant environmental effects, provided that the mitigation measures described in the IS/MND are implemented. The project proponent has agreed to the mitigation measures, and these measures will be included in a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan to be adopted by the City of Stockton in conjunction with the IS/MND and approval of the project. There are no sites identified under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code located on or near the project site.

Copies of the IS/MND are available for public review at the Stockton Permit Center at the address shown below and at the City’s website:

http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/communityDevelop/cdPlanEnv.html

The City will accept public and agency comments on the IS/MND during a 20- day review period that will begin on November 17, 2021 and end on December 6, 2021. Comments may be submitted by mail or e-mail as shown below:

Stockton Permit Center
Attn: Matt Diaz, Planning Manager
345 N El Dorado St
Stockton, CA 95202
[email protected]

At completion of the public review, the Stockton Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the IS/MND and the MMRP, and approval of the proposed project.

Subsequent notifications will be sent for those hearings consistent with State Law and local requirements.

William Crew
Director of Community Development
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

MONARES GEORGE BENITO II & KAREN

PHANTHA
854

SCHMIDT CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

UNION PACIFIC, CORPORATION
1400
DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640
OMAHA, NE 68179

UNION PACIFIC, CORPORATION
1400
DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640
OMAHA, NE 68179

ASHLEY LANE LP
PO
BOX 659
LINDEN, CA 95236

RUBINO FRANK TRUSTEE
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

HAGUE, KON HWA TR
3194

SALIDA WAY
CAMERON PARK, CA 95682

RUBINO FRANK TRUSTEE
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

RUBINO FRANK TRUSTEE
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

RUBINO FRANK TRUSTEE
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

RUBINO FRANK TRUSTEE
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

RUBINO FRANK TRUSTEE
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

ORIMO, ROSE M TR
PO
BOX 692714
STOCKTON, CA 95269

QUESSENBERRY CAROLINE M TR
1166

FREMONT WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818

QUESSENBERRY CAROLINE M TR
1166

FREMONT WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818

QUESSENBERRY CAROLINE M TR
1166

FREMONT WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818

QUESSENBERRY CAROLINE M TR
1166

FREMONT WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818

STOCKTON CITY OF
400
EAST MAIN 4TH FL
STOCKTON, CA 95202

LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1305

E VINE ST
LODI, CA 95240

BOLINA, JAG & JOTI
1212

PRAHSER AVE
STOCKTON, CA 95209

RUBINO FRANK
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

RUBINO FRANK
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

WINDMILL PARK OWNERS ASSN
24988
BLUE RAVINE RD #108-132
FOLSOM, CA 95630

JOHNSON JENNIFER LEE
10116

RUDDER WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

MADISHETTY SRINIVAS
5695

WELLS LN
SAN RAMON, CA 94582

ORTEGA, HOLLY
866

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

HOLLOWAY, BRIAN TR
204

N SHERMAN AVE
MANTECA, CA 95336

THOMPSON, ORA & RHONDA
912

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

HART SHANE & JAQUES MICHELLE GRUPE TR
13285

WILLOW GLEN RD
STOCKTON, CA 95206

TABARACCI RICHTER TERRI
936

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

JEMERIGBE, MARY ETAL
948

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

REESE DERRICK ETAL
960

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

ULANGCO, MELANIE ELLORZA
937

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

FARMER PEGGY A ETAL
855

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

DE CLARO, ERMIE B
PO
BOX 684
THORNTON, CA 95686

BRIGHAM MELISSA M
10139

RUDDER WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

HOANG, VINH T
830

SCHMIDT CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

ABDALLA MUNIRA SAIDA ETAL
866

SCHMIDT CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

TACLA, GARY LEE JR & TONYA JOY
10108

RUDDER WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

GAYAGOY, ROMELYNE
10140

TANK HOUSE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

KHAN BUSHRA ETAL
9012

CHERBOURG WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95210
P &
972

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

ASLAMI, SHER
50 VALLEY VISTA CT
FREMONT, CA 94539

CHANDLER, DONALD C JR & JANELLE T
10115

TANK HOUSE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

TREHAN, PROMOD K & MANJU TR
10203

TANK HOUSE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

NGUYEN, AN D
10106

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

DO, NGUYEN & HOA
1017

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

TURNER RUFUS & TRENA
1005

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

WINDMILL PARK OWNERS ASSN
1731
E ROSEVILLE PKWY #100
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661

WINDMILL PARK OWNERS ASSN
1776
W MARCH LN SUITE 170
STOCKTON, CA 95207

DAWANG, LOUIS GENE ETAL
274

THORNDIKE WAY
FOLSOM, CA 95630

STOCKTON CITY OF
305

N EL DORADO ST
STOCKTON, CA 95202

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

STOCKTON CITY OF
425
N EL DORADO ST 3RD FL
STOCKTON, CA 95202

QUESSENBERRY CAROLINE M TR
1166

FREMONT WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

QUESSENBERRY CAROLINE M TR
1166

FREMONT WAY
SACRAMENTO, CA 95818

RUBINO FRANK
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

RUBINO FRANK
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

RUBINO FRANK
3608

WOOD DUCK CIR
STOCKTON, CA 95207

PRASAD, JITENDRA C
820

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

DARMAS, LINDA GEORG
832

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

WILLIS WILLIAM & ASHLEY
852

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

MOSE, DOMINGO V & EVA M
949

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

SADLER, SYLVIA M
PO
BOX 693074
STOCKTON, CA 95269

CHOY, KONG PANG & MEI PO
125
N MARY AVE #73
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086

WONG, YUK S & SANGDEON N
870
35TH AVE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121

DOMINGO, EFRAIN CLARENCE & CHARMAINE
G
867

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

CORREA, ALEISHA A
PO
BOX 7768
STOCKTON, CA 95267

CHIONG, KENN & VERA
818

SCHMIDT CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

SHAW VERNELL III & LITTLE LAKEISHA
842

SCHMIDT CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

BALCITA MANUEL JOSEPH III & CHRISTY LYNN
10120

WINDMILL COVE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

DULAY, JASBIR S & SURINDER K ETAL
1002

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

NGUYEN, THOMAS & ANH HOANG GIAO
1014

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

HOLLOWAY, JASON L & MARY E
1026

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

DORAN, JOSEPH E & NATASHA M
10132

RUDDER WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

OLIVAS, GERSON I
10124

RUDDER WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

BRICE, LAWREN A & AISHA L
10103

TANK HOUSE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

PRICE, KENNETH
10127

TANK HOUSE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

CABUAG RICHARD E & SOPHORNA
10139

TANK HOUSE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

ANCHETA, BERNADETTE F ETAL
10151

TANK HOUSE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

VINSON, MICHELLE L
878

SCHMIDT CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

WINDMILL PARK OWNERS ASSN
24988
BLUE RAVINE RD #108-132
FOLSOM, CA 95630

GURM, MANDEEP S
6111

RAYMOND CT
STOCKTON, CA 95212

NGUYEN, MY THAI
1038

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

MARQUEZ LINDA PHAN ETAL
808

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

DE JESUS, CARLOS JR & DEANNA
1050

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

KOONER, IQBAL S & DALJIT K
1029

WINDMILL COVE CT
STOCKTON, CA 95209

BUENVIAJE FELEMARIE A TR
10162

WINDMILL COVE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

MADHURE, VASANTH S & VEENA S TR
1004

WINDJAMMER DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

ALBINTO, JAIME & DARLEEN
985

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95206

SANDHU SUMEL SINGH TR
1016

WINDJAMMER DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

ROGERS MARY M TR
1028

WINDJAMMER DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

NGUYEN, MARY JANE ETAL
10148

WINDMILL COVE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

SADORRA JAMES B & MARIA NYMPHA C
10134

WINDMILL COVE DR
STOCKTON, CA 95209

DEMESA WILLIAM B
961

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

SISON, AIMEE L
996

GEDDINGS WAY
STOCKTON, CA 95209

UNION PACIFIC, CORPORATION
1400
DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640
OMAHA, NE 68179

WINDMILL PARK OWNERS ASSN
1731
E ROSEVILLE PKWY #100
ROSEVILLE, CA 95661

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

ALPINE PACKING CO
2000

MONTY CT
STOCKTON, CA 95207

LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1305

E VINE ST
LODI, CA 95240

UNION PACIFIC, CORPORATION
1400
DOUGLAS ST STOP 1640
OMAHA, NE 68179

ASHLEY LANE LP
PO
BOX 659
LINDEN, CA 95236

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219

VAL SAN ASSOCIATES
3031
W MARCH LN STE 112 SOUTH
STOCKTON, CA 95219
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

WHISTLER WAY ANNEXATION
Stockton, CA

November 17, 2021

Prepared for:

City of Stockton
Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202

Prepared by:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 W. Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR THE

WHISTLER WAY ANNEXATION
Stockton, CA

November 17, 2021

Prepared for:

City of Stockton
Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202

Prepared by:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.
802 W. Lodi Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
209-224-8213
www.basecampenv.com

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NEGATIVE DECLARATION v
A. General Project Information v
B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected vi
C. Lead Agency Determination vii
Chapter 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Project Brief 1-1

1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 1-1

1.3 Project Background 1-3

1.4 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Terminology 1-3

1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 1-4 Chapter 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1

2.1 Project Location 2-1

2.2 Project Details 2-1

2.3 Permits and Approvals 2-5
Chapter 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION FORM 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics 3-1

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3-3

3.3 Air Quality 3-5

3.4 Biological Resources 3-10

3.5 Cultural Resources 3-13

3.6 Energy 3-15

3.7 Geology and Soils 3-17

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-21

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-24
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ii

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-28

3.11 Land Use and Planning 3-32

3.12 Mineral Resources 3-35

3.13 Noise 3-36

3.14 Population and Housing 3-39

3.15 Public Services 3-40

3.16 Recreation 3-43

3.17 Transportation 3-44

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources 3-47

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems 3-49

3.20 Wildfire 3-51

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-53
Chapter 4.0 REFERENCES 4-1

4.1 Document Preparers 4-1

4.2 References Cited 4-1

4.3 Persons Consulted 4-4
Chapter 5.0 NOTES RELATED TO EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5-1

APPENDICES
A. CalEEMod Results
B. Incidental Take Minimization Measures
C. AB 52 Notification Material

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
iii

LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1-10 2-1 Annexation Area Parcels and Acreages 2-1
2-2 Proposed Building Development 2-3
2-3 Required Permits and Approvals for Project 2-5
3-1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Attainment Status 3-6
3-2 SJVAPCD Significance Thresholds and Project Construction Emissions 3-8 3-3 Project GHG Emissions 3-22
3-4 City of Stockton Land Use-Related Noise Standards 3-37 3-5 Groundborne Vibration Thresholds 3-37
3-6 Construction Equipment Noise 3-39

LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Regional Location Map 1-5
1-2 Street Map 1-6
1-3 USGS Map 1-7
1-4 Aerial Photo 1-8
1-5 Assessor Parcel Map 1-9
2-1 Proposed Annexation and Prezoning 2-7
2-2 Site Plan 2-8
2-3 Elevation 2-9
2-4 Elevation 2-10
2-5 Aerial Simulation 2-11

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

AB Assembly Bill
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARB California Air Resources Board
BMP Best Management Practice
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
dB decibel
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Ldn Day-Night Average Level
LOS Level of Service
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOx nitrogen oxides
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter ROG reactive organic gases
SB Senate Bill
SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan
SJRTD San Joaquin Regional Transit District
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
UAIC United Auburn Indian Community
VMT vehicle miles traveled
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
v
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. General Project Information
Project Title: Whistler Way Annexation
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Stockton
Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Contact Person and Phone Number: Matt Diaz, Planning Manager 209-937-8598

Project Location: Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road, Stockton
Project Sponsor Name and Address: Strategic Land Planning 18040 Foreman Court
Linden, CA 95236
Attn: David Stagnaro
General Plan Designation: Agricultural-Urban Reserve (County), Commercial (City of Stockton)
Zoning: C-C - Community Commercial (County)
Project Description: The project proposes the annexation of six parcels totaling 8.76 acres to the City of Stockton,
including adjacent road right-of-way. The
annexation area would be pre-zoned CG
(Commercial General). Upon annexation, the
project proposes to develop 7.26 acres for a self-
storage facility totaling 100,850 square feet in
floor area. The facility would consist of ten
buildings with a total of 570 storage units of
various sizes, plus a combined office/onsite
manager residence building. An enlarged entrance
to the facility would be constructed off Grider
Way. Perimeter walls and landscaping would be
installed.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is within a mostly developed area of north Stockton. Residential subdivisions are ato
the north and west. Also west of the site is
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
vi
Podesta Ranch Elementary School. A small
commercial center fronting on Lower Sacramento
Road is to the east, and beyond Lower
Sacramento Road is agricultural land.

Commercial and vacant properties are to the
south, with two commercial buildings adjacent to
the project site.

Other Public Agencies Whose
Approval is Required: San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (annexation), State Water Resources
Control Board (Construction General Permit)
Have California Native American
tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1? If so, has consultation
begun?
Notifications have been sent on behalf of the City
to the list of potentially interested tribes shown in
Appendix C together with information generated
during a prior tribal consultation by San Joaquin
County in conjunction with a prior version of the
project. No requests for consultation have been
received as of the date of publication of this
document.

B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be significantly affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” prior to mitigation.

Mitigation measures that would avoid potential effects or reduce them to a level that would be less than significant have been prescribed for each of these effects, as described in the checklist and narrative on the following pages, and in the Summary Table at the end of Chapter 1.0.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-1 November 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Brief
This document is an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Whistler Way Annexation (project). The project site is located at the intersection of Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road in unincorporated San Joaquin County, adjacent to the City of Stockton (Figures 1-1 through 1-5). Strategic Land Planning is the applicant for the purposes of City of Stockton (City) action on the project. On City approval, the City will be the project proponent for the purposes of Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) action on the proposed annexation . The IS/MND has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For the purposes of this CEQA analysis, the City is the Lead Agency for the project.

The project proposes the annexation of six parcels totaling 8.76 acres to the City of Stockton, including two developed parcels, along with adjacent road right-of-way. The annexation area would be pre-zoned to the City of Stockton CG (Commercial General) zoning district. Upon annexation, the project proposes to develop 7.26 acres that are currently vacant for a self-storage facility totaling 100,850 square feet in floor area. The facility would consist of ten buildings with a total of 570 storage units of various sizes, plus a combined office/onsite manager residence building. An enlarged entrance to the facility would be constructed off Grider Way. Perimeter walls and landscaping would be installed. Annexation of the project site would require approval by the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Pre-zoning would require approval by the City, as well as an Administrative Use Permit and site plan and design review approval for the proposed development.

On occasion, the term “annexation area” will be used in this document, which means the area proposed to be annexed by the City. The annexation area includes both the proposed “development area” and portions of the adjacent rights-of-way of Whistler/Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road; these right-of-way areas are not proposed for development.

For the sake of convenience, when environmental impacts are analyzed, the term “project site” will be used, which will be understood to cover the entire annexation area.

1.2 Purpose of Initial Study
CEQA requires that public agencies document and consider the potential environmental effects of the agency’s actions that meet CEQA’s definition of a project. Briefly summarized, a “project” is an action that may cause direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. A project includes the agency’s direct activities a nd activities that involve public agency approvals or funding. The State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3) provides guidance for an agency’s implementation of CEQA.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-2 November 2021
Provided that a project is not exempt from CEQA, the first step in the agency’s consideration of its potential environmental effects is the preparation of an Initial Study.

The purpose of an Initial Study is to determine whether the project would involve “significant” environmental effects, as defined by CEQA, and to describe feasible mitigation measures that would avoid identified significant effects or reduce them to a level that is less than significant. If the Initial Study does not identify significant effects, then the agency ordinarily prepares a Negative Declaration. If the Initi al Study concludes that significant effects would occur but also identifies mitigation measures that would reduce these significant effects to a level that is less than significant, then the agency may prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If a project would involve significant effects that cannot be feasibly mitigated, then the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The agency may also decide to proceed directly with the preparation of an EIR without first preparing an Initial Study.

The proposed project is a “project” as defined by CEQA and is not exempt from CEQA consideration. The City has determined that the project may have potentially significant environmental effects and therefore require s preparation of an Initial Study. This Initial Study describes the proposed project and its environmental setting, discusses the potential environmental effects of the project, and identifies feasible mitigation measures that would eliminate any potentially significant environmental effec ts of the project or reduce them to a level that would be less than significant. The Initial Study considers the project’s potential for significant environmental effects in the following subject areas:
• Aesthetics
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation/Traffic
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• Mandatory Findings of
Significance (including
Cumulative Impacts)
This Initial Study concludes that the project would have potentially significant environmental impacts, but all these impacts would be avoided or reduced to a level that would be less than significant with identified mitigation measures. The project proponent has accepted the obligation to implement all the mitigation measures ; implementation by the developer will be required as a project condition of approval. As a result, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and has issued a Notice of Intent to adopt the IS/MND for the project. The Notice of Intent, inside the cover of this document, shows the time available for public comment on the IS/MND.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-3 November 2021

1.3 Project Background
As noted, two of the parcels proposed for annexation have been developed, each with a commercial building. A site plan for development of four of the parcels within the current project site was submitted to San Joaquin County (County) in 2020. The site plan proposed the development of a storage facility similar to the application for City approval described in this document; under the County application only eight storage buildings would be built. The County approved the site plan with conditions on April 21, 2021. At the time of County approval, the project site was expected to remain in the County but would connect to the water , wastewater, and storm drainage systems of the City of Stockton. Connection to City utilities would, however, have required an Out-of-Area Agreement with the City. The LAFCo has expressed its concerns about the use of Out-of- Area Agreements for projects in the unincorporated area, indicating a preference that such projects be annexed to the City. As a result, the project applicant has applied to the City requesting annexation of the project site, along with a pre-zoning request and request for necessary City approvals of the proposed site development; these requests are the subject of this IS/MND.

