City Council and Concurrent Authorities
April 19, 2022

Attachment F
852
7 Mariposa Rd / Stagecoach Rd
8 Mariposa Rd / Munford Ave
9 Mariposa Rd / Carpenter Rd
1 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 SB Ramps
4 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 West Frontage Rd
2 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 NB Ramps
5 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 SB Ramps
3 Mariposa Rd / 8th St / Farmington Rd
6 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 19

PROJECTED-RELATED

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0780-18 RA 7/9/20210 (0) 0 (0)
5 (10)
0 (0)
(8) 8
(0) 0
(0) 0(0) 0
223 (446)
0 (0)
(255) 351
(0) 0
(0) 0
(42) 59
129 (258)
75 (150)
(190) 262
(0) 0
0 (0)203 (147)
37 (74)
38 (75)
(0) 0
(43) 59 5 (10) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Attachment F
853
10 Austin Rd / Mariposa Rd
13 Arch Airport Rd/ SR 99
11 Austin Rd/ Arch Rd
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
12 Arch Airport Rd/ Qantas Ln
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 20

PROJECTED-RELATED

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
0 (0)0 (0)4 (3)
(0) 0
(0) 0(1) 2
3 (6)
15 (30)
1 (2)
(0) 0
(17) 24
(0) 0
0 (0)11 (21)0 (0)
(0) 0
(12) 17
(0) 0
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
(0) 0
19 (38)0 (1)
(0) 0
(0) 0
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(22) 30
(0) 0
(0) 0
N.T.S.
17 (12)0 (0)0 (0)
(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0
0 (0)
12 (8)
0 (0)
(21) 11
(15) 7
(0) 0
Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Attachment F
854
7 Mariposa Rd / Stagecoach Rd
8 Mariposa Rd / Munford Ave
9 Mariposa Rd / Carpenter Rd
1 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 SB Ramps
4 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 West Frontage Rd
2 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 NB Ramps
5 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 SB Ramps
3 Mariposa Rd / 8th St / Farmington Rd
6 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 21

EPAP PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
29 (56)43 (63)156 (122)
(27) 12(88) 83
(295) 302
366 (197)298 (500)
61 (44)
173 (230)
(212) 131
(375) 118
(23) 13
(328) 243
(132) 26(114) 69
799 (1088)
103 (77)
(950) 916
(52) 92
138 (242)0 (0)75 (49)
(191) 218(139) 247
774 (1138)
285 (552)
(1000) 1124
(566) 489
752 (451)714 (595)
98 (212)
428 (537)
(910) 812
(310) 234 177 (204) 40 (121)
522 (546)
57 (80)
(306) 113
(589) 324
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
CWLTL
“Free” Right Turn
Center Two-Way
Left Turn Lane
Attachment F
855
10 Austin Rd / Mariposa Rd
13 Arch Airport Rd/ SR 99
11 Austin Rd/ Arch Rd
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
12 Arch Airport Rd/ Qantas Ln
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 22

EPAP PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
85 (92)1 (1)592 (770)
(2) 0
(1) 1
(14) 7
928 (357)
1484 (1141)
15 (18)
(50) 89
(1451) 1033
(2) 3
135 (165)248 (70)24 (12)
(221) 140(296) 114
(8) 10
7 (31)
43 (21)
2 (6)
(121) 161
(41) 22
(122) 320
1310 (521)1685 (593)
(319) 648
(322) 624
647 (1593)
504 (657)
363 (576)
(1026) 515
(559) 686
(683) 385206 (414) 2 (1)
36 (83)
(167) 27
(2) 1
(14) 2
124 (26)
491 (199)
17 (7)
(197) 372
(541) 167
(82) 210
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
CWLTL
“Free” Right Turn
Center Two-Way
Left Turn Lane
Attachment F
856
201
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
204
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
207
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
202
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
205
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
208
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Southbound On-Ramp (Slip) Merge
203
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
206
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
209
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 23

EPAP PLUS PROJECT FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
(4750) 3100 3890 (5783)
4913 (5577)
(3552) 5246
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane
(376) 289
(1892) 1565
4385 (6251) 3109 (4735)
4852 (4399)
340 (403)
913 (686)
(4396) 4823 (4113) 4250
4882 (5510) 4715 (5281)
(510) 355 (739) 522
(5218) 7012 (4002) 4723
Attachment F
857
210
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
213
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
211
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
212
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 24

EPAP PLUS PROJECT FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
3192 (3493)
(2749) 2485
3192 (3493)
(2749) 2485
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane
Attachment F
858
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 72 July 9, 2021

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Implementation of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in roadway improvements needed to provide access to the project site. Improvements to project site access points are shown in the proposed project site plan presented in Figure 2 and project site frontage striping plan presented in Figure 3. These improvements have been previously described in more detail in the Project Description section of this traffic impact study.

Figure 21 and Figure 22 display the resulting EPAP Plus Project intersection lane geometrics for each study intersection. The resulting number of travel lanes assumed for study roadway segments and daily traffic volumes are shown in Table 17.

INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 18 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at each study intersection under EPAP Plus Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, LOS at 11 of the 15 study intersections would be at acceptable LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. No improvements would be needed at these 11 intersections to achieve acceptable LOS. The following describes the four study intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS under EPAP Plus Project conditions.

3. Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 109.3 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 145.8 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. Compared to EPAP No Project Conditions, the projectrelated increase in delay would be greater than five seconds during either the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Split the northeastbound combined through/right-turn lane into an exclusive northeastbound through lane and a “free” northeastbound-to-southeastbound rightturn lane.

The above improvement would be consistent with the recommended improvement (described below) for Roadway Segment 105, Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road, to widen the portions of this roadway segment which are one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction. The added southeastbound departure lane on Mariposa Road would serve vehicles departing the “free” northeastbound-to-southeastbound right-turn lane at this intersection.

Attachment F
859
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 73 July 9, 2021
The existing northeastbound combined through/right-turn lane is approximately 23 to 24 feet wide and the single southwestbound departure lane is approximately 21 to 22 feet wide. As a result, the existing pavement width on the southwest leg of this intersection is considered wide enough to accommodate the above improvement.

Attachment F
860
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 74 July 9, 2021
Table 17. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 113,717 0.66 C
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 120,429 0.70 C
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 126,842 0.73 C and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 125,851 0.73 C
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 2 17,300 27,296 1.58 F
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 4 38,200 26,540 0.69 D
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 4 38,200 26,777 0.70 D Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 16,163 0.42 A
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 11,397 0.30 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 6 129,600 97,705 0.75 D and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 51,815 0.87 E
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 6 129,600 85,955 0.66 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
861
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 75 July 9, 2021
Table 18. Intersection Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions Signal AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intersections Control Met? LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal B 14.2 B 16.0 2 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal B 15.8 C 23.9 3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road Signal F 109.3 F 145.8 4 Mariposa Road & SR 99 West Frontage Road Signal B 14.2 B 14.5 5 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal B 18.4 B 15.4 6 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal B 10.6 B 10.4 7 Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road Signal B 18.5 B 18.2
8 Mariposa Road & Munford Avenue Signal B 11.5 C 23.9
9 Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road Unsig Yes A 3.7 F 63.9 10 Mariposa Road & Austin Road Signal C 35.0 D 40.2
11 Arch Road & Austin Road Signal D 45.2 D 40.2
12 Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane Signal E 61.7 C 28.4 13 Arch Road & SR 99 Signal F 194.4 E 73.6
14 Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway Unsig No A 0.5 A 1.2 15 Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway Signal B 13.8 C 23.1 ______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control. "Unsig" = Unsignalized stop-sign control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections, including unsignalized intersections.

Inters. Warrant
Attachment F
862
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 76 July 9, 2021
As shown in Table 19, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS D with 40.4 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E with 73.2 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. As described in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, LOS D and E at this intersection are considered acceptable.

This recommended improvement is the same as the improvement recommended at this intersection for EPAP No Project conditions.

9. Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS A with 3.7 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 63.9 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. Compared to EPAP No Project Conditions, the project-related increase in delay would be greater than five seconds during either the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Widen the northeastbound Carpenter Road approach. The approach is currently a single-lane approach. The approach should be widened to include an exclusive northeastbound-to northwestbound left-turn lane, and a combined through/right-turn lane.

As shown in Table 19, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS A with 2.9 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D with 32.7 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS A and D are considered acceptable.

12. Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 61.7 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C with 28.4 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in delay would not be greater than a five second increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
863
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 77 July 9, 2021
Table 19. Intersection Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements
AM Peak PM Peak
Signal
Warrant
Study Intersections Control Met? LOS Delay LOS Delay
3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road Signal D 40.4 E 73.2 9 Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road Unsig No A 2.9 D 32.7
______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control. "Unsig" = Unsignalized stop-sign control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections, including unsignalized intersections.

Inters.

13. Arch Road & SR 99
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 194.4 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 73.6 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E and F are considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in delay would not be greater than a five second increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 17 presents a summary of LOS on the 12 study roadway segments under EPAP Plus Project conditions. 10 of the roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

No improvements would be needed on these 10 roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS.

The following two roadway segments would operate at unacceptable LOS. 105. Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. Compared to EPAP No Project Conditions, the project-related increase in volume would be greater than five percent. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the Attachment F
864
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 78 July 9, 2021
General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the projectrelated inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Widen the portions of this roadway segment which are one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction.

As shown in Table 20, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS D. LOS D is considered acceptable.

This improvement is also recommended under Existing Conditions and the EPAP No Project scenario.

Table 20. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
105. Mariposa Road - Between 4 38,200 27,296 0.71 D
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio. 111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS E. LOS E is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in traffic volume would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
865
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 79 July 9, 2021

RAMP JUNCTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Figure 23 and Figure 24 present the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the ramp junctions under EPAP Plus Project conditions. Table 21 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at each study ramp junction under EPAP Plus Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, LOS at 10 of the 13 study ramp junctions would be at acceptable LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. No improvements would be needed on these 10 ramp junctions to achieve acceptable LOS. The following are the three ramp junctions that would experience unacceptable LOS. 201. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this ramp junction would operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in freeway and ramp volumes would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.
205. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Northbound On-Ramp Merge Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this ramp junction would operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in freeway and ramp volumes would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.
211. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound On-Ramp Merge Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this ramp junction would operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in freeway and ramp volumes would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
866
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 80 July 9, 2021
Table 21. State Route 99 Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp
Ramp Junction Volume Volume Density LOS Volume Volume Density LOS 201 SB Weave Between 7,012 515 > Capacity F 5,218 353 26.9 C Fremont St & Crosstown Fwy 4,723 2,804 4,002 1,569
202 NB Weave Between 4,385 289 22.2 C 6,251 376 32.7 D
Crosstown Fwy & Fremont St 3,109 1,565 4,735 1,892
203 NB at Crosstown Fwy Off-Ramp 3,100 2,832 < 10 A 4,750 2,246 < 10 A 204 Golden Gate Ave SB Off-Ramp 4,852 564 < 10 A 4,399 627 < 10 A 205 Golden Gate Ave NB On-Ramp 4,913 571 27.1 C 5,577 784 33.0 F 206 SB Weave Between 4,823 340 24.8 C 4,396 403 22.9 C
Golden Gate Ave & Mariposa Rd 4,250 913 4,113 686
207 NB Weave Between 4,882 355 25.2 C 5,510 510 29.4 D
Mariposa Rd & Golden Gate Ave 4,715 522 5,281 739
208 Mariposa Rd SB On-Ramp (Slip) 5,246 234 26.7 C 3,552 310 18.2 B 209 Mariposa Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,890 465 24.8 C 5,783 329 33.3 D 210 Arch-Airport Rd SB Off-Ramp 2,485 2,995 < 10 A 2,749 1,113 < 10 A 211 Arch-Airport Rd NB On-Ramp 3,192 1,162 22.2 C 3,493 2,619 38.0 E 212 Arch-Airport Rd SB On-Ramp 2,485 748 16.6 B 2,749 1,259 22.2 C 213 Arch-Airport Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,192 1,272 23.0 C 3,493 641 23.1 C _____________________________________________
Notes: "LOS" = Level of Service. "NB" = Northbound. "SB" = Southbound.

Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. "> Capacity" = volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0.

For weave areas, north freeway and ramp volumes are listed first and south volumes are listed second.

Attachment F
867
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 81 July 9, 2021

INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR TRANSIT
Implementation of the proposed Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in an increase in demand for public transit service. Currently, there is limited direct public transit service to the vicinity of the project site, and the development of urban uses would result in an increase in demand. The frequency and proximity of future transit service is not known at this time and, as a result, demand for transit cannot be quantified. However, it is expected that SJRTD can accommodate the additional passengers the project would generate. This is considered a less-thansignificant impact. No mitigation measures are required

INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Implementation of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in an increase in demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As noted in the Project Description section of this traffic impact study, the proposed project includes sidewalks along the project site frontage of Mariposa Road.

Because sidewalks are not present along the Mariposa Road frontage of nearby properties, the sidewalks along the Mariposa Industrial Park project site frontage would be discontinuous in the near-term. In the longer-term, sidewalks along the project site frontage would incrementally improve the safety and convenience of bicycle and pedestrian travel along Mariposa Road. The City General Plan includes widening of Mariposa Road to four lanes in the future, and the Mariposa Industrial Park project site frontage improvements would contribute to a more continuous system of bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Mariposa Road. Therefore, the increase in demand for facilities is considered a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required.

Attachment F
868
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 82 July 9, 2021

CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Cumulative No Project condition represents a long-term future background condition.

Development of approved and planned land uses and roadway improvements are assumed in this condition. The Cumulative No Project condition, therefore, serves as the baseline condition used to assess the significance of long-term project-related traffic effects.

The Cumulative No Project condition does not include development of the Mariposa Industrial Park project as proposed. Consistent with the approach described in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (City of Stockton 2003), this scenario serves as baseline condition for determining project-related impacts, and the traffic analysis of this condition assumes land uses on the project site consistent with the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a).

TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
As previously described in the Travel Forecasting section of this traffic impact study, the City of Stockton Travel Demand Model (City of Stockton 2018b) was used to develop forecasts of background increases in traffic volumes under Cumulative No Project conditions. The increases in traffic volumes reflect development of land uses consistent with approved land use designations.

The model was modified in the vicinity of the project site to add detail to the model and more accurately represent how land uses are provided access to the roadway network. Minor changes were also made to land uses in the model to reflect existing and planned development.

Application of the methods described in the Travel Forecasting section results in the daily traffic volumes presented in Table 22.

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The analysis of Cumulative No Project conditions assumes roadway improvements consistent with the long-term future context. These include improvements from the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018b), and the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Mariposa Lakes Specific Plan - State Clearinghouse #2006022035 (City of Stockton 2007). The improvements include:
ƒ widening of Mariposa Road northwest of Carpenter Road to six lanes, ƒ widening of Mariposa Road southeast of Carpenter Road to four lanes, and ƒ widening of SR 99 from north of the Crosstown Freeway to south of Arch Road to eight lanes.

The resulting number of travel lanes assumed for study roadway segments are shown in Table

22. Attachment F
869
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 83 July 9, 2021
Table 22. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative No Project Conditions
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 144,268 0.83 D
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 131,917 0.76 D
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 139,739 0.81 D and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 168,962 0.98 E
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 36,756 0.62 C
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 32,512 0.55 C
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 4 38,200 23,483 0.61 C Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 23,483 0.61 C
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 13,259 0.35 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 8 172,800 115,758 0.67 C and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 67,860 1.14 F
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 8 172,800 106,202 0.61 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
870
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 84 July 9, 2021

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 22 presents a summary of LOS on the 12 study roadway segments under Cumulative No Project conditions. Ten of the roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

No improvements are needed on these 10 roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS. The following two roadway segments would operate at unacceptable LOS. 104. SR 99 Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road Under Cumulative No Project condition, this roadway segment would operate at LOS E. LOS E is considered unacceptable. This roadway segment is already assumed to be eight lanes wide under Cumulative conditions. In the Transportation Concept Report State Route 99 (California Department of Transportation 2017), Caltrans describes the eight-lane width as the conceptual facility width, and this is considered to be the maximum feasible size in this traffic impact study.

Therefore, improvements are not recommended.
111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. The following improvement is recommended to improve LOS on this roadway segment:
ƒ Widen this roadway segment from six lanes to eight lanes.

Implementing this recommended improvement would result in this roadway segment operating at LOS E. This LOS is considered unacceptable. However, eight lanes is considered to be the maximum feasible width for this roadway segment. A summary of LOS with recommended improvements is presented in Table 23.

Table 23. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative No Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
111. Arch-Airport Road - 8 78,400 67,860 0.87 E
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
871
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 85 July 9, 2021

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT IMPACTS
The analysis of Cumulative Plus Project conditions describes long-term traffic operations in the year 2040 assuming development of the proposed project. Comparing traffic operation under this condition to traffic operations under Cumulative No Project conditions allows an identification of the long-term project-related effects of the proposed project.

The development of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in vehicle traffic to and from the project site. Methods used to estimate project-related travel have been previously described in the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project Impacts section of this traffic impact study. Table 24 displays the resulting Cumulative Plus Project roadway segment daily traffic volumes.

Development of forecasts of future year background traffic volumes has been previously described in the Cumulative No Project Conditions section of this traffic impact study.

Project-related roadway improvements and future year background roadway improvements assumed in this analysis have been previously described in the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project Impacts and the Cumulative No Project Conditions sections of this traffic impact study.

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 24 presents a summary of LOS on the 12 study roadway segments under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Nine of the 12 roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better. No improvements are needed on these nine roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS. The following three roadway segments would operate at unacceptable LOS. 104. SR 99 Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under Cumulative No Project conditions, and the project-related change in traffic volume would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
872
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 86 July 9, 2021
Table 24. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 148,870 0.86 D
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 135,307 0.78 D
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 147,731 0.85 D and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 177,140 1.03 F
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 37,820 0.64 C
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 43,992 0.74 D
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 4 38,200 35,371 0.93 E Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 23,965 0.63 C
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 13,717 0.36 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 8 172,800 117,898 0.68 C and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 69,172 1.17 F
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 8 172,800 107,006 0.62 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
873
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 87 July 9, 2021
107. Mariposa Road, Between the Project Site and Carpenter Road Under long-term future Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS E. LOS E is considered unacceptable. Compared to Cumulative No Project Conditions, the project-related increase in volume would be greater than five percent. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Under long-term future cumulative conditions, widen this roadway segment from four lanes to six lanes.

As shown in Table 25, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS C. LOS C is considered acceptable.

Table 25. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 6 59,300 35,371 0.60 C Project Site and Carpenter Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio. 111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under Cumulative No Project conditions, and the project-related change in traffic volume would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
874
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 88 July 9, 2021

PROJECT SITE ACCESS
To assess the adequacy of project site access under long-term future conditions, LOS at the two project site driveway intersections were analyzed under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

These two intersections are:

14. Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway

15. Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway
Cumulative Plus Project a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and intersection lane geometrics at these two intersections are shown in Figure 25.

Table 26 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at the two study intersections under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Table 26. Intersection Level of Service -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intersections Control LOS Delay LOS Delay
14 Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway Signal A 3.2 A 5.1 15 Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway Signal B 12.8 C 20.1 ______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections.

Inters.

Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, LOS at both of the two project site access intersections would be at acceptable LOS C or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. As a result, traffic operations at the project site access locations are considered to be adequate. No improvements would be needed at these two intersections to achieve acceptable LOS.

Attachment F
875
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 25

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
N.T.S.
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
“Free” Right Turn
Attachment F
876
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 90 July 9, 2021

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
As noted earlier in the Significance Thresholds section of this traffic impact study, the effects of the proposed project on VMT are determined by comparing travel associated with the Mariposa Industrial Park project as proposed to travel associated with development of the project site with the current General Plan land use designations.

As noted earlier in the Project Description section of this traffic impact study, the Mariposa Industrial Park project proposes industrial land uses on the project site. As also noted in the Project Description section, the project site currently has an Industrial land use designation in the City of Stockton General Plan. Therefore, in this traffic impact study, vehicle travel associated with the Mariposa Industrial Park project would be the same as the Industrial land uses currently designated in the City of Stockton General Plan. That is, implementation of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in no net change from travel associated with the current General Plan-designated land uses.

VMT is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle trips by the length of vehicle trips. As a result, a certain percent change in the number of vehicle trips would cause an equivalent change in VMT. Therefore, for the Mariposa Industrial Park project, a comparison of vehicle trips is considered equivalent to a comparison of VMT. Because the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in no net change from travel associated with the current General Plan–designated land use, the project would result in no net change in VMT.

As described in the Vehicle Miles Traveled Significance Threshold section of this traffic impact study,
“Consistent with General Plan Action TR4.3A, if a project would result in a 15 percent or more reduction of vehicle travel, a project is considered to have a lessthan-significant impact. A project that would not result in a reduction of 15 percent or more is considered to have a significant impact.” Because the Mariposa Industrial Park project would not result in a 15 percent reduction in VMT, the project is considered to have a significant impact on VMT. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact of the project on VMT. The numbering of the following mitigation measures is from the document Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures - A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2010), which contains more detailed information on these measures. The numbering of the following mitigation measures is not sequential in this traffic impact study. The out-of-sequence numbering is provided below to allow direct reference to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) document. The “TRT” acronym shown below is used in the numbering of the CAPCOA document and refers to Trip Reduction – Transportation.

Mitigation Measure TRT-1. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary
The Mariposa Industrial Park project will implement a Commute Trip Reduction Attachment F
877
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 91 July 9, 2021
(CTR) Program – Voluntary with employers to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. This is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures.

The CTR program will provide employees with assistance in using alternative modes of travel, and provide both “carrots” and “sticks” to encourage employees.