1.4 Environmental Evaluation Checklist Terminology
The project’s potential environmental effects are evaluated in the Environmental Evaluation Checklist presented in Chapter 3.0 of this IS/MND. The checklist includes a list of environmental considerations against which the project is evaluated. For each question, the City determines whether the project would involve 1) a Potentially Significant Impact, 2) a Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated, 3) a Less Than Significant Impact, or 4) No Impact.
• A Potentially Significant Impact occurs when there is substantial evidence that the project would involve a substantial adverse change to the physical environment, i.e., the environmental effect may be significant, and feasible mitigation measures have not been defined that would reduce the impact to a level that would be less than significant. If there is a Potentially Significant Impact entry in the Initial Study, then an EIR is required. No Potentially Significant Impacts have been identified in this IS/MND.

• An environmental effect that is Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated is a Potentially Significant Impact that can be avoided or reduced to a level that is less than significant with the application of defined mitigation measures. This IS/MND identifies a few impacts that are Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

• A Less Than Significant Impact occurs when the project would involve an environmental impact, but the impact would not cause a substantial adverse change to the physical environment such that mitigation would be required.

• A determination of No Impact is self-explanatory.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-4 November 2021

This IS/MND identifies certain potentially significant environmental effects that would be mitigated by implementation of existing provisions of law and standards of practice related to land use planning and environmental protection. Where appropriate, such provisions are identified and considered in the environmental impact analysis, and the degree to which they would reduce potential environmental effects is discussed. These protections are considered part of the existing regulatory environment and are as sumed to avoid or minimize the potential environmental effects of the project. Additional mitigation measures are identified in this IS/MND , as necessary, when existing provisions of law and standards of practice are not adequate to avoid potentially significant environmental effects or to reduce them to a level that is less than significant.

1.5 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures Table 1-1, which follows Figures 1-1 through 1-5, summarizes the results of the Environmental Evaluation Checklist and associated narrative discussion in Chapter 3.0 of this IS/MND. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project are listed in the left-most column of this table. The level of significance of each impact is indicated in the second column. Feasible mitigation measures that avoid or minimize the impacts , if necessary, are shown in the third column, and the significance of the impact after the mitigation measures are applied is shown in the fourth column.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ampB Case
Figure 1-1
REGIONAL LOCATION MAPBaseCamp Environmental
San Diego Imperial
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
Los AngelesVentura
Santa Barbara
KernSan Luis
Obispo
Inyo
Tulare
KingsMonterey
FresnoSan
Benito
Mono
Madera
Mariposa
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Amador
El Dorado
Sacra-
mento
Alpine
Santa
Clara
San
Joaquin
Contra
Costa
Merced
Marin
Napa
Yolo
Solano
Sutter
PlacerLake Colusa
Yuba
Sonoma
StanislausAlameda
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
San Francisco
w w w .c s a c .c ounti e s .o r g

PROJECT SITE
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ampB Case
Figure 1-2
STREET MAPBaseCamp Environmental

PROJECT SITE
SOURCE: Google Maps
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ampB Case
Figure 1-3
USGS MAPBaseCamp Environmental
SOURCE: USGS Quadangle Map, Lodi South 1968. T 2N, R 6E, S4

PROJECT SITE
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ampB Case
Figure 1-4
Aerial PhotoBaseCamp Environmental

PROJECT SITE
SOURCE: Google Earth
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Figure 1-5
ASSESSOR PARCEL MAPBaseCamp Environmental

PROJECT SITE
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-10 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.1 AESTHETICS
a) Scenic Vistas NI None required -
b) Scenic Resources and Highways NI None required -
c) Visual Character and Quality LS None required -
d) Light and Glare LS None required -

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a) Agricultural Land Conversion NI None required -
b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson
Act Contract
LS None required -
c, d) Forest Lands NI None required -
e) Indirect Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land NI None required -

3.3 AIR QUALITY
a) Air Quality Plan Consistency LS None required -
b) Cumulative Emissions LS None required -
d) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors LS None required - e) Odors and Other Emissions LS None required -

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Special-Status Species LS None required -
b) Riparian and Sensitive Habitats, NI None required - Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-11 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
c) State and Federally Protected Wetlands NI None required - d) Fish and Wildlife Movement LS None required -
e) Local Biological Resource Requirements NI None required - f) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans NI None required -

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Historical Resources LS None required -
b) Archaeological Resources PS CULT-1: If any subsurface archaeological resources are encountered during construction, all construction
activities within a 50-foot radius of the encounter shall be immediately halted until a qualified archaeologist can examine these materials, initially evaluate their
significance and, if potentially significant, recommend measures on the disposition of the resource. The City shall be immediately notified in the event of a discovery. The contractor shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing recommended mitigation
measures, and documenting mitigation efforts in written reports to the City.

Recommended measures could include,
but are not li mited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified
professionals.

LS
c) Human Burials LS None required -

3.6 ENERGY
a) Project Energy Consumption LS None required -
b) Consistency with Energy Plans LS None required

-
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-12 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a-i) Fault Rupture Hazards NI None required -
a-ii) Seismic Ground Shaking LS None required -
a-iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure LS None required - a-iv) Landslides NI None required -
b) Soil Erosion LS None required -
c) Geologic Instability NI None required -
d) Expansive Soils LS None required -
e) Adequacy of Soils for Sewage Disposal NI None required - f) Paleontological Resources PS GEO-1: If buried paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground -disturbing
activities, work shall stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can examine these materials, initially evaluate their significance and, if potentially significant, recommend measures on the disposition of the resource. The City shall be immediately notified in the event of a discovery. Prior to construction, construction personnel shall receive brief “tailgate” training by a qualified archaeologist in the identification of
paleontological resources and protocol for notification should such resources be discovered during construction work.

LS

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a, b) Project GHG Emissions and Consistency with
GHG Reduction Plans
LS None required -
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-13 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a) Hazardous Material Transport ation, Use, and
Storage
LS None required -
b) Upset and Accident Conditions LS None required -
c) Release of Hazardous Materials near Schools LS None required - d) Hazardous Material Sites PS HAZ-1: Prior to final site plan approval, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental
professional to conduct soil testing to determine the potential presence of soil contamination on the project site.

If testing reveals hazardous levels of agricultural chemical residues, the environmental professional make
recommendations for remediation needed to reduce
contamination to acceptable levels for the proposed land use. Recommendations shall be implemented by the
applicant.

LS
e) Public Airports NI None required -
f) Emergency Response and Evacuations PS HAZ-2: Prior to the start of project construction, the applicant’s contractor shall prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan, which shall include such items as traffic control requirements, resident notification of access closure, and daily access restoration. The contractor shall specify dates and times of road closures or restrictions, if any, and shall ensure that adequate access will be provided for emergency vehicles. The Traffic Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works and shall be coordinated with the Stockton Fire and Police Departments if construction will require road closures or lane restrictions.

LS
g) Wildland Fire Hazards NI None required -
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-14 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Water Quality LS None required -
b) Groundwater Supplies and Recharge LS None required - c-i, ii) Drainage Patterns LS None required -
c-iii) Runoff LS None required -
c-iv) Flooding Hazards NI None required -
d) Release of Pollutants in Flood, Tsunami, or Seiche
Zones
NI None required -
e) Conflicts with Water Quality or Groundwater
Management Plans
LS None required -

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Division of Established Community NI None required - b) Conflict s with Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations
LS None required -

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
a, b) Availability of Mineral Resources NI None required -

3.13 NOISE
a) Generation of Noise Exceeding Local Standards PS NOISE-1: The following measures shall be implemented to minimize noise impacts at sensitive receptors (i.e., residences and schools) during construction:
• Construction activities shall be limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on all working days.

LS
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-15 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
Construction work shall not occur on Sundays and federal holidays.
• Use newer equipment with improved muffling and
ensure that all equipment items have the
manufacturers’ recommended noise abateme nt
measures, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. All construction equipment shall be inspected at periodic
intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence
of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding, etc.).
• Turn off idling equipment when not in use for more than five (5) minutes.
b) Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations LS None required - c) Public Airport and Private Airstrip Noise NI None required -

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Unplanned Population Growth NI None required -
b) Displacement of Housing or People NI None required -

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
a-i) Fire Protection LS None required -
a-ii) Police Protection LS None required -
a-iii) Schools NI None required -
a-iv) Parks NI None required -
a-v) Other Public Facilities NI None required -
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-16 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures

3.16 RECREATION
a, b) Recreational Facilities NI None required -

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
a) Conflicts with Transportation Programs/Plans LS None required - b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b)
NI None required -
c) Traffic Hazards NI None required -
d) Emergency Access NI None required -

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a, b) Tribal Cultural Resources PS TCR-1: A minimum of seven days prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the contractor shall notify the City’s Community Development Department of the start date and invite a UAIC tribal representative or tribal monitor to inspect the project site within the first five days of ground disturbance activity. During this inspection, the UAIC tribal representative or tribal monitor shall provide an onsite meeting for construction personnel information on tribal cultural resources and a workers ’ awareness brochure. The meeting shall include relevant information on sensitive tribal cultural resources, applicable regulations and protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. It shall describe appropriate avoidance and minimiza tion measures for resources and shall outline what to do and whom to contact if any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered.

The meeting shall underscore the requirement for
confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any find with cultural significance to Native American tribal values.

LS
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-17 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
TCR-2: If any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 100 feet of the encounter shall be suspended, and the UAIC, the City, and the onsite project manager shall be immediately notified. If human remains are
encountered, the County Coroner shall also be notified in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). The tribal monitor and/or a qualified
archaeologist shall examine the find and determine the disposition of the resource. Preservation in place is the preferred alternative, although other options may be pursued in coordination with the tribal monitor. The location and nature of the encountered resource shall be strictly confidential, and under no circumstances shall the contractor or any employee collect the encountered material.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Relocation or Construction of Utility Facilities LS None required - b) Water Supplies NI None required -
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity NI None required -
d, e) Solid Waste Services NI None required -

3.20 WILDFIRE
a) Emergency Response Plans and Emergency
Evacuation Plans
PS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. LS
b) Exposure of Project Occupants to Wildfire
Hazards
NI None required -
c) Installation and Maintenance of Infrastructure NI None required - Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 1-18 November 2021
Potential Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation
Measures Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Mitigation
Measures
d) Risks from Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or
Drainage Changes
NI None required -

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Findings on Biological and Cultural Resources PS Mitigation measures in Sections 3.5 and 3.18 above. LS b) Findings on Cumulatively Considerable Impacts LS None required - c) Findings on Adverse Effects on Human Beings LS None required -

Notes: NI = No Impact; LS = Less Than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 2-1 November 2021

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Location
The project site is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road in unincorporated San Joaquin County, adjacent to northern Stockton (see Figures 1-1 through 1-5). The project site is shown on the U.S. Geological Survey’s Lodi South 7.5-minute quadrangle map within Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 6 East, Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The latitude of the project site is approximately 38° 02ʹ 45ʺ North, and the longitude is approximately 121° 19ʹ 16ʺ West.

2.2 Project Details
Reorganization and Pre-zoning
The project proposes a reorganization that would involve the annexation of six parcels, currently under County jurisdiction, into the City of Stockton (Figure 2-1) Table 2-1 shows the parcels proposed for annexation, each identified by its Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN), its address, and its acreage. APNs 070-140-11 and 070-140-34 have been developed; the other parcels are vacant.

TABLE 2-1

ANNEXATION AREA PARCELS AND ACREAGES
APN Address Acres
070-140-10 9993 Lower Sacramento Road 4.00
070-140-11 611 W. Grider Way 0.63
070-140-34 681 W. Grider Way 0.87
070-140-35 692 W. Grider Way (partial) 2.00
070-560-47 10091 Lower Sacramento Road 1.01
070-570-13 No address assigned 0.25
TOTAL ACRES 8.76

The project also proposes to annex the rights -of-way of the segments of Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road that are along the annexation area frontage. Existing Grider Way is already connected to existing Whistler Way; these street names would need to be Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 2-2 November 2021
consolidated in the future. It is expected that LAFCo would require the annexation area to be detached from the Lincoln Rural County Fire Protection District, which currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. Fire protection services after annexation would be provided by the Stockton Fire Department (see Section 3.15, Public Services).

After approving the pre-zoning, the City would submit an annexation application to the San Joaquin LAFCo, which would then be responsible for approval of the annexation and detachment. LAFCo’s policies with respect to proposed reorganizations are specified in its Change of Organization Policies and Procedures, adopted in 2007 and subsequently amended. Key considerations of LAFCo in considering approval of an annexation include if the annexation would constitute a logical expansion of a city boundary and if the annexation area would be provided with public utilities and services in an efficient manner. Additional information on LAFCo requirements and findings are provided in Section 3.11, Land Use. The project site is within the City of Stockton’s Sphere of Influence and its 10-Year Planning Horizon Area as defined in the City’s adopted Municipal Service Review.

The parcels in the proposed annexation area are currently zoned by the County as C-C - Community Commercial. The project proposes that the City Council pre-zone the entire project site CG (Commercial General). The proposed pre-zoning would be consistent with both the proposed development and the current Commercial designation of the parcels under the Stockton General Plan 2040. Pre-zoning would require a recommendation for approval from the Stockton Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council. The pre-zoning would take effect upon recordation of the proposed annexation.

Project Development
The project proposes development of a self -storage facility on the following four parcels:

APNs 070-140-10, 070-140-35, 070-560-47, and 070-570-13. All four of these parcels are currently vacant. The total acreage of these parcels is 7.26 acres. APN 070 -140-11 has existing development and would not be affected by the proposed development described here. APN 070-140-34 also has existing development and would not be affected by the proposed development, except for one feature described later.

Figure 2-2 shows the proposed site plan. The proposed development consists of ten buildings that would accommodate storage u nits, plus one building that would house an office and an onsite manager residence. Figures 2-3A and 2-3B show the building elevations. Table 2-2 summarizes the proposed building development. A more detailed description of the development follows.

Storage Unit Buildings
The project proposes to construct ten buildings that would accommodate storage units.

As indicated in Table 2-2, the storage units would range in size from 5 feet x 5 feet (25 square feet) to 10 feet x 30 feet (300 square feet) , and the buildings would accommodate between 21 and 115 units. The buildings would be one story, with a maximum height of 11 feet, 6 inches. The buildings would be constructed of metal, with stucco coating and Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 2-3 November 2021
foam trim. Access to all storage units would be from the outside, except for some units in Building G that would be accessible from the inside through a corridor. Access to this corridor would be controlled by a gate. The anticipated days and hours of operation would be Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

TABLE 2-2

PROPOSED BUILDING DEVELOPMENT
Building
Floor Area
(sq. ft.)
Unit Sizes (ft. x ft.)
Total
Units
5 x 5 5 x 10 10 x
10 10 x
15 10 x
20 10 x
25 10 x
30 A 5,600 1 1 2 1 17 22
B 6,825 4 1 4 24 33
C 18,925 1 6 55 53 115
D 13,850 3 4 89 96
E 10,800 1 2 35 2 34 74
F 7,800 3 26 2 24 55
G 7,425 6 2 20 12 17 57
H 14,900 5 1 2 48 56
I 5,500 1 1 20 8 11 41
J 6,100 1 3 1 16 21
G Corridor 725
Office/
Residence
2,400
TOTAL 100,850 26 16 108 174 141 24 81 570

Office/Residential Unit
The project proposes construction of a two-story office building to be located adjacent to the facility entrance. The total floor area of the building would be 2,400 square feet. The lower story would accommodate the facility office, while the upper story would have a residential unit for an onsite manager. The office building would be a concrete tilt -up structure with a maximum height of 27 feet, 8 inches, and it would include foam trim.

The exterior of the building would accommodate signage at the top.

Other Features
The facility would be accessed from a driveway off Grider Way. The driveway would be constructed in accordance with City standards. A rolling gate, approximately 30 feet in length, would control access to and from the facility. An exit keypad would be mounted Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 2-4 November 2021
on a concrete pole near the gate. Another gated access point would be from 681 Grider Way (APN 070-140-34). This access would be for emergency vehicles only.

Five parking spaces would be provided for visitors and delivery vehicles in front of the office building, outside the gate. Two bicycle racks would be provid ed near the office building, outside the gate. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements would be installed along the Grider Way frontage of the project site, in accordance with City standards.

Along the northern boundary, a concrete masonry wall approximately 8 feet in height would be installed to provide a visual screen between the storage facility and the residential area to the north. A solid wall would also be installed along the other boundaries of the project site. Landscaping would be installed along the Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road frontages to the facility.

The facility would connect to existing water and wastewater lines beneath Grider Way that are part of the respective utility systems of the City of Stockton. Connections to these systems would be per applicable City standards. Electrical and natural gas services would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

Street Frontage Improvements
Project development will also require the improvement of the project site fron tage on Grider Way; these improvements will include additional pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk in accordance with City street improvement standards. The exact location and type of improvements will be established in detailed improvements to be submitte d to the City of Stockton for approval. However, as discussed with staff, these improvements are expected to provide a two-lane street divided by a two-way left turn lane, similar to the Whistler Way street section west of Windmill Park Drive. This design would need to be reviewed by City staff prior to construction
The planned improvements will require the dedication of right -of-way by the applicant along the project site frontage on Grider Way and acquisition of right-of-way along the frontage of existing commercial properties; this will also be the responsibility of the project applicant. The City and applicant’s engineer will work closely to ensure that necessary improvements will be designed to minimize the need for new right -of-way and impacts on adjoining properties.

Project Construction
Project construction would generally be accomplished using conventional equipment.

Proposed development would involve grading, excavation and compaction as required to establish desired subgrades and accommodate the proposed new buildings , access ways and site improvements. Building foundations, fence post footings, and underground utility line conduits would be excavated where needed. Aggregate base and pavement would be imported, placed on the site and compacted. Construction of buildings, site improvements, and landscaping would proceed as sequenced by the contractor, in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 2-5 November 2021

2.3 Permits and Approvals
The project would require discretionary approvals from the City of Stockton, including pre-zoning, site plan review , design review, and an Administrative Use Permit for the proposed self-storage facility. While the self-storage is an allowed use in the proposed CG zone, an Administrative Use Permit for this use is required by Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.20.020. The City would be responsible for preparing and submitting the annexation application to LAFCo with a recommendation from the Development Review Committee, convened by the Community Development Department and chaired by the City Manager’s office.