The CTR program should include all of the following:
ƒ Carpooling encouragement
ƒ Ride-matching assistance
ƒ Preferential carpool parking
ƒ Flexible work schedules for carpools
ƒ Half time transportation coordinator
ƒ Vanpool assistance
ƒ Bicycle end-trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) Other strategies may also include:
ƒ new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, ƒ event promotions and publications,
ƒ flexible work schedule for all employees,
ƒ transit subsidies,
ƒ parking cash-out or priced parking,
ƒ shuttles,
ƒ emergency ride home, and
ƒ improved on-site amenities.

Mitigation Measure TRT-5. Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities The Mariposa Industrial Park project will provide "end-of-trip" facilities for bicycle riders including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces.

End-of-trip facilities encourage the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End-of trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle commuting.

Mitigation Measure TRT-11. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle The Mariposa Industrial Park project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost.

Attachment F
878
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 92 July 9, 2021
Implementation of the measures listed above would reduce project-related VMT and reduce the significance of the impact on VMT. However, quantification of the reduction is not possible at this time. At the time this traffic impact study was prepared, potential occupants of the Mariposa Industrial Park project were not identified. While the type of land use is expected to be industrial, specific tenants were not known. As a result, the following factors which would affect the ability to implement VMT reduction measures are not known:
ƒ hours of operation, including times of the day when work shift would change; ƒ the portion of work positions which would be full-time versus part-time; ƒ feasibility of implementing flexible work schedules; and ƒ degree to which working remotely is feasible.

Because the potential occupants of the project are not known, it is not possible to establish an enforceable commitment to reduce VMT by more than 15 percent. As a result, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Attachment F
879
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 93 July 9, 2021

REFERENCES

DOCUMENTS CITED
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures - A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2014. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 Edition. Sacramento CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2017. Transportation Concept Report – State Route 99 - District 10. Stockton, CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2021. Caltrans Traffic Census Program Internet Website. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/.

California, State of. 2018. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Sacramento, CA.

Fehr & Peers. 2014. Traffic Impact Analysis – NorCal Logistics Center. Walnut Creek, CA.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Washington, D.C.

San Joaquin Regional Transit District. 2021. San Joaquin Regional Transit District Internet Webpage. http://www.sanjoaquinrtd.com/. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2003. City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2004. Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2004. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Report - Mariposa Lakes Specific Plan - State Clearinghouse #2006022035. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2014. NorCal Logistics Center – Draft Environmental Impact Report (Project File No. P12-110). Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2018a. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2018b. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR. Stockton, CA.

Attachment F
880
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 94 July 9, 2021
Stockton, City of. 2009. Truck Routes Map. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2017. STAA Truck Routes Map. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2020. Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report For The SanchezHoggan Annexation. Stockton, CA.

Trafficware. 2019. Trafficware Internet Website. http://www.trafficware.com/ Transportation Research Board. 1982. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design.

Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition. Washington, D.C.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dumas, Tom. Chief, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Caltrans District 10. October 23, 2007 letter to David Stagnaro, City of Stockton Community Development Department.

McDowell, Mike. Acting Deputy Director. City of Stockton, Community Development Department, Planning and Engineering Services. February 15, 2012 E-mail message to Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: Highway Capacity Manual Methods. November 15, 2012 E-mail message to Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: Industrial Trip Generation Rates. May 8, 2019 E-mail message to Heba El-Guindy, City of Stockton; and Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: EPAP Traffic Forecasts. September 19, 2019 telephone conversation with Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates. June 20, 2020 E-mail message to Charlie Simpson, BaseCamp Environmental; Subject: Industrial Trip Generation.

Moore, Nicole D. Senior Planner. City of Stockton Community Development Department.

December 15, 2020 E-mail message to Ken Anderson and Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: Mariposa Industrial Park Traffic Study Scope of Work.

Tellez, Kathrin. Fehr & Peers. June 30, 2016 E-mail message to Mike McDowell, City of Stockton. Subject: Tidewater Crossing All-Industrial Project Traffic Impact Assessment Analysis Assumptions.

Attachment F
881
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 95 July 9, 2021

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

IN SEPARATE ELECTRONIC FILES
Attachment F
882
 

 
%
 










Attachment F
883
Transportation Engineers

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR

THE MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
Stockton, California
Prepared For:

BaseCamp Environmental
Prepared By:

KD Anderson & Associates
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G
Loomis, California 95650
(916) 660-1555
July 9, 2021
0780 -18
Mariposa Industrial Park TIS 7-9-21.doc
Attachment F
884
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study TOC 1 July 9, 2021

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR

THE MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 STUDY PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................1 OVERALL ANALYSIS APPROACH......................................................................................................................2 EXISTING SETTING ................................................................................................................................................. 7 STUDY AREA ROADWAYS ..................................................................................................................................7 TRUCK ROUTES ...................................................................................................................................................10 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ..............................................................................................................................12 PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................13 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS ..........................................................................................................13 STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS ........................................................................................................................15 STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS ............................................................................................................17 STUDY AREA FREEWAY RAMP JUNCTIONS.................................................................................................19 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................................21 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS............................................................................28 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD ........................................................................32 EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE...........................................33 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE...............................35 EXISTING RAMP JUNCTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE........................................42

EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS NO MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 47 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS .......................................................................................................................47 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................................................47 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE .............................................................................................................53 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................................................................56 RAMP JUNCTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ..........................................................................................................57

EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT IMPACTS ................................................................................................................................................................... 60 TRIP GENERATION..............................................................................................................................................60 TRIP DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................................................60 TRIP ASSIGNMENT..............................................................................................................................................65 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.............................................................................................................................72 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE...............................................................................................................72 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................................................................77 RAMP JUNCTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ..........................................................................................................79 INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR TRANSIT............................................................................................................81 INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ..................................................81 CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 82 TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS .......................................................................................................................82 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................................................82 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................................................................84 Attachment F
885
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study TOC 2 July 9, 2021
CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 85 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................................................................85 PROJECT SITE ACCESS.......................................................................................................................................88 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED .............................................................................................................................90 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 93 TECHNICAL APPENDICES IN ELECTRONIC FILES ........................................................................................... 95 Attachment F
886
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study TOC 3 July 9, 2021

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Number Number
1 Level of Service Definitions - Highway Capacity Manual 2010 ........................................................ 22 2 City of Stockton General Plan Roadway Segment Level of Service Thresholds................................ 24 3 Level of Service Criteria for Freeway Merge / Diverge and Weaving Areas..................................... 27 4 Heavy Truck Percentage ..................................................................................................................... 38 5 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Conditions ........................................................................... 39 6 Roadway Segment Level of Service - Existing Conditions ................................................................ 41 7 Roadway Segment Level of Service - Existing Conditions With Recommended Improvements ...... 42 8 State Route 99 Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Level of Service - Existing Conditions .............. 46 9 Roadway Segment Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions............................................................................................................................... 50 10 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 54 11 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements ................................................................................. 55 12 Roadway Segment Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements ................................................................................. 57 13 State Route 99 Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Level of Service -Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions.............................................................................................. 58 14 Trip Generation Rates ......................................................................................................................... 61 15 Trip Generation Estimate .................................................................................................................... 61 16 Mariposa Industrial Park Project Trip Distribution Percentages......................................................... 62 17 Roadway Segment Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions............................................................................................................................... 74 18 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions ........................................................................................................................................... 75 Attachment F
887
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study TOC 4 July 9, 2021
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
Number Number
19 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements ................................................................................. 77 20 Roadway Segment Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements..................................................................... 78 21 State Route 99 Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions........................................................................... 80 22 Roadway Segment Level of Service – Cumulative No Project Conditions ........................................ 83 23 Roadway Segment Level of Service – Cumulative No Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements...................................................................................................................................... 84 24 Roadway Segment Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ...................................... 86 25 Roadway Segment Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements...................................................................................................................................... 87 26 Intersection Level of Service – Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ................................................. 88 Attachment F
888
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study TOC 5 July 9, 2021

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Number Number
1 Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 5 3 Project Frontage Striping Plan .............................................................................................................. 6 4 Study Area............................................................................................................................................. 8 5 Existing and Planned Bicycle Network............................................................................................... 14 6 Study Intersections.............................................................................................................................. 16 7 Study Roadway Segments................................................................................................................... 18 8 Study Freeway Merge, Diverge, and Weave Areas ............................................................................ 20 9 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ....................................................... 36 10 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations (Continued) ................................... 37 11 Existing Freeway Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Area Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations............................................................................................................................ 44 12 Existing Freeway Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Area Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations (Continued) ....................................................................................................... 45 13 EPAP No Project Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations......................................... 48 14 EPAP No Project Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations (Continued)..................... 49 15 EPAP No Project Freeway Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Area Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations............................................................................................................................ 51 16 EPAP No Project Freeway Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Area Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations (Continued) ....................................................................................................... 52 17 Existing Plus Approved Projects Background Trip Distribution Percentages .................................... 63 18 Cumulative Background Trip Distribution Percentages ..................................................................... 64 19 Project-Related Intersection Traffic Volumes..................................................................................... 66 20 Project-Related Intersection Traffic Volumes (Continued) ................................................................ 67 21 EPAP Plus Project Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations....................................... 68 22 EPAP Plus Project Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations (Continued)................... 69 23 EPAP Plus Project Freeway Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Area Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations............................................................................................................................ 70 24 EPAP Plus Project Freeway Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Area Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations (Continued) ....................................................................................................... 71 25 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations.............................. 89 Attachment F
889
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page i July 9, 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary is a brief overview of the analysis presented in this traffic impact study. It is not intended to be a comprehensive description of the analysis. For more details, the reader is referred to the full description presented in the traffic impact study.

This traffic impact study presents an analysis of the traffic-related effects of the Mariposa Industrial Park project. The project is located in unincorporated San Joaquin County, southeast of the City of Stockton, east of State Route (SR) 99, north of Littlejohns Creek, southwest of Mariposa Road. The project site is approximately 203.48 acres in size and is proposed to include 3,616,870 building square feet (sf) of high-cube warehouse industrial land use.

Access to the Mariposa Industrial Park site would be provided via two driveway connections to Mariposa Road.

This traffic impact study includes analysis of:
ƒ 15 intersections,
ƒ 12 roadway segments, and
ƒ 13 freeway ramp junction areas.

These study facilities are analyzed under the following five development scenarios:
ƒ Existing Conditions,
ƒ Near-Term Future Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Mariposa Industrial Park Project Conditions,
ƒ Near-Term Future EPAP Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project Conditions, ƒ Long-Term Future Cumulative No Mariposa Industrial Park Project Conditions, and ƒ Long-Term Future Cumulative Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project Conditions.

Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections operate at conditions which are considered acceptable. One study roadway segment and one freeway weave area operate at conditions which are considered unacceptable. This traffic impact study presents a recommended improvement for the study roadway segment.

Under EPAP No Mariposa Industrial Park Project conditions, three study intersections, two study roadway segments, and three study freeway ramp and weave facilities would experience operating conditions which are considered unacceptable. This traffic impact study presents recommended improvements for two of the study intersections, and one of the study roadway segments.