The annexation and detachment of the project site would require approval by the San Joaquin LAFCo. As part of the annexation application, LAFCo typically requi res preparation of a City Services Plan that describes how various urban utilities and services will be provided to the proposed development. The City Services Plan also demonstrates the financial feasibility of providing city services to a proposed annexa tion area. LAFCo typically requires written statements regarding agricultural land conversion and adequacy of water supplies. The City Services Plan and required statements would be provided to LAFCo in a separate document.

Table 2-3 provides a summary of permits and approvals that would be required for the project from the City, LAFCo, and other agencies.

TABLE 2-3

REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR PROJECT
Agency Permit/Approval
City of Stockton, City Council Adoption of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, CEQA findings and mitigation
monitoring program
Approval of application for annexation, including
pre-zoning of project site
City of Stockton, Planning
Commission*
Recommendations to the City Council on pre-zoning
and other land use and development actions
Administrative Use Permit approval for future
development
City of Stockton, Community
Development Department

Site Plan and Design Review approvals
City of Stockton, Public Works
Department
Approval of site improvement plans
Approval of storm drainage facilities
Encroachment permits for work in streets
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 2-6 November 2021
Agency Permit/Approval
City of Stockton, Municipal Utilities
Department
Compliance with City of Stockton construction and
post-construction storm water quality requirements
Connections to City’s water, sewer, and storm
drainage systems
City of Stockton, Development Review
Committee
Recommendation on annexation application
San Joaquin Local Agency Formation
Commission
Approval of annexation application
Approval of City Services Plan
Approval of Agricultural Land Conversion
Statement
State Water Resources Control Board Compliance with Construction General Permit requirements through City MS4 permit
requirements.
* Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Figure 2-1
PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA & PREZONINGBaseCamp Environmental SOURCE: Project Applications WHISTLER WAY070-140-11
070-140-34
070-570-35
070-570-35
070-570-13

LOWER SACRAMENTO ROAD
070-140-10
070-560-47

PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA

PROPOSED PREZONING AREA
(CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL)
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Figure 2-2
SITE PLANBaseCamp Environmental
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Figure 2-3
ELEV ATIONBaseCamp Environmental
SOURCE: DOMUM
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Figure 2-4
ELEV ATIONBaseCamp Environmental
SOURCE: DOMUM
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Figure 2-5
AERIAL SIMULATIONBaseCamp Environmental
SOURCE: DOMUM
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-1 November 2021

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

3.1 AESTHETICS

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant land consisting of bare surface soils interspersed with scrub brush.

The southern portion of the project site has two existing commercial buildings. The project site is bounded to the east by Lower Sacramento Road, a two-lane road. Lighting at the project site is limited to street lighting along Lower Sacramento Road and security lighting at existing on-site buildings and adjacent land uses. The surrounding area contains a mix of residential and commercial development and vacant land, along with Podesta Ranch Elementary School to the west. An existing residential area is along the northern boundary of the site. The site is planned for urban commercial development in the Stockton Ge neral Plan.

The Stockton Design Guidelines, adopted in 2004, serve as a reference point for the City’s expectations for quality development and provide guidance for the designated review authority during the design review process. Chapter 4 of the Design Guidelines sets forth standards for commercial development, while Section 4.02 provides guidelines specifically for storage facilities, among other commercial uses. The general design objectives for storage Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-2 November 2021
facilities are quality development, compatibility with surrounding uses, architectural character, and landscape emphasis (City of Stockton 2004).

California Public Resources Code Section 21099 states that the aesthetic and parking impacts of residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center projects on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant. The project is not a residential, mixed- use residential, or employment center project . Therefore, it does not meet the criteria of Section 21099, and aesthetic impacts must be analyzed.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Scenic Vistas.

Scenic vistas have been defined as vantage points with a broad and expansive view of a significant landscape feature, such as a mountain range or coastline. The Stockton General Plan 2040 EIR notes that the adopted General Plan does not designate scenic vistas.

However, distant views of the Sierra Nevada mountain range are available in parts of the Stockton area that are not limited by the built environment. The existing built environment in the project vicinity severely limits distant views ; the project would not detract from or improve existing distant views. The project would have no impact on scenic vistas. b) Scenic Resources and Highways.

The Stockton General Plan identifies open space, agricultural fields, and riparian areas, particularly along the San Joaquin River and the Calaveras River, as significant visual features (City of Stockton 2018a). No such visual features are in the area other than agricultural fields to the east of Lower Sacramento Road. However, these fields are not visible from the project site.

The project site itself contains no scenic resources of notable value. The project site consists of bare soil interspersed with scrub brush. No mature trees or other substantial vegetation of scenic value were observed on the project site.

According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) list of designated scenic highways under the California Scenic Highway Program, there are only two officially designated state scenic highways within San Joaquin County: Interstate 5 from the Stanislaus County Line to Interstate 580, and Interstate 580 from I nterstate 5 to the Alameda County Line (Caltrans 2017). The project site is not on either of these State Scenic Highways. The Stockton General Plan has not designated any local scenic roadways. The project would have no impact on scenic resources.
c) Visual Character and Quality.

The project site is in an area that is becoming predominantly urban. The project would be consistent with the existing developed landscape. As noted, the project site contains no scenic resources of notable value. The project may improve the visual character of the project site; the project will be required to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the City’s Design Guidelines, especially the provisions addressing storage facilities . In addition, Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 16.56 sets forth landscaping standards for all projects that Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-3 November 2021
require approval by the City. In accordance with Section 16.56.030, the project would submit a landscape plan that would be reviewed and approved for consistency with the City’s landscape standards. As a result, adverse project impacts on visual character and quality would be less than significant.
d) Light and Glare.

The project would include exterior lighting of buildings, accessways and loading areas to permit after-dark use. Proposed lighting would be required to comply with outdoor lighting standards set forth in Stockton Municipal Code Sections 16.32.070 and 16.36.060(B).

Section 16.32.070 states that exterior lights shall be located so as to eliminate spillover illumination or glare onto adjoining properties and to prohibit any interference with the normal operation or enjoyment of adjacent property. They also shall be made up of a light source, reflector, and shielding devices so that, acting together, the light beam is controlled and not directed across a property line or upward into the sky; bare bulbs are not allowed.

Section 16.36.060(B) requires exterior lighting to be energy-efficient, stationary, shielded, and directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way.

The project applicant has prepared a photometric plan that indicates the levels of illumination on the project site and along its boundaries, based on the anticipated lighting to be used by the project. Illumination levels are measured in foot-candles. Projected illumination levels, as shown on the photometric plan, were uniformly less than 1.0 foot-candle at or near the north project boundary, which would not result in a significant light or glare effect on the adjoining residences, even if the site were not shielded by masonry wal l. At one location, projected illumination would reach 1.6 and 3.6 foot-candles at the northern edge of the project site. However, the adjoining residential uses at this point and along the remainder of the wall, would be shielded from potential light and glare effects by the required 8 -foot masonry wall, as illustrated in Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.32.070. This, along with compliance with these provisions of the Municipal Code would minimize the amount of indirect illumination that may occur, thereby reducing lighting impacts on nearby residences to a level that would be less than significant.

Glare is produced mainly by materials that reflect sunlight. Project structures would be painted with darker colors or coated with stucco, which would minimize the production of glare. Project impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-4 November 2021
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site is not used for agricultural production. Lands adjacent to the project site and west of Lower Sacramento Road are vacant or in urban uses and are not used for agriculture; lands east of the project site across Lower Sacramento Road are in use for orchards and row crops.

The Important Farmland Maps, prepared by the California Department of Conservation as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, designate the viability of lands for farmland use, based on the physical and chemical properties of the soils. The maps categorize farmland, in decreasing order of soil quality, as "Prime Farmland," "Farmland of Statewide Importance," "Unique Farmland," and "Farmland of Local Importance." The first three categories are defined as “Farmland” by CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The 2018 Important Farmland Map of San Joaquin County designates the project site as Farmland of Local Importance (FMMP 2018), which is not a category considered “Farmland” for the purposes of CEQA.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Agricultural Land Conversion.

As noted, the project site is classified as Farmland of Local Importance, which does not meet the definition of Farmland in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The project would not convert Farmland and would therefore have no impact on this issue. b) Conflict with Agricultural Zoning or Williamson Act Contract.

The majority of the project site, with the exception of its westernmost tip, is currently zoned by the County for Community Commercial use.APN 070-570-13 and a portion of APN 070- 140-35 is zoned by the County as AU-20, Agriculture-Urban Reserve indicating that the area is planned for future urban development, not for ongoing agricultural use.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-5 November 2021
The Stockton General Plan 2040 has designates the project site Commercial, indicating that the project site is intended for urban development. The project would have no impact on agricultural zoning.

The Williamson Act preserves agricultural land by means of a contract between the landowner and local government that keeps the contracted land in agricultural use in exchange for a lower property tax assessment. None of the parcels within the project site are under a Williamson Act contract. Project impacts on agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts would be less than significant.
c, d) Forest Lands.

The project site is in a mostly developed area; there are no forest lands on the project site or in the vicinity. No land in the project vicinity is zoned as forest land or timberland. The project would have no impact on forest lands.
e) Indirect Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land.

The project site is mostly surrounded by urban development fully served by existing street and utility infrastructure. There is agricultural land to the east, but the project would not involve the extension of infrastructure that may lead to increased pressure to convert these lands. The project would have no impact on indirect conversion of agricultural lands. As noted in c, d) above, there are no forest lands in the vicinity, so the project would have no impact on indirect conversion of forest land.

3.3 AIR QUALITY

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan?

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-6 November 2021
NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which includes San Joaquin County, has jurisdiction over most air quality matters in the Air Basin; vehicle emissions are the responsibility of the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The SJVAPCD is tasked with developing and implementing plans, programs and regulations that would enable the Air Basin to attain ambient air quality standards set under both the federal and California Clean Air Acts. Under their respective Clean Air Acts, both the State of California and the federal government have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria air pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. California has four additional criteria pollutants under its Clean Air Act ; none of these pollutants would be generated in the project area.

Table 3-1 shows the current attainment status of the Air Basin relative to the federal and State ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Except for ozone and particulate matter, the Air Basin is in attainment of, or unclassified for, all federal and State ambient air quality standards.

TABLE 3-1

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant
Designation/Classification
Federal Primary Standards State Standards
Ozone - One hour No Federal Standard Nonattainment/Severe Ozone - Eight hour Nonattainment/Extreme Nonattainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment/Unclassified Attainment
Lead (Particulate) No Designation/Classification Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment
Source: SJVAPCD 2020.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-7 November 2021
Ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. The SJVAPCD currently has a 2007 Ozone Plan and a 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1 -Hour Ozone Standard for the Air Basin to attain federal ambient air quality standards for ozone.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid and liquid particles suspended in air, including dust, pollen, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. In San Joaquin County, particulate matter is generated by a mix of rural and urban sources, including agricultural operations, industrial emissions, dust suspended by vehicle traffic, and secondary aerosols formed by reactions in the atmosphere. Two types of particulate matter are of concern: particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM 10), and particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). The SJVAPCD currently has a 2015 PM2.5 Plan for the 1997 federal PM2.5 standard, a 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 federal PM2.5 standard, a 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 federal PM2.5 standard, and a 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan to maintain the Air Basin’s attainment status of the federal PM10 standard.

CO is an odorless, colorless gas that is toxic in high concentrations. It is formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels and is emitted directly into the air, un like ozone. The main source of CO in the San Joaquin Valley is on-road motor vehicles (SJVAPCD 2015). The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is in attainment/unclassified status for carbon monoxide (CO); as such, the SJVAPCD has no CO attainment plans. However, high CO concentrations may occur in areas of limited geographic size referred to as “hotspots,” which are ordinarily associated with heavy traffic volumes and congestion.

In addition to the criteria pollutants, the California Air Resources Board has identified other air pollutants as toxic air contaminants (TACs) - pollutants that are carcinogenic (i.e., cause cancer) or that may cause other adverse short -term or long-term health effects. Diesel particulate matter, considered a carcinogen, is the most comm on TAC, as it is a product of combustion in diesel engines. It is present at some concentration in all developed areas of the state. Other TACs are less common and are typically associated with industrial operations.

As noted, the SJVAPCD is tasked with implementing regulations designed to attain ambient air quality standards. SJVAPCD regulations that are potentially applicable to the project are summarized below.

Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust PM10 Prohibitions)
Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM 10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and track out, landfill operations, etc.

Rule 4101 (Visible Emissions)
This rule prohibits emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-8 November 2021
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
In 2015, the SJVAPCD adopted a revised Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. The Guide defines an analysis methodology, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for the assessment of air quality impacts for projects within SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction (SJVAPCD 2015). Table 3-2 shows the CEQA thresholds for significance for pollutant emissions within the SJVAPCD. The significance thresholds apply to construction emissions and to operational emissions.

TABLE 3-2

SJVAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

AND PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Pollutant
SJVAPCD Significance
Threshold (tons/year)
Maximum Construction
Emissions (tons/year)
Operational Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 100 0.25 0.47
NOx 10 1.37 0.11
CO 10 1.34 0.52
SOx 27 <0.01 <0.01
PM10 15 0.11 0.11
PM2.5 15 0.07 0.03
Sources: CalEEMod 2020.4.0, SJVAPCD 2015.

a) Air Quality Plan Consistency.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to estimate both construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project, based mainly on estimated vehicle trips to and from the project site . The CalEEMod results are shown in Appendix A of this document, and Table 3-2 shows the maximum project construction emissions in a calendar year and the annual operational emissions based on the CalEEMod run. As indicated by Table 3-2, neither project construction emissions nor operational emissions exceed the SJVAPCD significance thresholds. As the significance thresholds were established in part to ensure consistency with the objectives of the air quality plans adopted by the SJVAPCD, project emissions would be consistent with these plans.

While project emissions would not be significant, the project would still be required to comply with applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations, which would further reduce potential air quality impacts . As noted, SJVAPCD Regulation VIII contains measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. Dust control provisions are routinely included in site improvement plans and specifications, along with construction contracts.

Implementation of Regulation VIII provisions would further reduce project emission impacts already considered less than significant.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-9 November 2021
b) Cumulative Emissions.

As noted in a) above, project emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds.

Future attainment of federal and State ambient air quality standards is a function of successful implementation of the SJVAPCD’s attainment plans. Consequently, the application of significance thresholds for criteria pollutants is relevant to the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality.

Pursuant to the SJVAPCD’s guidance, if project-specific emissions would be less than the thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, the project would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the SJVAPCD is in nonattainment under applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. As project emissions would not exceed SJVAPCD significance thresholds, the cumulative impacts of these emissions would be less than significant.
c) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors.
“Sensitive receptors” refer to those segments of the population most susceptible to poor air quality (i.e., children, the elderly, and those with pre -existing serious health problems affected by air quality). Land uses where sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time also may be called sensitive receptors; these include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (SJVAPCD 2015). Emissions of pollutants, including TACs, in sufficient concentrations could have adverse health impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

Residences are located along the northern boundary of the project site, and Podesta Ranch Elementary School is near the site to the west. These sensitive receptors would be exposed to emissions from construction activities , mainly dust. However, these emissions would be temporary and would cease once construction work is completed. Also, as described in a) above, the project would be required to incorporate measures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities.

Potential health effects on sensitive receptors occur with long -term exposure to pollutants.

This includes diesel particulate matter, a TAC often associated with construction activities , generated by construction equipment. However, as noted, construction impacts would cease with the completion of project work, and length of exposure time would be short. Impacts of exposure of sensitive receptors to construction emissions would be less than significant.

CO in high concentrations can have adverse health impacts, as previously described. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts indicates that a project would create no violations of the CO standards if neither of the following criteria are met (SJVAPCD 2015):
• 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 will be reduced to LOS E or F; or
• A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity (See Section 3.17, Transportation, for an explanation of LOS).

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-10 November 2021
While no traffic study was conducted for the project, the CalEEMod run estimates that that the project would contribute approximately 102 vehicle trips per day to local intersections and roadways (see Section 3.17, Transportation, for details on the trip estimate). For comparison, the segment of Lower Sacramento Road adjacent to the project had average daily traffic of 16,340 as of 2017 (City of Stockton 2018a). Therefore, project traffic would not contribute substantially to traffic at the Grider Way/Lower Sacramento Road intersection so that LOS would degrade to LOS E or F or worsen operations at any intersection if it currently operating LOS E or F . Therefore, no CO hotspots resulting from the project are expected to occur. Overall, project impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
d) Odors and Other Emissions.

The project is not expected to generate significant odors, other than occasional temporary emissions from construction activities . Such emissions would be localized and would dissipate rapidly outside the project site. As noted above, the nearest sensitive receptors would be adjacent residences, which would be exposed only temporarily to construction emissions. Project impacts related to odors and other emissions are considered less than significant.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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?

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-11 November 2021
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant land consisting of bare soils covered with scrub brush. No trees or other significant vegetation are on the project site. There are no streams or bodies of water on or near the project site. The project site is mostly surrounded by urban development. No wildlife was observed on a field visit to the site by BaseCamp staff.

The City participates in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP). The SJMSCP, managed by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), is a comprehensive program for assessing and mitigating the biological impacts of converting open space o r biologically sensitive lands to urban development in San Joaquin County. It provides three compensation methods: preservation of existing sensitive lands, creation of new comparable habitat on the project site, or payment of fees that would be used to secure preserve lands outside the project site. It also identifies and requires covered projects to abide by Incidental Take Minimization Measures, which are protection measures that avoid direct impacts of development on special -status species (SJCOG 2000). As an alternative, applicants may also provide equivalent mitigation, subject to the review and approval of permitting agencies. The project applicant made application to the SJMSCP in conjunction with project review by San Joaquin County.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Special-Status Species.

Special-status species include plant and/or wildlife species that are legally protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, or other laws and regulations, or are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration. In its review of the project, SJCOG determined that the project could provide habitat for Swainson’s hawk, a species listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, and for western burrowing owl, a State Species of Special Concern. In addition, special-status bird species such as sharp-shinned hawk, yellow warbler, and loggerhead shrike could nest in isolated trees on the project site (SJCOG 2020).