Attachment F
890
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page ii July 9, 2021
Under EPAP Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project conditions, four study intersections, two study roadway segments, and three study freeway ramp and weave facilities would experience operating conditions which are considered unacceptable. The project-related change at two study intersections and one study roadway segment would be considered a significant inconsistency with General Plan policies and recommended improvements are identified to reduce the inconsistency to a less than significant level.

Under Cumulative No Mariposa Industrial Park Project conditions, two study roadway segments would experience operating conditions which are considered unacceptable. This traffic impact study presents recommended improvements for one of these two facilities.

Under Cumulative Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project conditions, three study roadway segments would experience operating conditions which are considered unacceptable. The project-related change at one study roadway segment would be considered a significant inconsistency with General Plan policies and a recommended improvement is identified to reduce the inconsistency to a less than significant level. The project-related change at two of these three facilities would be less than thresholds considered to be significant. Therefore, the project-related inconsistency at these facilities is considered less than significant.

In addition to presenting an analysis of traffic operating conditions, this traffic impact study also presents analysis of project-related impacts on
ƒ demand for public transit services,
ƒ demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and
ƒ vehicle miles traveled.

Attachment F
891
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 1 July 9, 2021

INTRODUCTION

STUDY PURPOSE
This traffic impact study presents an analysis of the traffic-related effects of the proposed Mariposa Industrial Park project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following is a description of the Mariposa Industrial Park project.

Project Location
The Mariposa Industrial Park project site is in the San Joaquin County unincorporated area, adjacent to the southeastern limits of the City of Stockton. Figure 1 presents an aerial photograph of the vicinity of the project site. The project site encompasses 203.48 acres.

Project Land Uses
The project proposes to develop the project site for light industrial land uses, primarily “highcube” warehouses. The details of the proposed development are discussed below.

The project proposes the annexation of the project site into the City of Stockton. The City would submit an annexation application to the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), which would be responsible for a decision on the annexation.

The project site is currently zoned by the County as AG-40 – General Agriculture with a 40-acre minimum parcel size. The project would include a request that the City pre-zone the entire project site Industrial, Limited (IL). This pre-zoning would be consistent with the current Industrial designation of the project site under the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a) and with the proposed project.

Upon annexation, the project site is proposed to be developed with light industrial land uses, mainly high-cube warehouses. Figure 2 shows a conceptual site plan. A “high-cube warehouse” is a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of approximately 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and, to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical high-cube warehouse has a high level of on-site automation and logistics management, which enable highly efficient processing of goods through the warehouse.

As shown in Figure 2, the Mariposa Industrial Park project would include 3,616,870 building square feet of proposed development.

Attachment F
892
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 2 July 9, 2021
A total of approximately 2,900 parking stalls would be provided throughout the project site. Of that total, approximately 1,800 stalls would be for automobiles, 37 of which would be accessible to drivers with disabilities. The remaining approximately 1,100 stalls would be for trucks and trailers.

Circulation
Access would be from two driveways off Mariposa Road in the northeastern portion of the project site. In this traffic impact study, these two access locations are referred to as the “Southeast Project Driveway” and the “Northwest Project Driveway”. The Southeast Project Driveway would provide the main access to the project site, with an access road leading to most of the proposed development. The Northwest Project Driveway would provide access to the two northernmost buildings proposed on the site. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk would be installed along existing undeveloped street frontage in accordance with City standards. In addition, access to the project site would be made available from Marfargoa Road and Clark Road for emergency vehicles only. Figure 3 shows a striping plan for the project site frontage along Mariposa Road.

Desirable intersection spacing is often considered to be 1,000 feet between intersections. The distance between the driveway intersections for the Southeast Project Driveway and the Northwest Project Driveway is less than 1,000 feet. However, both of the driveway intersections would be “T” intersections. Neither would be a four-leg intersection. Because both driveways would connect at “T” intersections, neither intersection would have southeastbound-tonortheastbound left-turn movements. The absence of a need for vehicle storage for southeastbound-to-northeastbound left-turn movement at the Southeast Project Driveway intersection results in the distance between the two intersections being available for the northwestbound-to-southwestbound left-turn movement at the Northwest Project Driveway. As a result, the distance between the two project driveway intersections is considered to be adequate.

In the near-term future, this traffic impact study assumes the Southeast Project Driveway connection with Mariposa Road would include signalized intersection control. In the near-term future, the Northwest Project Driveway would include unsignalized stop-sign control, with the driveway being the controlled approach. In the long-term future, the Stockton General Plan includes widening of Mariposa Road from two lanes (one lane in each direction) to four lanes (two lanes in each direction). In the long-term future, this traffic impact study assumes both the Southeast Project Driveway connection and the Northwest Project Driveway connection would include signalized intersection control.

Project site frontage improvements will be geometrically designed to accommodate Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) design vehicle truck movements and heavy truck loads.

OVERALL ANALYSIS APPROACH
As noted above, this traffic impact study presents an analysis of the traffic-related effects of the Mariposa Industrial Park project. This analysis is conducted using near-term future background conditions and long-term future background conditions. Future background conditions are based Attachment F
893
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 3 July 9, 2021
on the City of Stockton General Plan. Analysis of traffic operating conditions under the following five scenarios is presented in this traffic impact study:
ƒ Existing Conditions,
ƒ EPAP No Mariposa Industrial Park Project,
ƒ EPAP Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project,
ƒ Cumulative No Project, and
ƒ Cumulative Plus Project.

Existing Plus Approved Projects conditions are a near-term background condition which includes existing traffic levels, and traffic associated with approved but unconstructed land use development projects in vicinity of the project site.

Cumulative conditions with the City of Stockton General Plan are a long-term background condition which includes future year forecasts of traffic volumes, based on development of surrounding land uses. This set of scenarios assumes 2040 conditions with future development consistent with the General Plan.

Attachment F
894
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 1

VICINITY MAP
0780-18 RA 3/11/2021

PROJECT

LOCATION
Attachment F
895
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 2

SITE PLAN
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
Attachment F
896
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 3

STRIPING PLAN
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
Attachment F
897
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 7 July 9, 2021

EXISTING SETTING
This section of this traffic impact study presents a description of existing conditions in the study area. Information presented in this section of the study is based on on-site field observations, traffic count data collected for this study, and other data available from local and state agencies.

This section of the traffic impact study also describes analysis methods applied for this study, and thresholds used to determine the significance of project-related effects.

STUDY AREA ROADWAYS
This traffic impact study presents analyses of traffic operating conditions at intersections, on roadways, and at freeway ramp junctions, in the study area that may be affected by the proposed project. The limits of the study area were identified through discussions with City of Stockton staff (Moore pers. comm.).

The following is a description of roadways that provide access to the proposed project site. These roadways are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 4.

State Route 99 is a freeway that traverses the Central Valley, connecting Sacramento and points north with numerous Central Valley cities, including Modesto, Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield.

Three travel lanes are provided in each direction in the vicinity of the project site, with auxiliary lanes present at some locations. Twelve interchanges are provided along the 12-mile length of SR 99 within and adjacent to the Stockton City limits. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on SR 99 range between 80,000 and 95,000 in the vicinity of the project site based on data available at California Department of Transportation 2021. The speed limit on SR 99 is 65 miles per hour (mph) in the vicinity of the proposed project site.

Mariposa Road is a west-northwest-to-east-southeast roadway connecting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in south Stockton with Escalon Bellota Road north of Escalon. In the vicinity of the project site, Mariposa Road is a two-lane roadway. The portion of Mariposa Road southeast of Carpenter Road has a 55 mph posted speed limit. Between Carpenter Road and 8th Street/Farmington Road (northwest of SR 99), the posted speed limit is 50 mph. Mariposa Road crosses a railroad track with a grade-separated railroad crossing located just east of the intersection with Austin Road. Limited pedestrian and no bicycle facilities are provided along the roadway within the study area. Mariposa Road is classified in the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a) as an arterial roadway. In the future, the General Plan indicates Mariposa Road would be six lanes wide from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Carpenter Road and four lanes wide from Carpenter Road to southeast of Austin Road.

Attachment F
898
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 4

STUDY AREA
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021

ARCH RD

AUSTIN RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
Attachment F
899
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 9 July 9, 2021
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4) is an east-west freeway that traverses downtown Stockton. The eastern terminus of the Crosstown Freeway is at SR 99. The western terminus of the Crosstown Freeway is at Navy Drive, approximately 1.4 miles west of Interstate 5 (I-5). The Crosstown Freeway is designated SR 4, which continues west to Interstate 80 in the San Francisco Bay Area, and continues east into the Sierra Nevada foothills. The portion of the Crosstown Freeway immediately west of SR 99 is eight lanes wide. It is six to eight lanes wide through downtown Stockton. West of I-5, it is four lanes wide.

Carpenter Road is a west-southwest-to-east-northeast two-lane roadway that connects with Mariposa Road at an unsignalized intersection approximately one-third of a mile west-northwest of the project site. The east-northeastern terminus of Carpenter Road is approximately 0.9 mile eastnortheast of Mariposa Road. To the west-southwest, Carpenter Road terminates at SR 99 East Frontage Road, approximately 0.8 mile west-southwest of Mariposa Road. West of SR 99, a discontinuous portion of Carpenter Road extends west-southwest to Airport Way. Carpenter Road is classified in the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a) as a collector roadway with a future east-northeast extension connecting to a future northern extension of Austin Road.

Munford Avenue is a west-southwest-to-east-northeast two-lane roadway that connects with Mariposa Road at a signalized intersection approximately 0.8 mile west-northwest of the project site. The east-northeastern terminus of Munford Avenue is at Mariposa Road. To the westsouthwest, Munford Avenue terminates at SR 99 East Frontage Road, approximately 0.4 mile westsouthwest of Mariposa Road. West of SR 99, a discontinuous portion of Munford Avenue extends approximately 0.4 mile west-southwest of SR 99.

Stagecoach Road is a north-south two-lane roadway with a southern terminus at a signalized intersection with Mariposa Road and a northern terminus at Farmington Road. The southwest leg of the intersection of Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road is a gated driveway for Oldcastle Infrastructure.

Farmington Road is an east-west roadway with an overcrossing of SR 99. In the immediate vicinity of SR 99, it is two lanes wide. Approximately one-quarter mile east of SR 99, Farmington Road intersects with Golden Gate Avenue. East of this intersection, Farmington Road is two lanes to four lanes wide, with a center two-way left-turn lane (CTWLTL) along portions of the roadway.

Farmington Road continues east into the Sierra Nevada foothills as SR 4. Approximately one-half mile west-southwest of SR 99, Farmington Road intersects with Mariposa Road. To the westsouthwest of Mariposa Road, the roadway continues as 8th Street. Discontinuous portions of 8th Street extend to the southwest portion of Stockton.