The applicant has paid required SJMSCP habitat fees of $75,363.36, and the SJCOG has issued Incidental Take Minimization Measures for the project that would avoid or minimize impacts on these special-status species. These measures are provided in Appendix B of this Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-12 November 2021
document. The project is required to comply with these measures, which would reduce project impacts on special-status species to a level that would be less than significant. b) Riparian and Sensitive Habitats.

As noted above, there are no streams or surface waters on or near the project site; therefore, there is n o riparian habitat in the vicinity. The project vicinity is adjacent to existing developed areas; no other sensitive habitats were identified in the project vicinity. The project would have no impact on riparian or sensitive habitats. c) State and Federally Protected Wetlands.

Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are broadly defined under 33 Code of Federal Regulations 328 to include navigable waterways, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. “Waters of the State”, subject to oversight by the SWRCB and by the RWQCB with jurisdiction over the affected water, include isolated wetlands not covered by federal regulations. There are no wetlands, streams or other surface waters on or near the project site, which is located in a predominantly developed urban area. The nearest potential wetland areas are along the alignments of Bear Creek, approximately 500 feet to the south, and Pixley Slough, approximately 4,000 feet to the north. The project would have no physical impact on either stream, both of which are contained within levees . The project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands.
d) Fish and Wildlife Movement.

As noted, there are no streams on or near the project site, so the project would not affect fish or other species that may use streams as movement corridors . Given the nearby urban development and lack of natural habitat, it is unlikely that the project site would be used as a wildlife corridor. However, the SJCOG noted that potential nesting habitat is available for common birds that may be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (SJCOG 2020).

Disruption of active nests or nesting behaviors of migratory birds by project construction would be a potentially significant impact.

The SJCOG has issued Incidental Take Minimization Measures for the project that would avoid or minimize impacts on migratory birds (see Appendix B). The project shall comply with these measures, which would reduce project impacts on nesting birds to a level that would be less than significant.
e) Local Biological Resource Requirements.

Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 16.130 addresses Heritage Trees, which are any valley oak, coast live oak, and interior live oak tree with a trunk diameter of 16 inches or more, measured at 24 inches above actual grade. No Heritage Trees have been identified on the project site. The City has no other applicable local biological resource requirements. The project would have no impact on local biological resource requirements.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-13 November 2021
f) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans.

As noted, the City participates in the SJMSCP. The project has been reviewed by SJCOG.

The project applicant has paid the required development fees to SJCOG, and SJCOG has issued Incidental Take Minimization Measures that the project shall implement. No other habitat conservation plans apply to the project site. The project would have no impact related to habitat conservation plans.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
Stockton has more than 1,900 recorded cultural resources, ranging from prehistoric habitation sites to mid-20th century developments (City of Stockton 2018b). The project site is generally considered to be in North ern Valley Yokuts territory. Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, discusses potential project impacts on tribal cultural resources.

Euro-American contact began with infrequent excursions by Spanish explorers traveling through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valleys in the late 1700s to early 1800s. The Spanish, and later Mexican, governments of California tried to enc ourage settlement by awarding large plots of land, called ranchos, to prominent men. The project site was part of one such grant, Charles M. Weber’s El Campo de los Franceses. Weber founded the City of Stockton in 1850, and the City incorporated that same year. No cultural resource studies specific to the project site were conducted.

Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.36.050 states that if a historical or archaeological resource or human remains may be impacted by a development project requiring a discretionary land use permit, the Secretary of the Cultural Heritage Board shall be notified, any survey needed to determine the significance of the resource shall be conducted, and the proper environmental documents shall be prepared. In addition:

A. Historical Resources. Resources that have been identified as a landmark or part of a historic district in compliance with Chapter 16.220 (Cultural Resources) shall Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-14 November 2021
require a certificate of appropriateness (Section 16.220.060) if any exterior changes to the resource are proposed.

B. Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during any construction, construction activities shall cease, and the Community Development Department (Department) shall be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist, and disposition of artifacts may occur in compliance with State and federal law.

C. Human Remains. In the event human remains are discovered during any construction, construction activities shall cease, and the County Coroner and Director shall be notified immediately in compliance with CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(d). A qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation.

If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC [Native American Heritage Commission] within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify the most likely descendent of the Native American to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the prope r treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Historical Resources.

The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan EIR stated that Stockton has over 1,900 recorded cultural resources ranging from prehistoric habitation sites to mid-20th century developments.

These resources include those registered in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources (City of Stockton 2018b). None of these resources were identified at the project site. Given the lack of any structures on the project site, project impacts on historical resources are considered to be less than significant. b) Archaeological Resources.

There are no known archaeological resources on the project site. However, it is conceivable that excavation associated with the project could unearth archaeological materials that are currently unknown. This was a concern expressed by one of the local tribes (see Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources). Procedures to address archaeological discoveries if they should occur are set forth in the mitigation measure below, consistent with Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.36.050. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce cultural resource impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

CULT-1: If any subsurface archaeological resources are encountered during construction, all construction activities with in a 50-foot radius of the encounter shall be immediately halted until a qualified archaeologist can examine these materials, initially evaluate their significance and, if Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-15 November 2021
potentially significant, recommend measures on the disposition of the resource. The City shall be immediately notified in the event of a discovery. The contractor shall be responsible for retaining qualified professionals, implementing recommended mitigation measures , and documenting mitigation efforts in written reports to the City.

Recommended measures could include, but are not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified professionals.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
c) Human Burials.

Given development of the project site and vicinity, it is unlikely that any intact human burials would be encountered. However, should any human remains be encountered during project construction, construction activities could have a potentially significant adverse impact, especially if the remains are of Native American origin.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e) sets forth procedures to be followed should any human remains be uncovered, with special requirements for burials determined to be Native American. Also, Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.36.050 has provisions related to the discovery and disposition of human remains. Compliance with these regulations would reduce impacts related to human burials to a level that would be less than significant. Refer to Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for a discussion of potential impacts on tribal cultural resources, including Native American burials.

3.6 ENERGY

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
Electricity is a major energy source for residences and businesses in California. In San Joaquin County, based upon the most recent information available, electricity consumption in 2019 totaled approximately 5,583 million kilowatt-hours, of which approximately 1,893 million kilowatt-hours were consumed by residential uses and the remainder by non - Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-16 November 2021
residential uses (CEC 2021a). In 2019, natural gas consumption in San Joaquin County totaled approximately 259 million therms, of which approximately 89 million therms were consumed by residential uses and the remainder by non-residential uses (CEC 2021b). Motor vehicle use also accounts for substantial energy usage. The SJCOG estimated countywide daily VMT was 17,868,785 miles in 2015, which led to the consumption of approximately 511 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (SJCOG 2018).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Project Energy Consumption.

Project construction would involve fuel consumption and use of other non-renewable resources. Construction equipment used for such improvements typically runs on diesel fuel or gasoline. The same fuels typically are used for vehicles that transport equipment and workers to and from a construction site. Construction-related fuel consumption would be finite, short-term, and consistent with construction activities of a similar character. This energy use would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Electricity may be used for equipment operation during construction activities. It is expected that more electrical construction equipment would be used in the future, since it generates no air pollutants. Electrical consumption by this equipment would be consistent with construction activities of a similar character; therefore, the use of electricity in constru ction activities would not be considered wasteful, inefficient , or unnecessary, especially since fossil fuel consumption would be reduced.

Project operations are expected to use little energy. The main energy use associated with project operations would be vehicle trips to and from the project site and security lighting .

As mentioned in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the project is expected to generate approximately 102 trips daily, so vehicle fuel consumption would not be substantial. As noted in Section

3.1, Aesthetics, the Stockton Municipal Code requires energy-efficient exterior lighting.

Streetlights installed as part of the project are not expected to consume energy in a manner considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Project impacts related to energy consumption are considered less than significant.
b) Consistency with Energy Plans.

The City does not have adopted plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. However, as discussed in a) above, the project is not expected to lead to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Project impacts related to energy plans would be less than significant.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-17 November 2021

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site in the San Joaquin Valley in central California near the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta. The San Joaquin Valley is filled with thick sedimentary rock sequences that were deposited as much as 130 million years ago. The sediments that form the Valley floor were derived largely from erosion of the Sierra Nevada. The Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle designates the underlying geology of the project site as the Modesto Formation (Wagner et al. 1981). The Modesto Formation, ranging in depth from 10 to 200 feet, consists primarily of sand, silt, and clay seams deposited by rivers (DWR 2014).

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-18 November 2021
The topography of the project site is essentially flat. A custom soil survey downloaded from the Natural Resources Conservation Service website indicates there is only one soil type underlying the project site: Jacktone clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This is a somewhat poorly drained soil also formed in alluvium from mixed rock sources, and it is moderately deep to a hardpan. Permeability and runoff of Jacktone clay are slow, and the wa ter erosion hazard is slight. The expansive (“shrink-swell”) potential of this soil is high (SCS 1992; NRCS 2021).

There are no active or potentially active faults in the Stockton vicinity. The Stockton Fault is a south-dipping reverse fault that trends east-west across the Stockton area, but it has not been classified as an active fault by the California Geological Survey. The nearest active fault is the Greenville Fault, approximately 22 miles west -southwest of Stockton (City of Stockton 2018b). Portions of the Concord-Green Valley and Hayward fault zones, 35 and 50 miles west of Stockton, and the Calaveras fault zone, approximately 40 miles southwest of Stockton, have also been rated as active within the last 200 years. The project site, along with the rest of San Joaquin County, is subject to seismic shaking from these fault zones, as well as the San Andreas Fault farther to the west (San Joaquin County 2016).

Paleontological resources are fossils or groups of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, or important, and those that add to an existing body of knowledge in specific areas. Only a handful of specimens are within the Planning Area of the Stockton General Plan, and those have been identified as relatively recent (City of Stockton 2018b).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-i) Fault Rupture Hazards.

As noted, there are no active or potentially active faults within or near the project site. The project site is not within or near a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2017). The project would have no impact related to fault rupture.
a-ii) Seismic Ground Shaking.

The project site is potentially subject to seismic shaking from active faults outside San Joaquin County. Project development must comply with applicable provisions of the adopted California Building Code, which includes seismic safety provisions that minimize ground shaking impacts. Implementation of the seismic provisions of the California Building Code would reduce project impacts related to ground shaking to a level that would be less than significant.
a-iii) Seismic-Related Ground Failure.

Geologic hazards include such phenomena as liquefaction and subsidence. Liquefaction generally occurs in areas where moist, fine -grained, cohesionless sediment or fill materials are subjected to strong seismic ground shaking. Under certain circumstances, seismic ground shaking can temporarily transform an otherwise solid, granular material to a fluid state.

Neither the California Geological Survey nor the U.S. Geological Survey has mapped any Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-19 November 2021
liquefaction hazard zones in the Stockton area (City of Stockton 2018b). Soils on the project site are clayey in nature.

Subsidence is the sinking of a large area of ground surface in which the material is displaced vertically downward, with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is not anticipated outside of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta area, of which the project site is not a part .

Impacts related to ground failure would be less than significant. a-iv) Landslides.

The project site is in a topographically flat area; as such, landsli des would not occur. The project would have no impact related to landslides.
b) Soil Erosion.

The construction and grading associated with site preparation and construction of the project would temporarily increase the exposure of soils on the project site to water and wind erosion. Since construction activities are anticipated to disturb at least one acre of land area, the project would need to obtain a Construction General Permit from the SWRCB. The Construction General Permit would require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP would include implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize adverse water quality impacts from erosion and sedimentation. BMPs fall within the categories of Temporary Soil Stabilization, Temporary Sediment Control, Wind Erosion Control, Tracking Control, Non-Storm Water Management, and Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.

In addition, the City has a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that requires implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control, including limitations on disturbance and temporary soil stabilization through the use of mulch, seeding, soil stabilizers, and fiber rolls and blankets (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more information on the SWMP). Dust control measures noted in Section

3.3, Air Quality, would reduce potential wind erosion impacts of the p roject. With implementation of these measures, project impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant.
c) Geologic Instability.

Existing soil and geological conditions on the project site are similar to those throughout most of the Stockton area. The project site and vicinity are topographically flat, so no landslides or lateral spreading would occur. As noted in a-iii) above, subsidence and liquefaction are unlikely to occur. The project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code, which has provisions designed to ensure stability of structures.

The project would have no impact related to geological instability. d) Expansive Soils.

As noted, Jacktone clay has a relatively high shrink-swell potential. Compliance with existing State and local laws and regulations such as the California Building Code and the Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-20 November 2021
Stockton Municipal Code, along with the City’s grading and building permit process, would ensure that the impacts associated with development on expansive soils are minimized to the extent practicable, reducing impacts to a level that would be less than significant. e) Adequacy of Soils for Sewage Disposal.

The project proposes to connect to the City of Stockton’s wastewater collection system. As such, no onsite sewage disposal systems would be installed, so adequacy of soils for such systems is irrelevant. The project would have no impact related to soil adequacy for sewage disposal.

f) Paleontological Resources.

As noted, only a handful of paleontological specimens have been found within the Stockton area. However, records of vertebrate fossils have been related to the Modesto Formation, which underlies the project site. Given project site development and the lack of resources identified in the Stockton area, it is unlikely that intact paleontological resources would be encountered. However, it is conceivable that currently unknown paleontological resources could be uncovered during project construction that involves deeper excavation. Mitigation described below would require work to be stopped when paleontological resources are uncovered until these resources can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist and recommendations made for their proper disposition. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce paleontological resource impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

GEO-1: If buried paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop within 50 feet of the find until a qualified paleontologist can examine these materials , initially evaluate their significance and, if potentia lly significant, recommend measures on the disposition of the resource. The City shall be immediately notified in the event of a discovery . Prior to construction, construction personnel shall receive brief “tailgate” training by a qualified archaeologist in the identification of paleontological resources and protocol for notification should such resources be discovered during construction work.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-21 November 2021

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
A greenhouse gas (GHG) is a gas that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range, trapping heat in the earth’s atmosphere. There are several types of GHGs, which are both naturally occurring and generated by human activity. Increased atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are considered a primary contributor to global climate change, which is a subject of concern for the State of California. Potential climate change impacts occurring in the San Joaquin Valley include more intense and frequent heat waves, higher frequency of catastrophic floods, more intense and frequent drought, and more severe and frequent wildfires (Westerling et al. 2018).

GHG emissions in California in 2018, the most recent year for which data are available, were estimated at approximately 425 million metric tons CO
2e – a decrease of approximately 13%
from the peak level in 2004. Transportation was the largest contributor to GHG emissions in California, with approximately 40% of total emissions. Other significant sources include industrial activities, with approximately 21% of total emissions, and electric power generation, both in-state and imported, with approximately 15% of total emissions (ARB 2020). Total GHG emissions from Stockton in 2005 were an estimated 2,360,932 metric tons CO
2e. Of the total emissions, approximately 48% percent came from on-road transportation and 33% came from building energy use (City of Stockton 2014).

The State of California has implemented GHG emission reduction strategies through AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires total statewide GHG emissions to reach 1990 levels by 2020, or an approximately 29% reduction from 2004 levels. In 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 32 became law. SB 32 extends the GHG reduction objectives of AB 32 by mandating statewide reductions in GHG emissions to levels that are 40% below 1990 levels by the year 2030. The State has adopted an updated Scoping Plan that sets forth strategies for achieving the SB 32 target, which is 260 million metric tons CO 2e. The updated Scoping
Plan continues many of the programs that were part of the previous Scoping Plans, including the cap-and-trade program, low-carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, and methane reduction strategies, along with a proposed 20% reduction in GHG emissions from refineries.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-22 November 2021
It also addresses for the first time GHG emissions from the natural and working lands of California, including the agriculture and forestry sectors (ARB 2017).

The City of Stockton adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2014. The CAP sets a GHG emission reduction target of 10% below 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020, or approximately 20.6% below 2020 “business as usual” GHG emissions (i.e., 2020 GHG emissions that are unmitigated), which is the level by which the State has set its emission reduction goal. Approximately 83% of the reductions needed to achieve the City’s GHG reduction goal are achieved through state‐level programs, and 17% are achieved through City‐level programs. The largest GHG reductions identified are in building energy (both energy efficiency and renewable energy), transportation, and waste (City of Stockton 2014).

At this time, the City’s CAP has not set any GHG reduction targets beyond 2020, although the City is planning to update its community GHG inventory.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Project GHG Emissions and Consistency with GHG Reduction Plans.

Estimates of GHG emissions of the project were developed using the CalEEMod program (see Section 3.3, Air Quality). Table 3-3 presents the results of the CalEEMod run.

TABLE 3-3

PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
GHG Emission Type
Unmitigated Emissions
(metric tons CO2e)
Mitigated Emissions
(metric tons CO2e)
Construction1 234.5 234.5
Operational2 273.3 223.7
1 Total GHG emissions for construction period.
2 Annual emissions.

Source: California Emissions Estimator Model v. 2020.4.0.

“Mitigated emissions” are the result of project compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations, along with inclusion of project features that reduce GHG emissions. These include the following:
• Increase in diversity of land uses.
• The project site is approximately 0.6 miles from a transit stop. • The project site is approximately six miles from downtown Stockton. • The project would add sidewalks to the site.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-23 November 2021
• SB X7-7, enacted in 2009, sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20% by December 31, 2020. The California Green Building Code mandates a 20% reduction in indoor water use.
• AB 341 establishes the goal of diverting 75% of California’s waste stream from landfills by 2020.

GHG construction emissions would be limited due to the length of time of construction activity; these emissions would cease once work is completed. Mitigated operational GHG emissions would be approximately 18.2% less than under business-as-usual (unmitigated) conditions.

The City does not have current GHG reduction objectives, which are in the process of being updated. For the purposes of this document, analysis of project impacts will be based on the provisions of the 2017 State Scoping Plan related to 2030 reduction targets. The Scoping Plan proposes various measures to achieve the 2030 target, most of which are State measures, such as use of the cap-and-trade program, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Plan, and achievement of the 50% renewable sources of electricity in the Renewables Portfolio Standard (see Section 3.6, Energy). Based on estimates in the 201 7 Scoping Plan, State actions would account for 89.8% of GHG reductions needed by 2030, with local actions accounting for approximately 9.3% of reductions.

Applying this ratio to the percentage reduction for 2030, approximately 6.0% of the reduction from 2030 business-as-usual levels would be achieved by local measures, including the Development Review Process. Therefore, a project that can show GHG reduction s greater than 6.0% can be said to be consistent with the reduction goals of SB 32. As noted, project GHG operational emissions would be approximately 18.2% less than business-as-usual levels, which would exceed the 6.0% local reduction share. Therefore, t he project would be consistent with the reduction goals of SB 32.

The State of California has comprehensive GHG regulatory requirements, with laws and regulations requiring reductions that affect project emissions. The project is subject to several State regulations applicable to project design, construction, and operation that would reduce GHG emissions, increase energy efficiency, and ensure compliance with the Climate Change Scoping Plan (ARB 2017). Legal mandates to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles, f or example, would reduce project-related vehicular emissions. Other mandates that would reduce GHG emissions include reducing per capita water consumption and imposing waste management standards to reduce methane and other GHGs from solid wastes. Also, as discussed in Section 3.6, Energy, the project would be subject to codes that require energy efficiency measures, which would reduce the amount of electricity produced by fossil fuels – a major source of GHG emissions.

Based on the information provided above, the project would be consistent with GHG reduction plans of the State and with the County General Plan policy on mitigation of GHG emissions. Project impacts related to consistency with GHG emission reduction plans would be less than significant.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-24 November 2021

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?

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?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
Hazardous material sites of all statuses are recorded in the GeoTracker database, maintained by the SWRCB, and the EnviroStor database, maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (SWRCB 2021, DTSC 2021a). A search of both databases revealed no active hazardous material sites are recorded on the project site or in the project vicinity. The EnviroStor database recorded one cleanup of a nearby site – Podesta Ranch Elementary School. Soil samples taken on the school site, prior to school construction, indicated elevated levels of lead and chlordane (a pesticide) associated with past agricultural uses of the area .

A Removal Action Workplan for the site was approved in 2007 and implemented and Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-25 November 2021
completed the same year. In 2008, DTSC determined the removal action was completed and that no further action was required (DTSC 2021b).

There is no existing testing data for the site, and no site-specific Environmental Site Assessment has been completed for the site.

Various federal and State laws and regulations cover the transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Management Regulatory Program, enacted in 1993, is a state and local effort to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent existing programs regulating hazardous waste and managing hazardous materials. The Unified Program is implemented at the local level by a Certified Unified Program Agency. The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department was approved by the State as the Certified Unified Program Agency for the County and its incorporated cities. The County Environmental Health Department has the primary responsibility to enforce most regulations regarding hazardous materials in the area, while the Stockton Fire Department Hazardous Materials Team acts as first responder to hazardous material incidents.

A list of solid waste disposal sites identified by SWRCB with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit did not show any locations in the County (CalEPA 2021a). Likewise, a list by SWRCB containing sites under Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders showed no locations on or near the project site (CalEPA 2021b).

The nearest public use airport to the project site is Lodi Airpark, approximately 2.6 miles to the north. Lodi Airpark does not offer scheduled passenger air service. An Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for Lodi Airpark and other County airports, except for Stockton Metropolitan Airport, was adopted by the County in 2009. The ALUCP delineated safety zones surrounding the airport and identified compatible land use for each safety zone.

It also identified an Airport Influence Area, which identifies an area within which development projects are subject to review by the County Airport Land Use Commission.

SACOG functions as the County Airport Land Use Commission.

Wildfires are a potential hazard in many parts of San Joaquin County. High hazard areas in the County for wildland fires are the grass-covered areas in the east and the southwest foothills (San Joaquin County 2016a). The project site is not within these areas. Section 3.20, Wildfire, discusses wildfire issues in more detail.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Hazardous Material Transportation, Use, and Storage.

The project proposes development of a self-storage facility. Hazardous materials that are likely to be used and stored on the project site would include cleaning products used as a part of facility maintenance. None of these hazardous materials would be stored or used in large quantities. Hazardous materials storage by storge unit renters will be prohibited by site management.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-26 November 2021
Facilities that store significant amounts of hazardous materials are required to pre pare a Hazardous Material Business Plan that would be submitted to the County Environmental Health Department. The Hazardous Material Business Plan must be prepared by any facility that handles a hazardous material, or mixture containing a hazardous materi al, of a quantity at any one time during the reporting year equal to or greater than 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids, or 200 cubic feet for a compressed gas. None of the hazardous materials to be used by the project are anticipated to be handled or stored in such quantities.

An Administrative Use Permit in compliance with Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 16.172 is required for any new commercial, industrial, institutional, or accessory use, or major addition (over 10 percent) to an existing us e within 1,000 feet of a residential zoning district that involves the manufacture, storage, handling, or processing of hazardous materials in sufficient quantities that would require permits as hazardous materials. The project does not seek an Administrative Use Permit for the storage of hazardous materials .

Project impacts related to transport, use, or storage of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
b) Upset and Accident Conditions.

Construction activities on the project site may involve the use of hazardous materials typical for such activities, such as fuels and solvents, and thus create a potential for hazardous material spills. Construction and maintenance vehicles would transport and use fuels in ordinary quantities. Fuel spills, if any occur, would be minimal and would not typically have significant adverse effects. In accordance with SWPPP requirements (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils), contractors have absorbent materials at construction sites to clean up minor spills. As noted in a) above, no hazardous materials would be used or stored in large quantities at the project site once construction work is completed. Project impacts related to potential upset or accident conditions would be less than significant. c) Release of Hazardous Materials near Schools.

The Podesta Ranch Elementary School is within one-quarter mile of the project site.

However, as noted in a) above, the project would not involve use or storage of hazardous materials in large quantities . As noted in b) above, localized spills of hazardous materials could occur during project construction. Any such spills would be cleaned up as they occur, and the hazardous materials used during project construction are not considered acutely hazardous. Construction work occurring near the school would not be prolonged and would cease once work is completed. Project impacts on releases of hazardous materials near schools would be less than significant.
d) Hazardous Material Sites.

As noted, a search of the GeoTracker and EnviroStor databases, along with SWRCB lists, did not identify any active hazardous material sites on or near the project site. As was documented at the nearby Podesta school site, elevated levels of agricultural chemical residues remain from past agricultural activities, which could also be the case on the project site. A review of historical Google Earth photographs of the project site does not indicate any agricultural use for approximately 30 years. However unlikely, agricultural chemical Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-27 November 2021
residues may exist on the site, and project impacts related to hazardous material sites would be potentially significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-1: Prior to final site plan approval, the project applica nt shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct soil testing to determine the potential presence of soil contamination on the project site. If testing reveals hazardous levels of agricultural chemical residues, the environmental professional shall make recommendations for remediation needed to reduce contamination to acceptable levels for the proposed land use. Recommendations shall be implemented by the applicant.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
e) Public Airports.

As noted, the nearest public airport, Lodi Airpark, is approximately 2.6 miles to the north.

The project site is not within any of the airport’s safety zones, and it is outside the Airport Influence Area, as indicated in the ALUCP for the airport (Coffman Associates 2009). The project would not place residents or businesses in an area potentially subject to hazards from airport operations. The project would have no impact related to public airports. f) Emergency Response and Evacuations.

The project would not obstruct any public street once construction is completed. Project construction work would mostly occur on the project site. The project would involve improvement of the frontage of Grider Way and connections to buried utility lines beneath this road. However, Grider Way is a relatively narrow two-lane road, and any construction work done in this road could significantly restrict traffic flow and access for emergency vehicles. Mitigation presented below would require pre-construction planning to ensure that access would be maintained during project construction thereby reducing impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

HAZ-2: Prior to the start of project construction, the applicant’s contractor shall prepare and implement a Traffic Control Plan, which shall include such items as traffic control requirements, public notification of access closure, and daily access restoration. The contractor shall specify dates and times of road closures or restrictions, if any, and shall ensure that adequate access will be provided for emergency vehicles. The Traffic Control Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-28 November 2021
and shall be coordinated with the Stockton Fire and Police Departments if construction will require road closures or lane restrictions.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
g) Wildland Fire Hazards.

The project site is within a developed urban area. There are no wildlands on or near the project site. Moreover, the proposed development, with its buildings and pavement, would eliminate the existing fire hazard of the site by eliminating existing brush cover. The project would have no impact related to wildland fire hazards. Section 3.20, Wildfire, discusses this issue in more detail.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river runoff or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-29 November 2021
NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project vicinity is a developed area that is covered mostly with impervious surfaces, with the exception of agricultural lands to the east, east of Lower Sacramento Road. There are no surface streams or other bodies of water on or adjacent to the project site. The nearest surface water is Bear Creek, approximately 500 feet to the south of the site (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources).

The project site is within the Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. According to the most recent information available, groundwater in the project area is approximately 40 feet below ground surface (San Joaquin County FCD 2018). Recharge to the groundwater system in the Stockton area primarily is from percolation of irrigation return water, precipitation, seepage from reservoirs and rivers, and urban runoff.

In 2014, the California Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, part of which requires Groundwater Sustainability Plans for critically overdrafted basins to be adopted by January 31, 2020. The Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Subbasin is designated a critically overdrafted basin, and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Subbasin was submitted to the California Department of Water Resources on January 29, 2020. The goal of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan is to achieve sustainable groundwater management of the Subbasin on a long-term average basis by increasing recharge and/or reducing groundwater pumping, while avoiding undesirable results such as degraded water quality and declining groundwater levels. The Subbasin will achieve sustainability by implementing water supply projects such as direct and in-lieu recharge, intra-basin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and stormwater reuse (ESJGA 2019).

Potential flooding hazards are designated on maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA maps focus on areas potentially subject to inundation by a 100-year flood (i.e., a flood of such magnitude that occurs on average once every 100 years). According to FEMA Map Panel 06077C0315F, the project site is in Zone X (FEMA 2009). Zone X indicates the project site is at reduced risk from a 100 -year flood due to a levee. The project site is not within a 100 -year floodplain, which is considered a Special Flood Hazard Area.

SB 5 and related State legislation requires future development to consider the 200-year flood event (i.e., a flood of such magnitude that occurs on average once every 200 years) within certain Central Valley geographies, with a focus on areas subject to a 200-year flood of three feet or more in depth. Based on information in the Stockton General Plan, the project site would not be subject to a 200-year flood at a depth of three feet or greater (City of Stockton 2018a).

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-30 November 2021
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Surface Waters and Water Quality.

As noted above, there are no streams or other bodies of water on or near the project site.

Project construction, with associated ground disturbance, could lead to the conveyance of sediments in storm water; such sediments would be directed to the City storm drainage system and potentially to surface waters . As described in Section 3.7, Geology and Soils, construction that causes one acre of ground disturbance or more is required to obtain a Construction General Permit, which contains provisions designed to reduce impacts on water quality.

Storm water regulation is established in the area-wide municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit system, administered by the SWRCB. The City of Stockton has adopted and currently implements its MS4 program in accordance with Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R5-2016-0040-2. As part of its MS4 program, the City has adopted a SWMP (see Section 3.7, Geology and Soils). The SWMP addresses the storm water quality effects of development, including construction and post -construction activity.

It consists of a variety of programs, including controls on illicit discharges, public education, controls on City operations, and water quality monitoring (City of Stockton 2009). Project design is required to be consistent with the City’s MS4 program, so the project is not expected to significantly affect water quality once it is completed.

The project would be constructed in an area that is already developed and paved, with storm drainage systems in place. Proposed building and paving would reduce existing percolation of runoff and associated groundwater recharge. Loss of recharge would be offset by SWMP requirements to reduce the volume of runoff during storm events in conjun ction with water quality protection. Because of this, the project is not expected to contribute adversely to surface or groundwater quality effects. Project impacts on surface and groundwater quality would be less than significant.
b) Groundwater Supplies and Recharge.

The project would require only minimal use of water; therefore, it would not place substantial demands on surface or groundwater supplies used by the City or other agencies. The proposed project would increase the impervious surface area on the site. However, the project would comply with City requirements regarding storm water, including Low Impact Development approaches and applicable Best Management Practices, consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and GPEIR. Project impacts on groundwater recharge would be less than significant.
c-i, ii) Drainage Patterns.

The project site is currently undeveloped and generally flat. There is no indication of any defined drainage patterns on the site. Proposed development of the project site w ould alter existing storm drainage patterns, due to grading and the installation of pavement and storm drainage facilities. As part of its MS4 program, the City has adopted a SWMP that addresses the storm water quality effects of development, including construction and post-construction Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-31 November 2021
activity. Project design is required to be consistent with the City’s MS4 program, so alterations of drainage patterns are not expected to cause onsite or offsite erosion or siltation, nor would it cause onsite or offsite flooding. Project impacts related to drainage patterns would be less than significant.
c-iii) Runoff.

As noted in c-i, -ii) above, the project would change runoff peak flows and volumes, due to the introduction of impervious surfaces such as buildings and pa rking areas. The City has adopted a Storm Water Quality Control Criteria Plan that identifies a range of post- construction BMPs that must be incorporated into development plans. BMPs include provisions for control of storm water volumes such that peak existing discharges are not exceeded. Volume control can be achieved through a combination of low -impact development and specific volume control measures. Post -construction BMP requirements are contained in City ordinances that require compliance with the plan. Compliance with the provisions of the Storm Water Quality Control Criteria Plan, including all applicable BMPs, would reduce impacts related to runoff to a level that would be less than significant. c-iv) Flooding Hazards.

As noted, the FEMA map for the project site designates the site within Zone X, which indicates the project site is at reduced risk from a 100-year flood due to a levee. FEMA generally designates areas at risk from a 100-year flood within Zone A or a variant thereof.

Since the project site is not within Zone A, it is not considered by FEMA standards to be within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Also as noted, the project site is not within a designated 200-year floodplain that would flood at least three feet in depth. The project would not change existing flood risks. The project would have no impact related to flooding hazards. d) Release of Pollutants in Flood, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones.

As described in c-iv) above, the project site is not within a 100-year floodplain or a 200-year floodplain that would flood to a depth of at least three feet. The project is not near any large bodies of water, so it would not be subject to seiches or tsunamis. The project would not introduce any large quantities of hazardous materials (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), and flood flows are unlikely to occur. The project would have no impact related to release of pollutants in flood, tsunami, or seiche zones. e) Conflicts with Water Quality or Groundwater Management Plans.

As noted in a) above, the project would be subject to the City’s MS4 permit program, which is designed to minimize impacts on water quality. As noted in b) above, the project would not affect groundwater resources or supplies, so the project would not affect implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin nor hinder the attainment of its objectives . Project impacts related to water quality or groundwater management plans would be less than significant.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-32 November 2021

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site is currently vacant land except for its southern portion, which is occupied by two commercial buildings. It is bounded on the north and west by existing residential development. East of the project site is Lower Sacramento Road, a two-lane roadway. South of and adjacent to the project site is Grider Way, a two-lane local street.

The project vicinity consists of residential development to the north and west, along with Podesta Ranch Elementary School. To the south, across Grider Way, are two more commercial buildings, both occupied, and vacant land. To the east, across Lower Sacramento Road, is the Lower Sacramento Plaza commercial development, and beyond that is agricultural land.

The project site is currently within the jurisdiction of San Joaquin County. As such, the project site is subject to the San Joaquin County General Plan. The County General Plan provides guidance to future development of lands within unincorporated San Joaquin County. The project site is currently designated by the County General Plan as Agricultural- Urban Reserve. This designation generally applies to areas currently undeveloped or used for agricultural production that are in the logical path of development around an Urban Community or City Fringe Area. This designation may be applied to areas adjacent to cities and in City Fringe Areas if: 1) the area identified is designated for urban development in a city general plan, and 2) the County determines that the area represents a reasonable expansion of a city. The project site is subject to the County’s existing zoning. The current County zoning of the majority of the project site is C-C - Community Commercial. As noted in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, APN 070-570-13 and a portion of APN 070-140-35 is zoned by the County as AU-20, Agriculture-Urban Reserve. The County granted the project Site Approval (Application #PA2000188) effective May 1, 2021 subject to conditions.

The project site is within the Planning Area of the Stockton General Plan 2040, the City’s Urban Service Boundary, and its 10-Year Planning Horizon Area. The Stockton General Plan 2040 designates the project site as Commercial. As part of the proposed annexation, the City proposes to pre-zone the project site as CG (Commercial, General) . The CG zone is Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-33 November 2021
consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the Stockton General Plan 2040 . It is applied to areas appropriate for a wide variety of general commercial uses, including retail, personal and business services; commercial recreational uses; and a mix of office, commercial, and/or residential uses. The proposed self-storage facility is an allowed use in the CG zone with approval of an Administrative Use Permit (Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.20.020).

The San Joaquin LAFCo is the responsible ag ency for proposed reorganizations for cities and special districts within San Joaquin County; as such, it would review and decide on the proposed annexation of the project site. LAFCo’s review encompasses the consistency of the project with State statutes and policies, particularly the Cortese -Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, as well as its own adopted policies. In determining the appropriateness of a proposed annexation, LAFCo considers if the project would constitute a logical expansion of a city boundary and if a proposed annexation area would be provided with public utilities and services in an efficient manner. LAFCo’s policies with respect to proposed annexations are specified in its Change of Organization Policies and Procedures, adopted in 2007 and subsequently amended (San Joaquin LAFCo 2012). As an agency with approval authority over the project, LAFCo is a Responsible Agency under CEQA and would use this IS/MND in its decision-making process.

The State has enacted legislation that seeks to address the adverse environmental impacts of projects that disproportionately affect minority and/or lower income communities, particularly those already burdened with environmental problems. The Ca lifornia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has developed the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) to identify “environmental justice” or “disadvantaged” communities. CalEnviroScreen measures pollution and population characteristics using 20 indicators such as air and drinking water quality, waste sites, toxic emissions, asthma rates, and poverty. It applies a formula to each U.S. Census tract in California to generate a score that rates the level of cum ulative impacts on each area. A census tract that scores in the top 25% is considered a disadvantaged community. The project site is within Census Tract 6077003208. According to CalEnviroScreen, the overall score for this census tract is not within the top 25%; therefore, the project site is not within a disadvantaged community (OEHHA 2021).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Division of Established Community.