Golden Gate Avenue is a northwest-to-southeast roadway with an interchange on SR 99. The roadway is four lanes wide southeast of SR 99 and two lanes wide northwest of SR 99. The southeastern terminus of Golden Gate Avenue is at Farmington Road, approximately one-quarter mile southeast of SR 99. Approximately one-third of a mile northwest of SR 99, Golden Gate Avenue transitions to a north-northwest – south-southeast alignment. This portion of Golden Gate Avenue has a north-northwest terminus at the Crosstown Freeway. Discontinuous portions of Golden Gate Avenue are present north of the Crosstown Freeway.

Attachment F
900
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 10 July 9, 2021
Fremont Street is a west-southwest – to – east-northeast roadway with an interchange on SR 99.

In the immediate vicinity of SR 99 and extending west-southwest to Wilson Way, Fremont Street is four lanes wide. West of Wilson Way, discontinuous portions of Fremont Street are two lanes wide, traverse downtown Stockton, and terminate west of I-5. East-northeast of SR 99, Fremont Street is two lanes wide and is designated SR 26. SR 26 extends to the northeast into the Sierra Nevada foothills.

Austin Road is a north-south roadway that extends south from Mariposa Road, and passes through Manteca before terminating at Caswell Memorial State Park. Within the project study area, Austin Road is a two-lane roadway with no pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Austin Road is classified in the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a) as an arterial roadway with a future westnorthwest extension to Main Street.

Arch Road / Arch-Airport Road / Sperry Road / French Camp Road is an east-west roadway with several names. It is classified in the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018) as an arterial roadway. The roadway extends from Carolyn Weston Boulevard in the west to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) facility east of Austin Road. In the study area, Arch Road is generally a two-lane roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Additional lanes are provided at some portions, including the portion in the vicinity of the SR 99 interchange. Arch Road is currently undergoing improvements with some segments widened to provide additional travel capacity. In some cases, the widened portions are not yet striped to accommodate additional traffic.

Sidewalks are provided along some portions of Arch Road, including portions on the north side from Logistics Drive to approximately 100 feet east of Fite Court, and on the south side from Logistics Drive to Newcastle Road. There are no bicycle facilities on Arch-Airport Road/Arch Road in the project study area.

SR 99 East Frontage Road runs parallel to and east of SR 99. North of Arch Road, this roadway curves to the east, becoming Munford Avenue, and terminates at Mariposa Road. South of Arch Road, the roadway becomes Kingsley Road, terminating approximately 1.5 miles south of Arch Road. SR 99 East Frontage Road is a two-lane roadway with limited pedestrian facilities and no bicycle facilities in the project study area.

Qantas Lane is a north-south roadway that begins at Boeing Way to the north. South of ArchAirport Road, Qantas Lane becomes SR 99 West Frontage Road located on the west side of SR 99.

North of Arch-Airport Road, Qantas Lane is a two-lane roadway, while four travel lanes are provided south of Arch-Airport Road. South of the vicinity of Arch-Airport Road, Qantas Lane transitions to a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction). Limited pedestrian facilities and no bicycle facilities are provided along Qantas Lane within the project study area.

TRUCK ROUTES
The City of Stockton Truck Routes map (City of Stockton 2009) and STAA Truck Routes map (City of Stockton 2017) describe truck routes in the Stockton area. Some of the truck routes are designated for use by STAA design vehicle trucks. These are large vehicles that have relatively Attachment F
901
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 11 July 9, 2021
large turning radii, and require roadway design features that accommodate the large turning radii.

The following are designated truck routes in the vicinity of the project site:
ƒ Mariposa Road from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to east-southeast of Austin Road is a route for vehicles transporting flammable liquids. ƒ Sperry Road/Arch Airport Road/Arch Road from McKinley Avenue to Austin Road is a City designated truck route.
ƒ Mariposa Road from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to Munford Avenue is a designated STAA truck route. Portions are designated by the City and portions are designated by the County of San Joaquin.
ƒ Munford Avenue from Mariposa Road to 3730 Munford Avenue is designated by the County as an STAA truck route.
ƒ Golden Gate Avenue from SR 99 to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is a County designated STAA truck route, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from Golden Gate Avenue to I-5 is a City designated STAA truck route. ƒ Fremont Street from Windsor Avenue (west of SR 99) to Cardinal Avenue (east of SR 99), and Cardinal Avenue from Fremont Street to 207 N. Cardinal Avenue are County designated STAA truck routes.
ƒ French Camp Road/Sperry Road/Arch Airport Road/Arch Road from I-5 to Austin Road is a designated STAA truck route. Portions are designated by the City and portions are designated by the County.
ƒ Qantas Lane from Arch-Airport Road to Boeing Way, and Boeing Way from Qantas Lane to Airport Way are City designated STAA truck routes. ƒ Newcastle Road north of Arch Road is a City designated STAA truck route.

Routes anticipated to be used by STAA trucks to access the project site include the following (Ebenal pers. comm.):
ƒ SR 99 north of Fremont Street,
ƒ SR 99 south of Arch Road,
ƒ Crosstown Freeway west of SR 99,
ƒ Golden Gate Avenue west of SR 99,
ƒ Golden Gate Avenue east of SR 99,
ƒ Mariposa Road west of SR 99,
ƒ Boeing Way west of Qantas Lane,
ƒ Arch-Airport Road west of Qantas Lane, and
ƒ Airport Way.

Attachment F
902
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 12 July 9, 2021
A separate standalone assessment focusing on the potential effects of Mariposa Industrial Park project-related trucks is being prepared by the civil engineering firm Kier + Wright. The assessment will include effects associated with the potential use of STAA trucks. As appropriate, the truck assessment will be used as a source document for identifying truck-related impacts in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental impact report (EIR) for the Mariposa Industrial Park project and needed mitigation measures.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD) is the primary provider of public transportation service in San Joaquin County, providing services to the Stockton metropolitan area, as well as inter-city, inter-regional, and rural transit service. SJRTD provides fixed-route, flexible fixed-route, and dial-a-ride services in Stockton. Each service is described in more detail below. (San Joaquin Regional Transit District 2021)
ƒ Stockton Metropolitan Area Fixed Route Service operates 33 fixed routes within the Stockton metropolitan area.
ƒ Intercity Fixed Route Service is provided by a route between Stockton and the Lodi Station in downtown Lodi connecting with Lodi Grapeline, Calaveras Transit, Delta Breeze, Sacramento South County Transit (SCT)/LINK buses. ƒ Interregional Commuter Service is a subscription commuter bus service. A total of eight routes connect San Joaquin County to Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system.
ƒ SJRTD operates two Dial-a-Ride services. General Public Dial-A-Ride is a curb-tocurb service in areas not currently being served by RTD or other local transportation providers. Passengers are required to use other public transportation options currently available in their area. Stockton Metro Area Dial-A-Ride (SMA-ADA) is a curb-to-curb service operating within the Stockton Metropolitan Area for passengers with an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Certification. ƒ Hopper Service is a deviated fixed-route service connecting Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, and Lathrop. The Metro Hopper provides nine routes. The County Hopper provides six routes.

SJRTD service is provided in the area west of SR 99. In vicinity of the Mariposa Road and Arch Road interchanges, service is provided by:
ƒ Fixed routes 385 and 390,
ƒ Hopper routes 91 and 95, and
ƒ Express route 44.

Attachment F
903
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 13 July 9, 2021

PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES
Park and Ride lots are free parking facilities for commuters to use as a convenient meeting place for carpools, transit, and vanpools. Park and Ride lots in the Stockton area are listed below. ƒ the Calvary First Church on Kelley Drive north of Hammer Lane; ƒ the Hammer Crossing Shopping Center at Hammer Lane and Sampson Road; ƒ the Lifesong Church, 3034 Michigan Avenue; and
ƒ Mariposa Road east of SR 99..

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS
The generally level terrain and mild weather make bicycling and walking viable forms of transportation in Stockton. The City of Stockton has an extensive network of bicycle facilities, including off-street trails and paths, as well as on-street bicycle lanes and routes. Many of these facilities also support pedestrian travel. According to Caltrans guidelines, bicycle facilities are generally divided into four categories:
ƒ Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). A completely separate facility designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian cross-flow minimized.
ƒ Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). A striped lane designated for the use of bicycles on a street or highway. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian cross-flow are permitted at designated locations.
ƒ Class III Bikeway (Bike Route). A route designated by signs or pavement markings for bicyclists within the vehicular travel lane (i.e., shared use) of a roadway.
ƒ Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bikeway). A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.

In the immediate vicinity of the project site, neither bicycle facilities nor sidewalks are present along either side of Mariposa Road between Munford Avenue and Austin Road.

The City of Stockton General Plan presents a map showing existing and planned bicycle facilities in the Stockton area, shown on Figure 5. Figure 5 shows a planned Class II bike lane on Arch Road between SR 99 and Austin Road, and a planned Class II bike lane on Mariposa Road between Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and SR 99.

Attachment F
904
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 5

EXISTING AND PLANNED BICYCLE NETWORK
0780-13 RA 7/9/2021
Attachment F
905
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 15 July 9, 2021

STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS
The traffic-related effects of the proposed project were assessed for this traffic impact study by analyzing traffic operations at intersections that would serve project-related travel. The following intersections were selected for analysis in consultation with City of Stockton staff (Moore pers. comm.).

1. Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps

2. Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps

3. Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road

4. Mariposa Road & SR 99 West Frontage Road

5. Mariposa Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramps

6. Mariposa Road & SR 99 Northbound Ramps

7. Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road

8. Mariposa Road & Munford Avenue

9. Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road

10. Mariposa Road & Austin Road

11. Arch Road & Austin Road

12. Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane

13. Arch Road & SR 99
The following two intersections would only be present with construction of the Mariposa Industrial Park project. As a result, these intersections were only analyzed under development conditions that include the proposed project:

14. Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway

15. Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway
The locations of study intersections are presented in Figure 6. The numbers listed above correspond to the intersection numbers on this figure.

Attachment F
906
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 6

STUDY INTERSECTIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021

ARCH RD

AUSTIN RD
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 14
15 10
11 12 13

PROJECT

LOCATION
Attachment F
907
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 17 July 9, 2021

STUDY AREA ROADWAY SEGMENTS
In addition to analyzing intersections, the traffic-related effects of the proposed project on roadway segments were assessed for this traffic impact study. Major roadways adjacent to the project site, and roadways that would serve as major access routes, were analyzed. The following roadway segments were selected for analysis in consultation with City of Stockton staff (Moore pers. comm.).
101. SR 99 North of Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway West of SR 99
103. SR 99 Between Crosstown Freeway and Golden Gate Avenue 104. SR 99 Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road 105. Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road 106. Mariposa Road, Between Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road, Between the Project Site and Carpenter Road 108. Mariposa Road, Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road, East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 Between Mariposa Road and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 South of Arch-Airport Road
The locations of study roadway segment are presented in Figure 7. The numbers listed above correspond to the roadway segment numbers on this figure. The numbers used for roadway segments are sequential, beginning with 101 to distinguish study roadway segments from study intersections listed previously.