The project proposes a commercial development on vacant land on a site designated f or commercial development. Although the project site is adjacent to a residential area, it is also adjacent to existing commercial development. No other residential areas have been designated in the vicinity. The project would not divide an established com munity and therefore would have no adverse impact on this issue.

The project would provide personal storage facilities in relative proximity to extensive areas of residential development between Lower Sacramento Road and Interstate 5, south of Eight Mile Road. There are no other existing personal storage facilities in the area north of Mosher Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-34 November 2021
Slough. The availability of new personal storage facilities may be viewed as a contribution to the existing community
b) Conflicts with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations.

The project proposes to annex the project site to the City of Stockton . As noted, the project site is currently designated by the County General Plan as Agricultural-Urban Reserve, which applies to areas that are in the logical path of development around an urban community. The project site is within a developing urban area of Stockton; as such, the existing Agricultural-Urban Reserve designation is appropriate to proposed project development. The project site is currently designated Commercial under the Stockton General Plan.

Upon annexation, the site would be pre-zoned to CG General Commercial, which is consistent with the existing Stockton General Plan designation, and the proposed project development would be consistent with both. The project would not involve any conflict with the Stockton General Plan or zoning.

Frontage improvements along Grider Way will require widening of the existing street section in order to comply with City improvement standards, which will involve dedication of right- of-way along the project site frontage on Grider Way and acquisition of right-of-way from the existing commercial properties that front on Grider Way, which will also be the responsibility of the applicant. The need for right-of-way dedication and acquisition will be determined by joint City/applicant design effort to minimize the improv ement width. From preliminary discussions with City staff, widening will affect the existing parking area of these properties, but that the needed improvements can be accomplished without significant impact to on-site circulation patterns or loss of parking capacity.

This IS/MND discusses potential impacts on the environment and prescribes mitigation of potentially significant environmental impacts. No impacts have been identified that cannot be mitigated to a level that would be less than significant. Als o, this IS/MND has identified existing land use plans, policies, and ordinances potentially applicable to the project. These plans, policies, and ordinances either do not apply to the project, or the project would comply with them, thereby eliminating potential conflict. The project also would not conflict with State legislation designed to minimize environmental impacts on disadvantaged communities.

The project site is adjacent to the City limits of Stockton. The site is also adjacent to City facilities such as water and sewer lines and would require no extension of utility lines to obtain service. As such, the proposed annexation of the project site would be consistent with LAFCo policies. Overall, project impacts related to land use plans, policies, and regulations

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-35 November 2021

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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?

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?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
Mineral resources within San Joaquin County are primarily sand, gravel, and other construction material deposits in the alluvial portion of the valley floor. Sand and gravel deposits have been identified along the Stanislaus River in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties from Ripon to the Stanislaus/Tuolumne County line (DMG 1977). Portland cement concrete aggregate deposits also have been identified within San Joaquin County; however, none are located on the project site (DMG 1988).

Oil and natural gas deposits have been identified throughout the Central Valley. Deposits in the Stockton area are predominantly natural gas. The project site is within the Harte natural gas field, which is now abandoned. The nearest active field is the Rindge Tract natural gas field, approximately four miles southwest of the project site (DOGGR 2021).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Availability of Mineral Resources.

As described above, there are no identified mineral resources areas nor active mining operations on or near the project site. The project site is within a natural gas fi eld that has been abandoned. Therefore, the project would not affect the availability of, or access to, any known or locally designated mineral resources. The project would have no impact on mineral resources.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-36 November 2021

3.13 NOISE

Would the project result in: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
Assessment of noise impacts focuses on project-related changes in the “ambient" noise level, which is the general noise level in a project area. The main source of noise in the project vicinity is train traffic on the adjoining track to the northeast and motor vehicle traffic on Lower Sacramento Road, with a lesser noise source being traffic on Grider Way. Lower Sacramento Road is classified as an arterial by the Stockton General Plan. The Stockton General Plan 2040 EIR indicates that traffic on the segment of Lower Sacramento Road between Eight Mile Road and Bear Creek – the segment on which the project site is adjacent – generates noise at a level of 68.9 decibels (dB) 50 feet from the road centerline. The 60-dB noise contour was estimated to extend 196 feet from centerline (City of Stockton 2018b). No noise data are available for Grider Way, a local street that does not have substantial traffic volumes. Noise data for the railroad track are also not available.

The main concern regarding noise impact is its impact on noise-sensitive land uses. Noise- sensitive land uses are defined in Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.60.040 as residences, childcare and educational facilities, libraries and museums, lodging, and medical services.

As noted, the project site is near residential areas and Podesta Ranch Elementary School.

Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.60.040 establishes the City’s standards concerning acceptable noise levels for new or expanded commercial, industrial, and other land use - related noise sources. Land use-related projects that will create new noise sources or expand existing noise sources shall be required to mitigate their noise levels so that the resulting noise does not adversely impact noise-sensitive land uses; and does not exceed the standards specified in Table 3-4 below.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-37 November 2021
TABLE 3-4

CITY OF STOCKTON LAND USE-RELATED NOISE STANDARDS
Noise Level Descriptor
Outdoor Activity Areas
Day
(7:00 a.m – 10:00 p.m.)
Night
(10:00 a.m. – 7:00 a.m.)
Hourly equivalent sound level (dB Leq) 55 45
Maximum sound level (dB) 75 65
Source: Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.60.040.

Groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is typically associated with transportation facilities, although it is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Construction equipment is another potential source. Caltrans has prescribed a methodology for evaluating groundborne vibration impacts from construction related to potential damage to structures, based on transient sources (e.g., blasting, drop balls) or continuous/frequent intermittent sources such as impact and vibratory pile drivers, vibratory compaction equipment (Caltrans 2013). Measurements of groundborne vibrations are presented in peak particle velocity, with the unit of measure being inches per second. Table 3-5 presents thresholds for impacts related to groundborne vibration, based on the Caltrans methodology.

TABLE 3-5

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION THRESHOLDS
Guidelines for:

Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Structure and Condition
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Human Response
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.1
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: Caltrans 2013.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-38 November 2021
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Generation of Noise Exceeding Local Standards.

The main source of noise anticipated with project operations would be traffic entering and exiting the facility site. As discussed in Section 3.17, Transportation, the number of trips to and from the project site would be low – approximately 102 trips per day. As such, the project would not generate a substantial amount of noise from its operations.

Noise from construction activities is the primary noise of concern associated with the project.

Table 3-6 shows noise levels that could be generated by construction equipment.

Construction activities near residences, schools, and libraries could generate noise at levels that exceed City noise standards for these land uses. Mitigation described below would limit construction hours and require the use of mufflers, thereby reducing construction noise impacts to a level that would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures:

NOISE-1: The following measures shall be implemented to minimize noise impacts at sensitive receptors (i.e., residences and schools) during construction:
• Construction activities shall be limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on all working days. Construction work shall not occur on Sundays and federal holidays.
• Use newer equipment with improved muffling and ensure that all equipment items have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement measures, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational. All construction equipment shall be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding, etc.). • Turn off idling equipment when not in use for more than five (5) minutes.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant
b) Exposure to Groundborne Vibrations.

The project may generate groundborne vibrations from construction equipment use. As noted, land uses sensitive to noise are located near the project site. These land uses would also be sensitive to groundborne vibrations. Groundborne vibrations from project construction would cease once work is completed; ne vertheless, groundborne vibrations could significantly affect sensitive land uses.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-39 November 2021
TABLE 3-6

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 50 feet
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: FHWA 2006.

The largest construction equipment likely to be used would be a large bulldozer, which would generate vibrations at a peak particle velocity of 0.089 inches per second at 25 feet (City of Stockton 2018b). Based on Caltrans standards provided in Table 3-5 above, the vibrations generated would be less than thresholds for structural damage or human perception . After construction work is completed, no groundborne vibrations are expected to be generated.

Project impacts related to groundborne vibration would be less than significant. c) Public Airport and Private Airstrip Noise.

As noted in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the nearest public airport is Lodi Airpark, approximately 2.6 miles to the north. The project site is outside the noise contours delineated in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the airport (Coffman Associates 2009). There are no private airstrips in the project vicinity. The project would not lead to the placement of residents or employees who could potentially be exposed to noise from any source. The project would have no impact related to airport or airstrip noise.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-40 November 2021
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The 2020 U.S. Census indicates that the population of Stockton is 312,682, an increase of approximately 7.2% from its 2010 U.S. Census population of 291,707. As of the 2020 U.S.

Census, Stockton had an estimated 104,720 housing units (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Based on estimates from the California Department of Finance, s ingle-family detached units (typical houses) accounted for approximately 64.5% of total housing units in Stockton (California Department of Finance 2021).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Unplanned Population Growth.

The project proposes construction of a storage facility. It would not construct additional housing, nor would it indirectly encourage development that may lead to population growth beyond that anticipated in the Stockton General Plan. As noted, the project would be consistent with the Stockton General Plan designation of the project site, which is Commercial. The project vicinity is already substantially developed, and any future development would occur in accordance with the Stockton General Plan , which designated remaining vacant land in the area for other commercial development. The project would have no impact related to unplanned population growth.
b) Displacement of Housing or People.

The project site is vacant; it has no existing housing. No housing or residents would be displaced because of any work associated with the project. The project would have no impact related to displacement.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-41 November 2021
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
Currently, the project site is within the boundaries of the Lincoln Rural County Fire Protection District, which covers most of the unincorporated lands in the north Stockton area and contracts with the Stockton Fire Department for services. Police protection services are currently provided by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department, which has its main station and the County Jail in the community of French Camp.

Upon annexation, fire protection services for the project would be provided by the Stockton Fire Department, and police protection services would be provided by the Stockton Police Department. The Stockton Fire Department provides fire protection, fire prevention, and paramedic emergency medical services to the City of Stockton. The closest Fire Department station to the project site is Station 14 at 3019 McNabb Street, approximately 1.7 miles west of the project site. Station 14 is equipped with one engine and a grass fire rig (City of Stockton 2020).

The Stockton Police Department’s Main Precinct, at 22 East Market Street approximately five miles northwest of the project site, is where field services are located. Central Services, located at 22 East Weber Street, houses investigations and support services. The service area of the Police Department, entirely within City limits, is organized into six Community Policing Districts. The project site is adjacent to the Bear Creek Community Policing District, which covers northwestern Stockton.

The project site is within the boundaries of the Stockton Unified School District. Podesta Ranch Elementary School, part of the Stockton Unified School District, is located less than one-quarter mile west of the project site. The Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library system provides library services to the City and County. The nearest branch is the Margaret K. Troke Library at 502 West Benjamin Holt Drive, approximately 2.3 miles south of the project site.

The City of Stockton provides park and recreational services within its City limits, managed by its Community Services Department. The nearest City park to the project site is Denton i Park, approximately one mile to the southwest. Section 3.16, Recreation, discusses nearby park facilities in more detail.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-42 November 2021
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-i) Fire Protection.

The project proposes the construction of a self-storage facility, which will result in an increment of additional demand for fire protection services above existing conditions.

However, as discussed above, the project site is already served by the Stockton Fire Department, which provides fire protection services under contract with the Lincoln Rural County Fire Protection District. Also, as noted in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, development of the project site would eliminate the fire hazard associated with existing site conditions.

The project would be required to comply with the provisions of the 2019 California Fire Code adopted by the City. The California Fire Code contain provisions designed to improve fire safety in structures, including installation of sprinkler systems, alarm systems, and portable fire extinguishers, along with requirements for hydrants and fire flows. In addition, the Stockton Fire Department has specific requirements, such as fire apparatus turning radii and hydrant spacing, that would be attached as conditions of approval to the project.

Given the above, it is expected that the project would not place additional demands such that the Stockton Fire Department would be required to construct new or expanded fire protection facilities that could have environmental impacts. The project would, however, be required to participate in the funding of new fire stations by paying Public Facility Fees to the City.

Public Facility Fees are intended to be used for future construction of Fire Department facilities required by urban expansion. Given all this, project impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
a-ii) Police Protection.

Development of the project would result in an increment of additional demand for police protection services above existing conditions. The Stockton Police Department currently patrols nearby developed areas that are within the City limits ; such patrols can be readily extended to the project site.

The Police Department has indicated there will eventually be a need for new police facilities as growth continues in the City, particularly in northern Stockton (City of Stockton 2020) .

The project itself would not trigger the need for new police facilities, but construction of such facilities when required in the future would have potential for environmental impacts.

The Stockton General Plan 2040 EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of new police and other capital facilities. It stated that the estimated timing or location of such facilities, if required, or the exact nature of these facilities are not known, so project-specific environmental impacts that would occur from thei r construction and operation cannot be determined at this time. However, such facilities would require permitting and review in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure that any environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible (City of Stockton 2018b). The Stockton Municipal Service Review confirmed that new police facilities would likely be required in the future and that the City will review future projects on an individual basis and will require City compliance with requirements (e.g., impact fees) in effect (City of Stockton 2020).

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-43 November 2021
The project would be required to pay Public Facility Fees to the City that would be applied to future construction or renovation of Police Department facilities required by urban expansion. Future facilities would be subject to CEQA review. With payment of these Public Facility Fees, impacts on police protection services would be less than significant. a-iii) Schools.

As noted in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project would not construct residences that would encourage population growth in the area. Because of this, the project would not create additional demand for school services. No new or expanded school facilities that could have environmental impacts would be required. The project would have no impact on this issue.
a-iv) Parks.

The project would not create additional demand for parks. No new or expanded facilities that could have environmental impacts would be required. The project would have no impact on this issue.
a-v) Other Public Facilities.

The project would not create additional demand for other public facilities , such as libraries.

No new or expanded facilities that could have environmental impacts would be required. The project would have no impact on this issue.

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
As noted in Section 3.15, Public Services, the City of Stockton provides park and recreational services within its City limits, managed by its Community Services Department. The City owns and operates 66 parks, along with accessible open space, special purpose facilities, and trails. As mentioned in Section 3.15, Public Services, the nearest City park is Dentoni Park, Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-44 November 2021
approximately one mile southwest of the project site. Dentoni Park, a 9.5-acre neighborhood park, is equipped with picnic tables, a barbeque facility, a tot lot, horseshoe pits, two tennis courts, a softball field, and a basketball court.

Parks and recreational facilities in the unincorporated areas are managed by San Joaquin County Parks and Recreation. Oak Grove Park, located at 4520 West Eight Mile Road, is a regional park approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site. Oak Grove Park contains 10-acre Oak Grove Lake, which is stocked with catfish and trout for fishing; paddle boats and aqua cycles are available for rent. It also has a nature center, two nature trails, and a youth campground. Other nearby recreational facilities include the Elkhorn County Club, a private golf course approximately 0.4 miles north of the project site.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Recreational Facilities.

As noted in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project would not construct residences that would encourage or accommodate new population growth in the area. Because of this, it would not create additional demand for recreational facilities, nor would it increase the use of existing facilities. No new or expanded facilities that could have environmental impacts would be required. The project would have no impact on this issue.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

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

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site is bounded by two roadways. Lower Sacramento Road, east of the project site, is a regional arterial road that connects Stockton with the communities of Lodi and Woodbridge to the north. It is a two-lane roadway near the project site. At the intersection Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-45 November 2021
with Grider Way, Lower Sacramento Road has left-turn pockets in both directions and a right-turn pocket and acceleration lane in the southbound direction. Arterials are high- volume roadways that connect the regional roadway network to the lo cal roadway network.

The segment of Lower Sacramento Road adjacent to the project site passes beneath the nearby Union Pacific Railroad tracks. Because of this, no direct access to the project site is available from Lower Sacramento Road.

Grider Way is a narrow, two-lane local street that forms most of the southern boundary of the project site. Access to and from the project site would be from this road. Grider Way connects Lower Sacramento Road traffic to the residential areas and Podesta Ranch Elementary School north and west of the project site via Whistler Way, and to other commercial buildings in the project vicinity. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements have been installed along the frontage of the commercial buildings south of Grider Way ; no frontage improvements have been installed along the north side of Grider Way or elsewhere along this road. West of the project site, Grider Way connects with and continues west as Whistler Way. As noted in Chapter 2.0, Project Description, it is proposed that Grider Way would be renamed Whistler Way as part of the project.

The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD) is the primary provider of public transportation service in the Stockton metropolitan area, offering fixed-route and flexible fixed-route services in the Stockton metropolitan area. In addition, SJRTD provides curb-to- curb paratransit (“dial-a-ride”) bus service for passengers who, due to their disability or age, are unable to access fixed route services. No SJRTD bus routes currently serve the project site. There are currently no designated bikeways in the vicinity. As noted, sidewalk has been installed along the frontage of the commercial buildings south of Grider Way. Sidewalks also have been installed along both sides of Lower Sacramento Road near the project site.

The State of California has recently added Section 15064.3 to the CEQA Guidelines, which is meant to incorporate SB 743 into CEQA analysis. SB 743 was enacted in 2013 with the intent to balance congestion management needs and the mitigation of the environmental impacts of traffic with statewide GHG emission reduction goals. SB 743 requires an alternative mechanism for evaluating transportation impacts and amend ing the CEQA guidelines to provide a transportation impact analysis framework that prioritizes reducing GHG emissions, replacing the prior focus of minimizing automobile delay. Section 15064.3(b) states that VMT is the preferred method for evaluating transportation impacts, rather than LOS. The VMT metric measures the total miles traveled by vehicles associated with a project. Unlike LOS, VMT accounts for the total environmental impacts of a project on transportation, including use of non-vehicle travel modes. As noted in Section 3.6, Energy, estimated countywide daily VMT was 17,868,785 miles in 2015.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Conflicts with Transportation Programs and Plans.

The CalEEMod run for the project (see Section 3.3, Air Quality) based its estimates on the vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed development. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition), a “mini-warehouse” would generate 17.96 vehicle trips per 100 storage units. The total vehicle trips generated by Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-46 November 2021
the proposed development were first estimated by using this rate, then translated into trips per 1,000 square feet for use in CalEEMod. The total vehicle trips that would be generated would be approximately 102. This is considered a conservative estimate, as that assumes approximately 20% of all units would be visited every day, which is considered unlikely.