The study roadway segments are specific to certain locations on the roadway network. However, in some cases, a roadway segment represents larger portions of roadway segments. For example, analysis results for roadway segment Mariposa Road, east of Austin Road, applies to Mariposa Road from Austin Road to Jack Tone Road. The descriptions of locations listed above, and used in this traffic impact study, are as specific as possible to minimize ambiguity.

Attachment F
908
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 7

STUDY ROADWAY SEGMENTS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021

ARCH RD

AUSTIN RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
Attachment F
909
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 19 July 9, 2021

STUDY AREA FREEWAY RAMP JUNCTIONS
In addition to analyzing intersections and roadway segments, the traffic-related effects of the proposed project on freeway ramp junctions were assessed for this traffic impact study. Ramp junctions that would serve as major access routes, and would be affected by project-related traffic, were analyzed. The following ramp junctions were selected for analysis in consultation with City of Stockton staff (Moore pers comm.):
201. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway 202. SR 99 Northbound Weave Area Between Crosstown Freeway and Fremont Street 203. SR 99 Northbound at Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge 204. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge 205. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Northbound On-Ramp Merge 206. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road 207. SR 99 Northbound Weave Area Between Mariposa Road and Golden Gate Avenue 208. SR 99 at Mariposa Road Southbound On-Ramp (Slip) Merge 209. SR 99 at Mariposa Road Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge 210. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge 211. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound On-Ramp Merge 212. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Southbound On-Ramp Merge 213. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge The locations of freeway ramp junctions are presented in Figure 8. The numbers listed above correspond to the ramp junction numbers on this figure. The numbers used for ramp junctions are sequential, beginning with 201 to distinguish study ramp junctions from study intersections and study roadway segments listed previously.

Attachment F
910
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 8

STUDY FREEWAY MERGE, DIVERGE, AND WEAVE AREAS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021

ARCH RD

AUSTIN RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
Attachment F
911
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 21 July 9, 2021

METHODOLOGY
The following is a description of the analysis methods used in this traffic impact study.

Intersection Level of Service Analysis Procedures
Level of service (LOS) analysis provides a basis for describing existing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of project-related inconsistency with General Plan transportation policies. Level of service measures the quality of traffic flow and is represented by letter designations from A to F, with a grade of A referring to the best conditions, and F representing the worst conditions. The characteristics associated with the various LOS for intersections are presented in Table 1.

Level of service at both signalized and unsignalized intersections was analyzed using methods presented in the Highway Capacity Manual. Methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual were used to provide a basis for describing traffic conditions and for evaluating the significance of inconsistency with General Plan policies. As specified by City of Stockton staff (McDowell pers. comm.), methods from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (Transportation Research Board, 2000) were used to analyze local roadway intersections. As specified in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (City of Stockton, 2003), the Traffix software analysis package was used to analyze local roadway intersections.

Caltrans District 10 recommends use of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board 2016) and the Synchro software package (Trafficware 2021). Therefore, as specified by City of Stockton staff, freeway ramp intersections were analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methods and the Synchro software package.

The lengths of vehicle queues were also analyzed for this traffic impact study. Methods presented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 and Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition were used to analyze queuing. 95th percentile queue length values are presented in this traffic impact study.

Worksheets and output reports for the calculation of LOS and vehicles queues for all scenarios analyzed for this traffic impact study are presented in the technical appendix.

Attachment F
912
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 22 July 9, 2021
Table 1. Level of Service Definitions - Highway Capacity Manual 2010 Level of
Service Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections A Vehicle progression is exceptionally
favorable or the cycle length is very short.

Little or no delay.

Delay < 10.0 seconds/vehicle Delay < 10 seconds/vehicle B Vehicle progression is highly favorable or the
cycle length is short.

Short traffic delays.

Delay > 10 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 10 seconds/vehicle and < 20 seconds/vehicle < 15 seconds/vehicle
C Vehicle progression is favorable or the cycle
length is moderate. Individual cycle failures
may begin to appear at this level.

Average traffic delays.

Delay > 20 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 15 seconds/vehicle and < 35 seconds/vehicle < 25 seconds/vehicle
D Vehicle progression is ineffective or the cycle
length is long. Many vehicles stop and the
individual cycle failures are noticeable.

Long traffic delays.

Delay > 35 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 25 seconds/vehicle and < 55 seconds/vehicle < 35 seconds/vehicle
E Vehicle progression is unfavorable and the
cycle length is long. Individual cycle failures
are frequent.

Very long traffic delays, failure, extreme
congestion.

Delay > 55 seconds/vehicle and Delay > 35 seconds/vehicle and < 80 seconds/vehicle < 50 seconds/vehicle
F Vehicle progression is very poor and the
cycle length is long. Most cycles fail to clear
the vehicle queue.

Intersection blocked by external causes.

Delay > 80 seconds/vehicle Delay > 50 seconds/vehicle
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010.
__________________________
Attachment F
913
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 23 July 9, 2021
Signal Warrants Procedures
Traffic signal warrants are a series of standards which provide guidelines for determining if a traffic signal is appropriate. Signal warrant analyses are typically conducted at intersections of uncontrolled major streets and stop sign-controlled minor streets. If one or more signal warrants are met, signalization of the intersection may be appropriate. However, a signal should not be installed if none of the warrants are met, because installation of signals would increase delays on the previously-uncontrolled major street, resulting in an undesirable increase in overall vehicle delay at the intersection. Signalization may also increase the occurrence of certain types of accidents.

Therefore, if signals are installed where signal warrants are not met, the detriment of increased accidents and overall delay may be greater than the benefit in traffic operating conditions on the single worst movement at the intersection. Signal warrants, then, provide an industry-standard basis for identifying when the adverse effect on the worst movement is substantial enough to warrant signalization.

For the analysis conducted for this traffic impact study, available data at unsignalized intersections are limited to a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes. Thus, unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant Number 3) from the California Department of Transportation document California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California Department of Transportation 2014). This warrant was applied where the minor street experiences long delays in entering or crossing the major street for at least one hour of the day. The Peak Hour Warrant itself includes several components. Some of the components involve comparison of traffic volumes and vehicle delay to a series of standards. Another component involves comparison of traffic volumes to a nomograph.

Even if the peak hour warrant is met, a more detailed signal warrant study is recommended before a signal is installed. The more detailed study should consider volumes during the eight highest hours of the day, volumes during the four highest hours of the day, pedestrian traffic, and accident histories.

Signal warrant analysis worksheets for all stop sign-controlled intersections are presented in the technical appendix.

Roadway Segment Level of Service Analysis Procedures
Roadway segment LOS was analyzed for this traffic impact study based on methods used in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR analysis (City of Stockton 2018b). These methods set maximum daily traffic volume thresholds for each LOS designation. The thresholds are shown in Table 2.

As shown in Table 2, the roadway segment LOS analysis method sets separate thresholds for:
ƒ different types of facilities (i.e., freeways, arterials, and collectors); ƒ different number of lanes; and
ƒ different area types (i.e., new versus existing).

Attachment F
914
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 24 July 9, 2021
Table 2. City of Stockton General Plan Roadway Segment Level of Service Thresholds Level of Service
Number
Facility of Area
Class Lanes Type A B C D E
Freeway 4 All Areas 27,600 45,200 63,600 77,400 86,400
6 All Areas 41,400 67,800 95,400 116,100 129,600
8 All Areas 55,200 90,400 127,200 154,800 172,800
10 All Areas 69,000 113,000 159,000 193,500 216,000
Arterial 2 Existing 8,400 9,300 11,800 14,700 17,300
2 New 10,000 11,100 14,000 17,500 20,600
4 Existing 18,600 20,600 26,000 32,500 38,200
4 New 23,300 25,800 32,600 40,700 47,900
6 Existing 28,800 32,000 40,300 50,400 59,300
6 New 33,300 37,000 46,600 58,300 68,600
8 Existing 38,100 42,300 53,300 66,600 78,400
8 New 41,100 45,700 57,600 72,000 84,700
Collector 2 Existing 6,400 7,100 9,000 11,300 13,200
2 New 6,400 7,100 9,000 11,300 13,200
4 Existing 17,600 19,600 24,700 30,900 36,300
4 New 21,100 23,500 29,600 37,000 43,500
_________________________
Source: Stockton General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (City of Stockton 2018b).

Note: The Stockton General Plan does not provide thresholds for local roads.

Attachment F
915
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 25 July 9, 2021
As described in City of Stockton 2018b:
“Thresholds for arterials and collectors were based on Highway Capacity Manual calculations and were developed in conjunction with City staff at the time the current General Plan analysis was prepared. The arterial thresholds distinguish between roads in the existing urbanized area and those in new development areas; because arterials in new development areas can be designed to higher standards, with medians, exclusive turn lanes, and controlled access from adjacent uses, the capacities are higher than those in previously-developed areas. Thresholds for freeways were based on Highway Capacity Manual procedures relating levels of service to vehicle density ranges.”
As specified in City of Stockton 2018b, the “Existing” area is generally located between I-5 and SR 99, south of Eight Mile Road. Eight Mile Road itself is considered a “New” arterial due to the lack of existing development in the area.

Freeway Ramp Junction Level of Service Analysis Procedures Freeway ramp junctions are areas where freeway on-ramps merge into freeways, and where freeway off-ramps diverge from freeways. Weave areas are where an on-ramp and downstream off-ramp are connected by an auxiliary lane. Freeway ramp junctions which are considered to be potentially affected by project-related traffic were analyzed for this traffic impact study.

Freeway ramp junction areas were analyzed for this traffic impact study using methods described in Chapters 12 and 13 of the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research Board 2010).

The Synchro software package does not analyze freeway ramp junction LOS. Therefore, the McTrans HCS+ Highway Capacity Software package was used to perform the ramp junction LOS calculations for this traffic impact study.

The Highway Capacity Manual 2010 methods were used to analyze three types of freeway facilities: on-ramp junctions (merge), off-ramp junctions (diverge), and weave areas. The analysis of all three types of facilities involves calculating the density of vehicles on a freeway facility, expressed as passenger cars per mile per lane (pcpmpl). The LOS designation is based on the vehicle density. Table 3 presents the relationship of vehicle density to LOS for ramp junctions and weave areas.

Freeway ramp operating conditions depend on traffic volumes and the ramp characteristics. These characteristics include the length and type of acceleration and deceleration lanes, the free-flow speed of ramps, the number of lanes, grade, and the types of facilities connected to the ramps.

The Highway Capacity Manual 2010 reports LOS A through E for ramps and weaving sections in terms of density. When the volume using the facility exceeds capacity, the V/C ratio is greater than 1, and the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 identifies the facility as overcapacity. While a density is not stated when the facility is over capacity, the freeway and ramp volumes for the facility are documented. For this traffic study, the freeway and ramp volumes are identified for all facilities where capacity has been exceeded.