The estimated 102 trips would make only a small contribution to traffic in the vicinity and would not substantially affect traffic flow. As noted in Section 3.3, Air Quality, for comparison, the segment of Lower Sacramento Road adjacent to the project had average daily traffic of 16,340 as of 2017. As such, the project is not expected to conflict with the Circulation Element policies of the Stockton General Plan that address traffic flow. In particular, Action TR-4.1A states that the City shall strive for LOS D or better for both daily roadway segment and peak hour intersection operations. Given the minimal traffic the project would generate, the project is not expected to affect LOS on nearby roads. Project impacts regarding conflicts with transportation programs and plans would be less than significant. b) Conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).

Section 15064.3(b) states that VMT is the preferred method for evaluating transportation impacts, rather than the commonly used LOS. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued a Technical Advisory on the application of VMT in evaluating project impacts. The OPR Technical Advisory established screening criteria to assist in determining if a land use project would have a VMT impact requiring further evaluation .

One of these criteria is if the project generates or attracts fewer than 110 trips per day, then it generally may be assumed to cause a less -than-significant transportation impact (OPR 2018). As noted, the proposed project is expected to generate 10 2 average daily trips; therefore, the project would meet this screening criteria. The project would not conflict with the intent of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). The project would have no impact on this issue.

The City’s TIA Guidelines indicate that a project screened out for VMT analysis “may be required to evaluate potential transit, bicycle/scooter, pedestrian, safety and construction impacts. The project’s potential construction safety effects are addressed in the following section. Sidewalks and a bicycle lane will be included in the street frontage improvements linking existing facilities along Lower Sacramento Road to existing bike facilities within Windmill Park. Being an auto-accessed personal storage facility, the project is not expected to generate any substantial transit need.
c) Traffic Hazards.

Project construction would involve movement of construction equipment onto and from the site, which would be different in character from existing traffic in the vicinity. Construction traffic would be linked to major improvements when they occur, which would be intermittently, temporary, and would cease when work is completed. No significant amount of construction traffic is anticipated. The project does not propose any substantial alterations to Grider Way, other than frontage improvements, and would therefore not contribute to potential traffic hazards. The project would have no impact related to traffic safety.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-47 November 2021
d) Emergency Access.

The site plan indicates that the project site would be accessible from two points off Grider Way – the main entrance and an emergency vehicle access gate from 681 Grider Way. These points would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. The project would have no impact on emergency access.

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site is generally considered to be in Northern Valley Yokuts territory. Their territory included most of the northern San Joaquin Valley and stopped between the Mokelumne and Calaveras rivers. At the core of their land ran the San Joaquin River . The Northern Valley Yokuts tribe had a village, Yatchcumne (or Yachik) near Stockton. Another village, Tauquimne, in the eastern end of the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta near Bear Creek, appears in mission records. Early impacts of disease and missionization destroyed much of the Northern Valley Yokuts culture before it could be documented, resulting in a dearth of information about the tribe (City of Stockton 2018b).

In 2014, the California Legislature enacted AB 52 . AB 52 modifies CEQA procedures regarding consultation with Native American tribes on cultural resource issues. AB 52 established a category called “tribal cultural resources,” which not only includes physical resources but also site features, places, cultural landscapes, and sacred places and objects of value to a tribe, and which are on or eligible for a State or local historic register. AB 52 Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-48 November 2021
establishes notification requirements and consultation procedures between a CEQA lead agency and a tribe when a tribal cultural resource is involved.

In conjunction with the Site Approval application that was approved prior to submittal of the current application to the City, San Joaquin County contacted several local tribes that may have had an interest in the project and its potential impacts on tribal cultural resources, in accordance with AB 52. A response was received from the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC). The UAIC noted the possibility of human remains of Native American origin occurring on the project site. No responses were received from other contacted tribes during the County’s AB 52 effort.

The project applicant distributed notice of the proposed project on behalf of the City to a more extensive list of tribal entities. The notification material and distribution list are shown in Appendix C of this document. No replies to this notification effort have been received as of the date of publication of this IS/MND.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Tribal Cultural Resources.

As noted, during the County’s AB 52 notification effort, the UAIC noted the possibility of human remains of Native American origin occurring on the project site. Should such remains be encountered during project construction, their disturbance would be a potentially significant impact.

The UAIC recommended procedures to be followed should any human remains be uncovered during the course of project construction . These procedures are described in the mitigation measures below, which also include worker training in tribal cultural res ources and their treatment. The UAIC considers that implementation of these mitigation measures would adequately address impacts on tribal cultural resources encountered during construction.

Therefore, project impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

The City of Stockton through the project applicant, as described above, has taken additional steps to notify potentially interested tribes of the proposed project. City contact with the tribes may generate additional concerns and recommendations regarding mitigation that should be included in the project. However, at this point in time, the AB 52 process has identified the potential for the project to result in significant effects on tribal cultural resources and the means by which those impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. In the event that other tribes differ as to how tribal cultural resources should be protected, those differences will need to be addressed, and mitigation requirements modified, during further tribal consultation if requested of the City.

Level of Significance: Potentially significant
Mitigation Measures (as identified by United Auburn Indian Community):

TCR-1: A minimum of seven days prior to the start of any ground -disturbing activity, the contractor shall notify the City’s Community Development Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-49 November 2021
Department of the start date and invite a UAIC tribal representative or tribal monitor to inspect the project site within the first five days of ground disturbance activity. During this inspection, the UAIC tribal representative or tribal monitor shall provide an onsite meeting for construction personnel information on tribal cultural resources and a workers awareness brochure. The meeting shall include relevant information on sensitive tribal cultural resources, applicable regulations and protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. It shall describe appropriate avoidance and minimiz ation measures for resources and shall outline what to do and whom to contact if any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered. The meeting shall underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any find with cultural significance to Native American tribal values.

TCR-2: If any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered during project construction activities, all work within 100 feet of the encounter shall be suspended, and the UAIC, the City, and the onsite project manager shall be immediately notified. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall also be notified in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). The tribal monitor and/or a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and determine the disposition of the resource. Preservation in place is the preferred alternative, although other options may be pursued in coordination with the tribal monitor. The location and nature of the encountered resource shal l be strictly confidential, and under no circumstances shall the contractor or any employee collect the encountered material.

Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project that it has adequate

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-50 November 2021
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
The project site currently is not provided with utility services. Upon annexation and development of the project site, the City of Stockton would provide potable water and wastewater services to the project site. Existing water and sewer lines are located beneath Grider Way. The City also has a storm drainage system that collects runoff from the area.

Solid waste collection service for the project site would be provided by Waste Management.

Energy services, including electricity and natural gas, would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Telephone service is provided by AT&T, while cellular telephone service is provided by several companies.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Relocation or Construction of Utility Facilities.

Project construction would not require the replacement or relocation of utility lines. New water and sewer lines would be installed parallel to existing lines beneath Grider Way. The installation of these lines would occur within existing rights -of-way and would have no different environmental impacts from project site development. The project w ould require no major extension of electrical or communication lines to the project site such that significant environmental impacts would occur. Project impacts related to relocation or construction of utility facilities would be less than significant. b) Water Supplies.

The project would place only limited demands on the water supplies of the City; water use would be confined mainly to the office area and landscaping. N o new supplies would need to be obtained to satisfy project demands . The project would have no impact on water supplies.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-51 November 2021
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity.

The project would generate only limited wastewater, mainly from the office/onsite residence.

The project would not require expansion of capacity of the City’s wastewater treatment plant to accommodate the wastewater generated by the project. The project would have no impact on wastewater treatment capacity.
d, e) Solid Waste Services.

The project would limited generate solid waste; therefore, it would not place a significant demand on solid waste collection services. The project would not place demands on the capacity of landfills where the City’s solid waste is disposed . The project would have no impact on solid waste services or regulations pertaining to solid waste.

3.20 WILDFIRE

If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, w ould the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
Environmental Setting
Wildland fires are an annual hazard in San Joaquin County. Wildland fires burn natural vegetation on undeveloped lands and include rangeland, brush, and grass fires. Long, hot, and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100°F add to the County’s fire hazard.

Human activities are the major causes of wildland fires, while lightning causes the remaining wildland fires. High hazard areas for wildland fires are the grass -covered areas in the east and the southwest foothills of the County (San Joaquin County 2016).

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-52 November 2021
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) has a Fire and Resource Assessment Program that identifies fire threat based on a combination of two factors: 1) fire frequency, or the likelihood of a given area burning, and 2) potential fire behavior (hazard).

These two factors are combined in determining the following Fire Hazard Severity Zones:

Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. These zones apply to areas designated as State Responsibility Areas – areas in which the State has primary firefighting responsibil ity. The project site is not within a State Responsibility Area; rather, it is within a Local Responsibility Area, where local fire districts or departments have primary firefighting responsibility. The project site and vicinity are not in any designated fire hazard zone for a Local Responsibility Area (Cal Fire 2007a, 2007b).

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Emergency Response Plans and Emergency Evacuation Plans.

The project site is not part of a State Responsibility Area, and Cal Fire maps indicate the site is not designated within any Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project is within a mostly developed urban area with no significant open spaces. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, work within Grider Way has the p otential to restrict traffic flow.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would minimize impact related to emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans to a level that would be less than significant. b) Exposure of Project Occupants to Wildfire Hazards.

As noted, Cal Fire maps indicate that the project site is not designated within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project is a self-storage facility; only one onsite manager would occupy the facility. As discussed in Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the potential fire hazard on the project site would be substantially reduced with site development. The project would have no impact related to exposure of project occupants to wildfire hazards. c) Installation and Maintenance of Infrastructure.

As noted in Section 3.19, Utilities and Service System, existing utility lines are available in the project vicinity. Only lines connecting the project site to these utility lines would be required. The installation of these improvements would not exacerbate the wildfire risk on the project site, which is considered minimal. The project would have no impact related t o infrastructural exacerbation of wildfire hazards.
d) Risks from Runoff, Post-Fire Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes.

The project site is in a topographically flat area at the bottom of the San Joaquin Valley .

There are no streams or other channels that cross the site. As such, it is not expected that people or structures would be exposed to significant risks from changes resulting from fires in steeper areas , including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides . The project would have no impact related to risks from runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-53 November 2021

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

NARRATIVE DISCUSSION
a) Findings on Biological and Cultural Resources.

The biological resource impacts of the revised project were described in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. Cultural resource impacts were described in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources. No potentially significant effects on biological resources were identified with implementation of Incidental Take Minimization Measures from SJCOG. Potentially significant environmental effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources were identified, but implementation of mitigation measures described in these sections would reduce these effects to a level that would be less than significant. b) Findings on Cumulatively Considerable Impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(1) states that a “cumulative impact” is created by the combination of a proposed project with o ther past, present, and probable future projects (or programs) causing related impacts. The overall impacts of urban development in the project area generally are addressed in the certified EIR for the Stockton General Plan 2040.

Cumulative impacts can also result from individually minor, but collectively significant, projects taking place over time (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[b]). For this project, past projects applicable to potential cumulative effects include Podesta Ranch Elementary Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 3-54 November 2021
School, commercial development near the intersection of Lower Sacramento Road and Grider Way, and residential development north and west of the project site.

In general, the project would have no impact on environmental issues, or would have impacts that are less than significant with mitigation. The potential environmental effects of the project would contribute to environmental effects associated with commercial development of the site, and urban development of other surrounding lands as addressed in the certified EIR for the Stockton General Plan 2040. None of the project impacts identified are expected to have a notable cumulative effect or a cumulatively considerable effect in combination with existing or planned development in the project area. The project is consistent with planned development in the area as provided in the Stockton General Plan. The project would not make a considerable contribution to potential cumulative impacts. c) Findings on Adverse Effects on Human Beings.

Potential adverse project effects on human beings were discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.7, Geology and Soils (seismic hazards); Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (flooding); Section 3.1 7, Transportation (traffic hazards); and Section 3.20, Wildfire. Potential adverse effects identified in those sections would be reduced to levels considered less than significant through compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and City ordinances and standards, along with mitigation measures where necessary.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 4-1 November 2021

4.0 REFERENCES

4.1 DOCUMENT PREPARERS
This IS/MND was prepared by BaseCamp Environmental, Inc. for use by and under the supervision of the City of Stockton. The following persons were involved in preparation of the IS/MND:

BaseCamp Environmental, Inc.

Charlie Simpson, Principal
Terry Farmer, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner
Krista Simpson, Associate Environmental Planner

4.2 REFERENCES CITED
Bryant, William A. and Earl W. Hart. 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California:

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey Special Publication 42. Interim Revision 2007.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans: A Resource for Local Government to Incorporate General Plan Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. June 2009.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017.
______. 2020. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2018.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2018. San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2018 (map).

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG). 1977.

Mineral Land Classification Study of the Stanislaus River Area, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, California. DMG Open File Report 77-16. ______. 1988. Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in the Stockton-Lodi Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 160.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). 2021. Well Finder – CalGEM GIS. Available online at Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 4-2 November 2021
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/- 121.32396/38.04370/12. Accessed September 1, 2021.

California Department of Finance. 2021. Report E-5, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, with 2010 Benchmark.

Released May 1, 2021.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). 2007a. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, San Joaquin County (map). October 2, 2007. ______. 2007b. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, San Joaquin County (map).

Adopted on November 7, 2007.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021a. EnviroStor database, www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. Accessed August 26, 2021.
______. 2021b. Podesta Ranch Elementary School (60000071). From EnviroStor database, www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. Accessed August 26, 2021.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. ______. 2017. Designated and Eligible California Scenic Highways. Available online at www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/index.html. March 2017.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2014. Geology of the Northern Sacramento Valley. June 2014, updated September 22, 2014.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021a. Electricity Consumption by County – San Joaquin County 2019. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty. aspx. Accessed August 20, 2021.
______. 2021b. Gas Consumption by County – San Joaquin County 2019. Available online at ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed August 20, 2021.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2021a. Sites Identified with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels Outside the Waste Management Unit. Available online at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/ SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2021.

______. 2021b. List of "Active" CDO and CAO from Water Board. Available online at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm. Accessed January 14, 2021.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2017. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Available online at http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. Accessed July 29, 2017.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2021.

CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Available online at oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/ Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 4-3 November 2021
calenviroscreen-30. Accessed September 1, 2021.

City of Stockton. 2004. Stockton Citywide Design Guidelines. Approved by City Council Resolution 04-0213, March 30, 2004.
______. 2009. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Program Stormwater Management Plan. Prepared by Larry Walker Associates.

April 15, 2009.
______. 2014. City of Stockton Climate Action Plan. Prepared by ICF International.

Adopted December 2014.
______. 2018a. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Adopted December 2018. ______. 2018b. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR. Prepared by PlaceWorks. June 2018. ______. 2020. City of Stockton Sphere of Influence Plan/Municipal Service Review.

Submitted by City of Stockton and PlaceWorks. April 23, 2020.

Coffman Associates, Inc. 2009. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update, San Joaquin County Aviation System, San Joaquin County, California. July 2009.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGA). 2019. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan. November 2019.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map #06077C0315F, San Joaquin County, California. Effective date October 16, 2009.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

San Joaquin Council of Governments. (SJCOG). 2000. San Joaquin County Multi- Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP). November 14, 2000.
______. 2018. 2018 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report. March 2018. ______. 2020. Bateman Self-Storage FacilitySJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization Measures. Letter dated December 21, 2020.

San Joaquin County. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan Background Report.

Prepared by Mintier Harnish. December 2016.

San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2018. Groundwater Report, Spring 2018.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 4-4 November 2021
San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (San Joaquin LAFCo). 2012. Change of Organization Policies and Procedures (Including Annexations and Reorganizations). Adopted September 21, 2007; last amended December 14, 2012.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Adopted March 19, 2015. ______. 2020. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Valley Attainment Status. Available online at http://www.valleyair.org/aqinfo/attainment.htm. Accessed August 7, 2020.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker website, www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov. Accessed August 26, 2021.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Stockton city, California. Available online at https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US0675000. Accessed August 27, 2021.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021.

Custom Soil Resource Report for San Joaquin County, California – Whistler Way Annexation. August 26, 2021.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009. Endangerment and Cause of Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Federal Register Vol. 74, No. 239, pp. 66496-66546. December 15, 2009.

Wagner, D. L., C.W. Jennings, T.L. Bedrosian, and E. J. Bortugno. 1981. Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California, 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology, Regional Geologic Map Series.

Westerling, Leroy, Josue Medellin-Azuara, Joshua Viers. 2018. San Joaquin Valley Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-003.

4.3 PERSONS CONSULTED
Diaz, Matt. City of Stockton Community Development Department.

Okubo, Ann. City of Stockton Municipal Utility Department.

Stagnaro, David J. Strategic Land Planning.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 5-1 November 2021

5.0 NOTES RELATED TO EVALUATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence t hat an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which ones were incorporated or refined from the earlier document , and the extent to which Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation IS/MND 5-2 November 2021
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances).

Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
APPENDIX A
CALEEMOD RESULTS
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Whistler Way Annexation
San Joaquin County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use -
Construction Phase - No demolition.

Vehicle Trips - From ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th edition - Mini-Warehouse.

Area Coating - Per SJVAPCD Rule 4601.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Default values.