Attachment F
916
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 26 July 9, 2021
Some of the freeway on-ramp facilities analyzed for this traffic impact study are equipped with ramp metering. The Highway Capacity Manual 2010 methods used to analyze freeway on-ramp facilities does not take ramp metering into account (Transportation Research Board 2010). The objective and the effect of ramp metering is to smooth out traffic flows, reducing the magnitude of surges in traffic flow. As a result, the effect of ramp meters is to improve traffic operations, therefore improving ramp junction LOS. Because the ramp junction analysis presented in this traffic impact study does not take ramp metering into account, the LOS are considered to conservatively describe worse cast operating conditions.

Attachment F
917
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 27 July 9, 2021
Table 3. Level of Service Criteria for Freeway Merge / Diverge and Weaving Areas Freeway Ramp Merge and Diverge
Freeway
Weave Area
Level of Vehicle Vehicle
Service Density Operating Characteristics Density
A Less than or
equal to 10.

LOS A represents unrestricted operations. Density
is low enough to permit smooth merging and
diverging, with very little turbulence in the traffic
stream.

Less than or equal
to 10.

B
Greater than

10. Less than
or equal to 20.

At LOS B, merging and diverging maneuvers
become noticeable to through drivers, and minimal
turbulence occurs.

Greater than 10.

Less than or equal
to 20.

C
Greater than

20. Less than
or equal to 28.

At LOS C, speed within the influence area begins
to decline as turbulence levels become much more
noticeable. Both ramp and freeway vehicles begin
to adjust their speeds to accomplish smooth
Greater than 20.

Less than or equal
to 28.

D
Greater than

28. Less than
or equal to 35.

At LOS D, turbulence levels in the influence area
become intrusive, and virtually all vehicles slow to
accommodate merging and diverging. Some ramp
queues may form at heavily used on-ramps, but
freeway operation remains stable.

Greater than 28.

Less than or equal
to 35.

E Greater than

35. LOS E represents conditions approaching or at
capacity. Small changes in demand or disruptions
within the traffic stream can cause both ramp and
freeway queues to form.

Greater than 35.

F †V/C >1
LOS F defines operating conditions within queues
that form on both the ramp and the freeway
mainline when capacity is exceeded by demand.
†V/C >1
____________________________________
Note: Vehicle density is expressed as passenger car equivalents per mile per lane.

Source: Transportation Research Board 2010.
† = Volume exceeds capacity. Therefore, the LOS is F. V/C ratio shown in lieu of density.

Attachment F
918
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 28 July 9, 2021
Travel Forecasting
As part of the General Plan update process, the City of Stockton developed a series of travel demand forecasting simulation models. In consultation with City of Stockton staff (Moore, pers. comm.), travel forecasts for this traffic impact study are based on the City of Stockton General Plan travel demand forecasting simulation model (City of Stockton 2018b).

Travel models of the following two conditions were used to develop forecasts of future year traffic volumes for this traffic impact study:
ƒ Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP), and
ƒ 2040 Conditions with the General Plan.

The City’s travel model produces forecasts of daily traffic volumes. The forecasts of daily volumes generated by the City’s travel model are adequate for use in the analysis of roadway segment LOS, and are used for daily volume forecasts in this traffic impact study. However, the daily volumes generated by the traffic model are not, by themselves, adequate for use in the peak hour LOS analysis of study intersections.

Daily traffic volumes from the travel models were used to generate growth factors. These growth factors were applied to existing peak hour intersection turning movement traffic volumes.

The development of future year intersection turning movement traffic volumes requires that the turning movements at each intersection “balance”. To achieve the balance, inbound traffic volumes must equal the outbound traffic volumes, and the volumes must be distributed among the various left-turn, through, and right-turn movements at each intersection. The “balancing” of future year intersection turning movement traffic volumes was conducted using methods described in the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design (Transportation Research Board 1982). The NCHRP 255 method applies the desired peak hour directional volumes to the intersection turning movement volumes, using an iterative process to balance and adjust the resulting forecasts to match the desired peak hour directional volumes.

LEVEL OF SERVICE AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Significance thresholds are used in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental documents to identify when the impacts of a project should be considered significant. Significance thresholds are the criteria used to determine the significance of impacts.

The City of Stockton Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (City of Stockton 2003) presents the methods, assumptions and significance thresholds specified by the City of Stockton for use in preparing traffic impact studies. In general, the methods, assumptions and significance threshold presented in the guidelines are applied in this traffic impact study. It is important to note the significance thresholds specified in the guidelines are based on policies presented in the City General Plan. More specifically, the General Plan policies define ranges of LOS considered to Attachment F
919
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 29 July 9, 2021
be acceptable and unacceptable. The guidelines then use the General Plan policy ranges of LOS to identify whether a project impact is less than significant or significant.

Level of Service and Vehicle Miles Traveled
In the City of Stockton Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the impacts of a project on LOS are an important factor in determining whether a project has a significant impact. However, recent changes to CEQA have changed how lead agencies use LOS in determining whether a project has a significant impact on transportation. As noted in the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) document Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018), “Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. . . OPR has proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) has certified and adopted, changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(3).)” Notably, the City of Stockton Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines was prepared before the recent changes to CEQA due to Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg 2013). As a result, the City guidelines specify use of LOS in determining whether a project has a significant impact. Consistent with the approach described in the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, LOS will not be used in this traffic impact study as a basis for identifying significant impacts. Rather, the methods, assumptions and significance thresholds presented in the City guidelines are used to determine whether the project is consistent or inconsistent with General Plan policies on LOS, and whether the magnitude of inconsistency should be considered significant or less than significant.

General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria
As noted immediately above, in this traffic impact study the significance of the proposed project’s inconsistency with General Plan policies is based on a determination of whether resulting LOS is considered acceptable. A project’s inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant if implementation of the project would result in LOS changing from levels considered acceptable to levels considered unacceptable, or if the project would substantially worsen already unacceptable LOS.

The City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines notes that:

Attachment F
920
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 30 July 9, 2021
“The City of Stockton’s General Plan has a LOS ‘D’ standard for its roadway system. Intersections and roadway segments operating at LOS ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, or ‘D’ conditions are considered acceptable, while those operating at LOS ‘E’ or ‘F’ conditions are considered unacceptable.
“For a City intersection, a transportation impact for a project is considered significant if the addition of project traffic would cause an intersection that would function at LOS ‘D’ or better without the Project to function at LOS ‘E’ or ‘F’. “For City intersections with a LOS ‘E’ or ‘F’ conditions without the project, a transportation impact for a project is considered significant if the addition of project traffic causes an increase of greater than 5 seconds in the average delay for the intersection.”
Portions of the City’s guidelines do not specifically address criteria used to quantify changes in operating conditions on roadway segments or freeway ramp junctions. For this traffic impact study, the City’s significance thresholds described above are also applied to roadway segments and freeway ramp junctions. As shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, LOS at intersections is measured in seconds of delay, LOS on roadway segments is measured in traffic volume, and LOS at ramp junctions is measured in vehicle density. Therefore, for roadway segments and ramp junctions already at LOS E or F, an increase of greater than five seconds of delay cannot be identified. Because roadway segment LOS is measured in traffic volumes, rather than seconds of delay, an increase in traffic volumes is used in this traffic impact study, in lieu of the threshold of five seconds of delay. At ramp junctions when the demand exceeds capacity, an increase in density is not identified; however, the densities of each area are based upon the volume.

Therefore, for this traffic impact study, if a roadway segment or ramp junction operates at LOS E or F without the project, the inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant if the addition of project traffic causes an increase of greater than five percent in traffic volumes.

The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a) notes:
“The City of Stockton strives to maintain LOS D or better for peak hour intersection and daily roadway segment operations. However, in the Downtown and other areas, exceptions to this standard are permissible to support other goals, such as encouraging safe travel by other modes of transportation than the car. The City can use VMT and LOS to support non-auto transportation modes, with the ultimate goal of maintaining and enhancing a complete roadway network that serves all travel modes in a balanced and equitable way.” This section of the City General Plan lists more than 14 facilities as exceptions to the LOS D policy standard, and lists the applicable standard. Among the facilities listed as exceptions is “Eighth Street, Airport Way to Mariposa Road – LOS E”. Consistent with the City General Plan, a LOS E standard is applied in this traffic impact study to the intersection of Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road.

Attachment F
921
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 31 July 9, 2021
SR 99 is a facility under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. While the City General Plan identifies LOS E and LOS F as standards for portions of the SR 99 corridor, Caltrans has set a LOS D standard (Dumas, pers. comm.). At the direction of City staff, because SR 99 is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, LOS D is used as the LOS standard for the SR 99 corridor in this traffic impact study; LOS E and F are considered unacceptable. In this traffic impact study, the Caltrans LOS D standard is applied to mainline freeway LOS, ramp junction LOS, and to LOS at freeway interchange intersections.

In this traffic impact study, a project’s inconsistency with General Plan policies will be considered significant if:
ƒ the project would result in traffic operating conditions changing from an acceptable LOS to an unacceptable LOS, or
ƒ when LOS without the project is already unacceptable, the project would result in a substantial degradation of traffic operating conditions (e.g., an increase of more than five seconds of delay at an intersection, an increase of more than five percent in traffic volume on a roadway segment, or an increase of more than five percent in the freeway and ramp volumes for ramps).

Maximum Feasible Roadway Improvements
This traffic impact study identifies traffic operating conditions that would result from background development of land use not related to the proposed project, and would result from development of the proposed project. In some cases, this development would result in unacceptable LOS. If unacceptable LOS is forecasted, feasible roadway improvements needed to achieve acceptable LOS are identified.

For this traffic impact study, maximum feasible sizes of roadway facilities have been established.

For intersections, the maximum feasible size is considered to be seven approach lanes on each leg of an intersection. For example, two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and a right-turn lane (a total of seven lanes) is considered to be the maximum feasible size on an intersection approach. Existing land use development, physical or right-of-way constraints, and the relative benefits of additional roadway improvements in some cases result in a smaller approach being considered the maximum feasible size.

For SR 99 in the study area for this traffic impact study, the Caltrans Transportation Concept Report State Route 99 (California Department of Transportation 2017) identifies a “conceptual facility” width of eight lanes (four in each direction) by the year 2040. Therefore, an eight-lane width is considered to be the maximum feasible size for SR 99.

It is technically possible to construct roadway facilities larger than the maximum feasible sizes applied in this traffic impact study. However, for the following reasons, this traffic impact study considers these sizes to be not feasible.
ƒ Pedestrian Safety – The amount of time required by pedestrians to walk across an intersection leg with more than seven approach lanes is considered excessive.