Water Mitigation - Default values.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 100.85 1000sqft 2.32 100,850.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
2 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.7 51

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas and Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
203.98 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 0 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 0 50
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 0 150
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 1 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 0 150
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 0 150
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 0 50500
tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 0 151500
tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 0 10
tblConstDustMitigation WaterExposedAreaPM10PercentReducti on
0 55
tblConstDustMitigation WaterExposedAreaPM25PercentReducti on
0 55
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 5.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 180.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.74 1.01
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.74 1.01
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.74 1.01
tblWaterMitigation PercentReductionInFlowBathroomFaucet 0 32 tblWaterMitigation PercentReductionInFlowKitchenFaucet 0 18 tblWaterMitigation PercentReductionInFlowShower 0 20
tblWaterMitigation PercentReductionInFlowToilet 0 20
tblWaterMitigation UseWaterEfficientIrrigationSystemPercen tReduction
0 6.1
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 2 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1748 1.3722 1.3433 2.7200e-
003

0.0427 0.0624 0.1051 0.0107 0.0597 0.0704 0.0000 232.1028 232.1028 0.0370 4.9700e- 003
234.5096
2023 0.2522 0.1477 0.1729 3.2000e-
004

3.8800e-
003

6.6900e-
003

0.0106 1.0500e-
003

6.3400e-
003

7.3900e-
003

0.0000 27.6614 27.6614 5.3300e-
003

4.2000e-
004

27.9188
Maximum 0.2522 1.3722 1.3433 2.7200e-
003

0.0427 0.0624 0.1051 0.0107 0.0597 0.0704 0.0000 232.1028 232.1028 0.0370 4.9700e- 003
234.5096
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.1748 1.3722 1.3433 2.7200e-
003

0.0398 0.0624 0.1022 0.0104 0.0597 0.0701 0.0000 232.1026 232.1026 0.0370 4.9700e- 003
234.5094
2023 0.2522 0.1477 0.1729 3.2000e-
004

3.8800e-
003

6.6900e-
003

0.0106 1.0500e-
003

6.3400e-
003

7.3900e-
003

0.0000 27.6614 27.6614 5.3300e-
003

4.2000e-
004

27.9188
Maximum 0.2522 1.3722 1.3433 2.7200e-
003

0.0398 0.0624 0.1022 0.0104 0.0597 0.0701 0.0000 232.1026 232.1026 0.0370 4.9700e- 003
234.5094
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 3 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.26 0.00 2.52 2.71 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 5-1-2022 7-31-2022 0.5811 0.5811
2 8-1-2022 10-31-2022 0.5799 0.5799
3 11-1-2022 1-31-2023 0.5374 0.5374
4 2-1-2023 4-30-2023 0.2447 0.2447
Highest 0.5811 0.5811

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.4174 1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003
Energy 3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 75.0157 75.0157 7.4900e-
003

1.4300e-
003

75.6290
Mobile 0.0512 0.0823 0.4916 1.1300e-
003

0.1109 9.3000e-
004

0.1118 0.0297 8.8000e-
004

0.0305 0.0000 104.6778 104.6778 5.8200e-
003

5.5300e-
003
106.4705
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 19.2435 0.0000 19.2435 1.1373 0.0000 47.6751 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.3989 11.6759 19.0747 0.7618 0.0182 43.5357 Total 0.4718 0.1122 0.5176 1.3100e-
003

0.1109 3.2000e-
003

0.1141 0.0297 3.1500e-
003

0.0328 26.6424 191.3711 218.0135 1.9124 0.0251 273.3122 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 4 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.4174 1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003
Energy 3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 75.0157 75.0157 7.4900e-
003

1.4300e-
003

75.6290
Mobile 0.0501 0.0790 0.4725 1.0800e-
003

0.1053 8.9000e-
004

0.1062 0.0282 8.3000e-
004

0.0290 0.0000 99.5927 99.5927 5.6400e-
003

5.3100e-
003
101.3158
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.8109 0.0000 4.8109 0.2843 0.0000 11.9188 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.9191 9.3407 15.2598 0.6095 0.0145 34.8286 Total 0.4707 0.1090 0.4985 1.2600e-
003

0.1053 3.1600e-
003

0.1085 0.0282 3.1000e-
003

0.0313 10.7300 183.9509 194.6808 0.9069 0.0213 223.6940 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/1/2022 4/29/2022 5 0
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2022 5/4/2022 5 3 3 Grading Grading 5/5/2022 5/12/2022 5 6
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.24 2.91 3.69 3.82 5.00 1.25 4.89 4.99 1.59 4.66 59.73 3.88 10.70 52.58 15.32 18.15 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 5 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/13/2022 1/19/2023 5 180 5 Paving Paving 1/20/2023 2/2/2023 5 10
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/3/2023 2/9/2023 5 5 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 151,500; Non-Residential Outdoor: 50,500; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 7
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 6 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 42.00 17.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 7 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 8 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.7100e-
003

0.0000 3.7100e-
003

4.0000e-
004

0.0000 4.0000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

3.7100e-
003

8.9000e-
004

4.6000e-
003

4.0000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.2200e-
003

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 9 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0776 0.0776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0784
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0776 0.0776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0784
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.6700e-
003

0.0000 1.6700e-
003

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

8.9000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Total 2.0700e-
003

0.0235 0.0151 4.0000e-
005

1.6700e-
003

8.9000e-
004

2.5600e-
003

1.8000e-
004

8.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
003

0.0000 3.2321 3.2321 1.0500e-
003

0.0000 3.2582
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 10 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0776 0.0776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0784
Total 4.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0776 0.0776 0.0000 0.0000 0.0784
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.5900e-
003

0.0000 1.5900e-
003

1.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Total 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

1.5900e-
003

2.2300e-
003

3.8200e-
003

1.7000e-
004

2.0500e-
003

2.2200e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 11 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1940 0.1940 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1959
Total 9.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1940 0.1940 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1959
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 7.2000e-
004

0.0000 7.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

2.2300e-
003

2.2300e-
003

2.0500e-
003

2.0500e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Total 4.6200e-
003

0.0510 0.0277 6.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

2.2300e-
003

2.9500e-
003

8.0000e-
005

2.0500e-
003

2.1300e-
003

0.0000 5.4308 5.4308 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4747
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 12 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1940 0.1940 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1959
Total 9.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

7.5000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1940 0.1940 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.1959
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1540 1.2121 1.1913 2.0800e-
003

0.0583 0.0583 0.0559 0.0559 0.0000 172.3745 172.3745 0.0333 0.0000 173.2059 Total 0.1540 1.2121 1.1913 2.0800e-
003

0.0583 0.0583 0.0559 0.0559 0.0000 172.3745 172.3745 0.0333 0.0000 173.2059 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 13 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.9700e-
003

0.0778 0.0215 2.9000e-
004

9.3200e-
003

8.5000e-
004

0.0102 2.6900e-
003

8.2000e-
004

3.5100e-
003

0.0000 28.2473 28.2473 2.0000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

29.5280
Worker 0.0110 7.6800e-
003

0.0867 2.5000e-
004

0.0278 1.5000e-
004

0.0279 7.3800e-
003

1.3000e-
004

7.5200e-
003

0.0000 22.5465 22.5465 7.4000e-
004

6.8000e-
004

22.7685
Total 0.0140 0.0855 0.1082 5.4000e-
004

0.0371 1.0000e-
003

0.0381 0.0101 9.5000e-
004

0.0110 0.0000 50.7938 50.7938 9.4000e-
004

4.9600e-
003

52.2965
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1540 1.2121 1.1913 2.0800e-
003

0.0583 0.0583 0.0559 0.0559 0.0000 172.3743 172.3743 0.0333 0.0000 173.2057 Total 0.1540 1.2121 1.1913 2.0800e-
003

0.0583 0.0583 0.0559 0.0559 0.0000 172.3743 172.3743 0.0333 0.0000 173.2057 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 14 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.9700e-
003

0.0778 0.0215 2.9000e-
004

9.3200e-
003

8.5000e-
004

0.0102 2.6900e-
003

8.2000e-
004

3.5100e-
003

0.0000 28.2473 28.2473 2.0000e-
004

4.2800e-
003

29.5280
Worker 0.0110 7.6800e-
003

0.0867 2.5000e-
004

0.0278 1.5000e-
004

0.0279 7.3800e-
003

1.3000e-
004

7.5200e-
003

0.0000 22.5465 22.5465 7.4000e-
004

6.8000e-
004

22.7685
Total 0.0140 0.0855 0.1082 5.4000e-
004

0.0371 1.0000e-
003

0.0381 0.0101 9.5000e-
004

0.0110 0.0000 50.7938 50.7938 9.4000e-
004

4.9600e-
003

52.2965
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0120 0.0954 0.0995 1.8000e-
004

4.3000e-
003

4.3000e-
003

4.1200e-
003

4.1200e-
003

0.0000 14.5391 14.5391 2.7500e-
003

0.0000 14.6079
Total 0.0120 0.0954 0.0995 1.8000e-
004

4.3000e-
003

4.3000e-
003

4.1200e-
003

4.1200e-
003

0.0000 14.5391 14.5391 2.7500e-
003

0.0000 14.6079
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 15 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.3000e-
004

5.2600e-
003

1.5500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.2928 2.2928 1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

2.3963
Worker 8.5000e-
004

5.6000e-
004

6.6900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.3400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.3500e-
003

6.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

6.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.8402 1.8402 6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

1.8573
Total 9.8000e-
004

5.8200e-
003

8.2400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

3.1300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

3.1700e-
003

8.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

0.0000 4.1329 4.1329 7.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
004

4.2537
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0120 0.0954 0.0995 1.8000e-
004

4.3000e-
003

4.3000e-
003

4.1200e-
003

4.1200e-
003

0.0000 14.5391 14.5391 2.7500e-
003

0.0000 14.6079
Total 0.0120 0.0954 0.0995 1.8000e-
004

4.3000e-
003

4.3000e-
003

4.1200e-
003

4.1200e-
003

0.0000 14.5391 14.5391 2.7500e-
003

0.0000 14.6079
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 16 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.3000e-
004

5.2600e-
003

1.5500e-
003

2.0000e-
005

7.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

8.2000e-
004

2.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.2928 2.2928 1.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

2.3963
Worker 8.5000e-
004

5.6000e-
004

6.6900e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.3400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

2.3500e-
003

6.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

6.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.8402 1.8402 6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

1.8573
Total 9.8000e-
004

5.8200e-
003

8.2400e-
003

4.0000e-
005

3.1300e-
003

4.0000e-
005

3.1700e-
003

8.5000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

8.9000e-
004

0.0000 4.1329 4.1329 7.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
004

4.2537
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8179
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8179
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 17 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

1.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4738
Total 2.2000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

1.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4738
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8178
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.4000e-
003

0.0431 0.0584 9.0000e-
005

2.1700e-
003

2.1700e-
003

2.0000e-
003

2.0000e-
003

0.0000 7.7564 7.7564 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8178
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 18 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.2000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

1.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4738
Total 2.2000e-
004

1.4000e-
004

1.7100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.4694 0.4694 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.4738
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2341 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.8000e-
004

3.2600e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6393
Total 0.2346 3.2600e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6393
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 19 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1252 0.1252 0.0000 0.0000 0.1264
Total 6.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1252 0.1252 0.0000 0.0000 0.1264
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2341 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.8000e-
004

3.2600e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6393
Total 0.2346 3.2600e-
003

4.5300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6393
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 20 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1252 0.1252 0.0000 0.0000 0.1264
Total 6.0000e-
005

4.0000e-
005

4.5000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

4.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1252 0.1252 0.0000 0.0000 0.1264
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Diversity
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 21 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0501 0.0790 0.4725 1.0800e-
003

0.1053 8.9000e-
004

0.1062 0.0282 8.3000e-
004

0.0290 0.0000 99.5927 99.5927 5.6400e-
003

5.3100e-
003
101.3158
Unmitigated 0.0512 0.0823 0.4916 1.1300e-
003

0.1109 9.3000e-
004

0.1118 0.0297 8.8000e-
004

0.0305 0.0000 104.6778 104.6778 5.8200e-
003

5.5300e-
003
106.4705

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 101.86 101.86 101.86 297,377 282,508 Total 101.86 101.86 101.86 297,377 282,508
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No
Rail

0.531667 0.052263 0.168651 0.155495 0.027235 0.006385 0.012362 0.016685 0.000479 0.000329 0.023608 0.001135 0.003707

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 22 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 42.4562 42.4562 6.8700e- 003

8.3000e-
004

42.8760
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 42.4562 42.4562 6.8700e- 003

8.3000e-
004

42.8760
NaturalGas
Mitigated

3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 32.5595 32.5595 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

32.7530
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 32.5595 32.5595 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

32.7530

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
610143 3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 32.5595 32.5595 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

32.7530
Total 3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 32.5595 32.5595 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

32.7530
Unmitigated

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 23 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
610143 3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 32.5595 32.5595 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

32.7530
Total 3.2900e-
003

0.0299 0.0251 1.8000e-
004

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

2.2700e-
003

0.0000 32.5595 32.5595 6.2000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

32.7530
Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
458868 42.4562 6.8700e-
003

8.3000e-
004

42.8760
Total 42.4562 6.8700e-
003

8.3000e-
004

42.8760
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 24 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.4174 1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003
Unmitigated 0.4174 1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail
458868 42.4562 6.8700e-
003

8.3000e-
004

42.8760
Total 42.4562 6.8700e-
003

8.3000e-
004

42.8760
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 25 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.3939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003
Total 0.4174 1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 26 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Apply Water Conservation Strategy

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.3939 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 9.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003
Total 0.4174 1.0000e-
005

9.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8000e-
003

1.8000e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 1.9200e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 27 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 15.2598 0.6095 0.0145 34.8286
Unmitigated 19.0747 0.7618 0.0182 43.5357

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

23.3216 /
0 19.0747 0.7618 0.0182 43.5357
Total 19.0747 0.7618 0.0182 43.5357
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 28 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

18.6573 /
0 15.2598 0.6095 0.0145 34.8286
Total 15.2598 0.6095 0.0145 34.8286
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 4.8109 0.2843 0.0000 11.9188
Unmitigated 19.2435 1.1373 0.0000 47.6751
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 29 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

94.8 19.2435 1.1373 0.0000 47.6751
Total 19.2435 1.1373 0.0000 47.6751
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Unrefrigerated
Warehouse-No
Rail

23.7 4.8109 0.2843 0.0000 11.9188
Total 4.8109 0.2843 0.0000 11.9188
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 30 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 9/9/2021 1:24 PMPage 31 of 31 Whistler Way Annexation - San Joaquin County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
APPENDIX B
INCIDENTAL TAKE MINIMIZATION MEASURES
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
APPENDIX C
AB 52 NOTIFICATION MATERIAL
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
From: David Stagnaro [email protected]
Subject: City of Stockton AB 52 Tribal Consultation - Whistler Way Annexation Project Date: November 11, 2021 at 11:55 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], offi[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], tribaloffi[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: Matt Diaz [email protected], Marlon Bateman [email protected], Charlie Simpson [email protected], Terry Farmer [email protected], Rayanna Beck [email protected], Michael McDowell [email protected], William Crew [email protected] Transmitted on behalf of:

City of Stockton
Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Contact Person and Phone Number: Matt Diaz, Planning Manager 209-937-8598 email: [email protected]
Comment due date for tribal consultation:

Noon on December 10, 2021
Project Location: Grider Way and Lower Sacramento Road, Stockton
Project Sponsor Name and Address: Strategic Land Planning 18040 Foreman Court
Linden, CA 95236
David Stagnaro, AICP, MPA
General Plan Designation: Agricultural-Urban Reserve (County), Commercial (City of Stockton)
Zoning: C-C - Community Commercial (County), Prezoning to CG - Commercial General (City)
Project Description: The project proposes the annexation of six parcels totaling 8.76 acres to the City of Stockton, including adjacent road right-of-way. The annexation area would be pre-zoned CG (Commercial General). Upon annexation, the project proposes to develop 7.26 acres for a self-storage facility totaling 100,850 square feet in floor area. The facility would consist of ten buildings with a total of 570 storage units of various sizes, plus a combined office/onsite manager residence building. An enlarged entrance to the facility would be constructed off Grider Way. Fencing and landscaping would be installed.

Project Background
As noted, two of the parcels proposed for annexation have been developed, each with a commercial building. A site plan for development of four of the parcels within the current project site was submitted to San Joaquin County (County) in 2020. The site plan proposed the development of a storage facility similar to the application for City approval described in this document; under the County application only eight storage buildings would be built. The County approved the site plan with conditions on April 21, 2021. At the time of County approval, the project site was expected to remain in the County but would connect to the water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems of the City of Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
would connect to the water, wastewater, and storm drainage systems of the City of Stockton. Connection to City utilities would, however, have required an Out-of-Area Agreement with the City. The LAFCo has expressed concern about the use of Out-of- Area Agreements for projects, indicating a preference for annexation. As a result, the project applicant has submitted an application to the City requesting annexation of the project site, along with a pre-zoning request and request for necessary City approvals of the proposed site development.

Draft Cultural/Archeological Resources Mitigation Language:

CULT-1: If any subsurface archaeological resources are
encountered during construction, all construction
activities within a 50-foot radius of the encounter shall be immediately halted until a qualified archaeologist can
examine these materials, initially evaluate their
significance and, if potentially significant, recommend
measures on the disposition of the resource. The City shall be immediately notified in the event of a discovery. The contractor shall be responsible for retaining qualified
professionals, implementing recommended mitigation
measures, and documenting mitigation efforts in written reports to the City.

Recommended measures could include,
but are not limited to, 1) preservation in place, or 2) excavation, recovery, and curation by qualified
professionals.

Tribal Cultural Resources:

TCR-1: A minimum of seven days prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the contractor shall notify the City’s Community Development Department and the
United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) of the start date and invite a UAIC tribal representative or tribal monitor to inspect the project site within the first five days of ground disturbance activity. During this inspection, the UAIC tribal representative or tribal monitor shall provide an onsite meeting for construction personnel information on tribal cultural resources and a workers awareness brochure. The meeting shall include relevant information on sensitive tribal cultural resources, applicable regulations and
protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating
State laws and regulations. It shall describe appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for resources and
shall outline what to do and whom to contact if any
potential tribal cultural resources are encountered. The meeting shall underscore the requirement for
confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any find with cultural significance to Native American tribal values.

TCR-2: If any potential tribal cultural resources are
encountered during project construction activities, all work within 100 feet of the encounter shall be suspended, and the UAIC, the City, and the onsite project manager shall be immediately notified. If human remains are
encountered, the County Coroner shall also be notified in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c). The tribal monitor and/or a qualified
archaeologist shall examine the find and determine the
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
archaeologist shall examine the find and determine the
disposition of the resource. Preservation in place is the preferred alternative, although other options may be
pursued in coordination with the tribal monitor. The
location and nature of the encountered resource shall be strictly confidential, and under no circumstances shall the contractor or any employee collect the encountered
material.

Please see attached cultural resources mitigation/information from San Joaquin County Site Approval No. PA-2000188
Source: United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC), Attached Site Plan and Vicinity Map
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
uaic
mitigation.pdf
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND
Exhibit 1- Final IS/MND