Attachment F
922
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 32 July 9, 2021
The possibility of signal lights changing before pedestrians are able to exit the intersection is considered unacceptably high.
ƒ Vehicle Safety – When a vehicle enters an intersection on the yellow light, the amount of time required for this subject vehicle to depart overly-large intersections is considered excessive. The possibility of other vehicles on conflicting movements entering the intersection before the subject vehicle has departed is considered unacceptably high.
ƒ Intersection Efficiency – The timing of signal lights may be modified to provide protection for pedestrians and vehicles at overly-large intersections. However, the amount of time needed for pedestrians and vehicles to exit an overly-large intersection becomes excessive. This results in the intersection operating with an unacceptable degree of inefficiency.
ƒ Engineering Constraints – Overhead structures and equipment are required to traverse both intersection approaches and freeway lanes. Overhead structures involve primarily overcrossing roadways. Equipment includes signal light support structures, power lines, and signs. With larger facilities, the size and resulting cost of these structures and equipment becomes unacceptable.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD
The City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a) Policy TR-4.3 addresses the topic of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as an impact in CEQA documents. The policy states, “Use the threshold recommended by the California Office of Planning and Research for determining whether VMT impacts associated with land uses are considered significant under State environmental analysis requirements.” The OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (State of California 2018) provides recommended thresholds for determining the significance of VMT impacts associated with land use development projects. Specific thresholds are provided for residential, office, and retail commercial types of development. A specific threshold is not provided for industrial land use, like the Mariposa Industrial Park project and is, therefore, considered not applicable for this traffic impact study.

The City of Stockton General Plan Policy Action TR-4.3A states, “Establish a threshold of 15 percent below baseline VMT per capita to determine a significant transportation impact under the California Environmental Quality Act.” The 15 percent threshold in General Plan Action TR-4.3A is similar to thresholds for residential and office land use types recommended by OPR in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, and is used in this traffic impact study to determine the significance of VMT impacts associated with the Mariposa Industrial Park project.

Attachment F
923
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 33 July 9, 2021
Consistent with General Plan Action TR4.3A, if a project would result in a 15 percent or more reduction of vehicle travel, a project is considered to have a less-than-significant impact. A project that would not result in a reduction of 15 percent or more is considered to have a significant impact. The percent change in vehicle travel is determined by comparing projectrelated travel to the amount of travel that would occur without approval of the proposed project.

In this traffic impact study, vehicle travel associated with the Mariposa Industrial Park project will be compared to vehicle travel associated with the land uses currently designated in the City of Stockton General Plan.

At the time the analysis presented in this traffic impact study commenced, the City of Stockton had not adopted guidelines for analyzing VMT or determining the significance of a project’s impact on VMT. The City was in the process of developing and adopting guidelines, but the process was not completed. The VMT analysis presented in this traffic impact study is not intended to pre-empt the City process of developing and adopting VMT guidelines. Rather, the analysis presented in this traffic impact study is intended to be a good-faith effort at disclosing and identifying the VMT impacts of the Mariposa Industrial Park project based on currently available data and guidance.

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE The following is a description of existing traffic operating conditions at the study intersections.

Traffic Volumes
Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, traffic volumes have at times been lower than normal. With the pandemic, places of employment, schools, social and recreational gatherings, sports events, restaurants, and many other types of activities have been substantially reduced or prohibited. As a result, the use of new traffic volume count data collected during the pandemic could result in volumes that are unrepresentatively low. To ensure data used in this traffic study are representative, the traffic analysis of the Mariposa Industrial Park project is based on both existing traffic volume data collected before the outbreak of Covid-19, and current new traffic volume count data collected since the outbreak. Data collected before the outbreak of Covid-19 are from previously-prepared traffic analyses and from StreetLight Data (https://www.streetlightdata.com/). Data from new traffic volume count data collected since the outbreak were used to validate data collected before the outbreak of Covid-19. This approach was applied to intersection traffic volumes, described immediately below. This approach was also applied to roadway segment and ramp junction traffic volumes, described later in this traffic impact study.

At the following study intersections, turning movement count data collected for the Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sanchez-Hoggan Annexation (City of Stockton 2020) were used in this traffic impact study.

Attachment F
924
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 34 July 9, 2021

4. Mariposa Road & SR 99 West Frontage Road

5. Mariposa Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramps

6. Mariposa Road & SR 99 Northbound Ramps

10. Mariposa Road & Austin Road

11. Arch Road & Austin Road

12. Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane

13. Arch Road & SR 99
Traffic count data collected for the intersections listed above are presented in the technical appendix. The peak period intersection turning movement count data were collected on Thursday March 7, 2019. The data were collected during the 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. period, and the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. period. Volumes during the highest one-hour period were used for this traffic impact study. It should be noted that a since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, a south leg has been constructed at intersection 10, Mariposa Road & Austin Road. However, as noted previously, traffic volumes during the pandemic could be unrepresentatively low. To ensure representative data are presented in this traffic impact study, conditions before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic are used.

At the following study intersections, pre-Covid-19 intersection turning movement count data were collected for weekday periods between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. from StreetLight Data. These data represent Tuesday through Thursday volumes collected during six non-holiday months between March 2019 and February 2020. Traffic volume count data collected from StreetLight Data are presented in the technical appendix.

1. Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps

2. Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps

3. Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road

7. Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road

8. Mariposa Road & Munford Avenue

9. Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road
To validate the traffic volumes collected from StreetLight Data, new count data were also collected on Tuesday January 12, 2021 at the intersections listed above during the 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. morning peak period and the 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. evening peak. The new count data were used to adjust volumes from StreetLight Data at the following intersection legs:
ƒ the southwest leg of the intersection of Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road, ƒ the southwest leg of the intersection of Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road, and ƒ the northeast leg of the intersection of Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road.

Traffic volumes on the intersection legs listed above are relatively low and the intersection turning movement volumes from StreetLight Data were considered to be unrepresentative. The new count data collected on Tuesday January 12, 2021 were used to adjust the turning movement volumes on the intersection legs listed above.

Attachment F
925
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 35 July 9, 2021
Using the approach described above results in volumes applied in this traffic study which compensate for decreases caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Figure 9 and Figure 10 present the existing lane configurations and existing a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the existing study intersections.

Intersection turning movement count data collected for this traffic impact study were disaggregated to light-duty vehicles (e.g., automobiles) and heavy vehicles (e.g., heavy-duty trucks). These data were used to estimate heavy vehicle percentage at each study intersection.

The percentages are shown in Table 4, and were used in the intersection LOS analysis presented in this traffic impact study.

Intersection Levels of Service
Table 5 presents a summary of existing a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at the 13 existing study intersections. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

All of the 13 existing study intersections operate at acceptable LOS C or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. No improvements are needed at these intersections to achieve acceptable LOS.

EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE The following is a description of existing traffic operating conditions on study roadway segments.

Roadway Segment Traffic Volumes
As described in more detail previously in this traffic impact study, to ensure data used in this study are representative, the traffic analysis of the Mariposa Industrial Park project is based on both existing traffic volume data collected before the outbreak of Covid-19, and current new traffic volume count data collected since the outbreak.

Roadway segment traffic volume count data were collected for 24-hour periods for the Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sanchez-Hoggan Annexation (City of Stockton 2020). For the following roadway segments, the data were collected on Wednesday March 13, 2019; and Thursday March 21, 2019. Traffic count data collected for the following roadway segments were used in this traffic impact study, and are presented in the technical appendix:
106. Mariposa Road, Between Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road, Between the Project Site and Carpenter Road 108. Mariposa Road, Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road, East of Austin Road
111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Attachment F
926
7 Mariposa Rd / Stagecoach Rd
8 Mariposa Rd / Munford Ave
9 Mariposa Rd / Carpenter Rd
1 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 SB Ramps
4 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 West Frontage Rd
2 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 NB Ramps
5 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 SB Ramps
3 Mariposa Rd / 8th St / Farmington Rd
6 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 9

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
78 (101)96 (94)91 (70)
(37) 24
(122) 134(120) 122
242 (110)276 (473)
65 (57)
124 (176)
(144) 83
(270) 77
(92) 90
(346) 255
(200) 65
(49) 37
429 (434)
42 (38)
(498) 392
(97) 161
95 (182)0 (0)66 (50)
(122) 150
(49) 95
454 (532)
160 (256)
(582) 471
(380) 328
470 (255)370 (435)
50 (95)
260 (278)
(525) 408
(161) 118 128 (146) 29 (89)
418 (443)
67 (86)
(211) 70
(528) 287
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
“Free” Right Turn
Future Roadway
Attachment F
927
10 Austin Rd / Mariposa Rd
13 Arch Airport Rd/ SR 99
11 Austin Rd/ Arch Rd
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
12 Arch Airport Rd/ Qantas Ln
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 10

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
85 (98)1 (1)306 (386)
(3) 0
(2) 1
(11) 5
490 (174)
820 (536)
12 (14)
(54) 89
(785) 482
(3) 5
71 (19)119 (61)26 (12)
(137) 62(162) 42
(4) 5
7 (36)
42 (26)
1 (3)
(48) 26
(45) 28
(59) 192
43 (176)27 (73)
(0) 123
(0) 136643 (226) 540 (173)
(209) 429
(130) 265
205 (502)
246 (290)
154 (238)
(498) 231
(253) 304
(436) 253
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
“Free” Right Turn
Future Roadway
Attachment F
928
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 38 July 9, 2021
Table 4. Heavy Truck Percentage
AM Peak PM Peak
Intersection Hour Hour
1 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps 6% 4%
2 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps 7% 3%
3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road 9% 3%
4 Mariposa Road & SR 99 West Frontage Road 5% 5%
5 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramps 7% 6%
6 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Northbound Ramps 9% 7%
7 Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road 21% 10%
8 Mariposa Road & Munford Avenue 20% 9%
9 Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road 20% 8%
10 Mariposa Road & Austin Road 10% 6%
11 Arch Road & Austin Road 20% 20%
12 Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane 8% 9%
13 Arch Road & SR 99 9% 9%
14 Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway 20% 8%
15 Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway 20% 8%
____________________________
Source: Peak hour intersection traffic volume count data.

Attachment F
929
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 39 July 9, 2021
Table 5. Intersection Level of Service -
Existing Conditions
Signal AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intersections Control Met? LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal B 13.3 B 15.2 2 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal B 13.6 B 13.9 3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road Signal C 34.0 C 32.4 4 Mariposa Road & SR 99 West Frontage Road Signal B 17.8 B 17.1 5 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal A 9.5 B 10.1 6 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal A 9.1 A 9.0 7 Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road Signal B 18.4 B 17.3
8 Mariposa Road & Munford Avenue Signal B 11.7 B 17.7
9 Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road Unsig No A 1.8 A 2.4
10 Mariposa Road & Austin Road Signal B 15.1 B 16.6
11 Arch Road & Austin Road Signal C 28.8 C 27.2
12 Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane Signal B 16.9 B 17.2 13 Arch Road & SR 99 Signal B 18.4 B 17.0
14 Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway - - - - - - - - - - 15 Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway - - - - - - - - - - ______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control. "Unsig" = Unsignalized stop-sign control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections, including unsignalized intersections.

Dashes ( "- -" ) indicate intersection not present under this scenario.

Inters. Warrant
Attachment F
930
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 40 July 9, 2021
At study roadway segment 105, Mariposa Road between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road, pre-Covid-19 traffic volume count data for weekday 24-hour periods were collected from StreetLight Data. These data represent Tuesday through Thursday volumes collected during six non-holiday months between March 2019 and February 2020. Traffic volume count data collected from StreetLight Data are presented in the technical appendix.

To validate the 24-hour roadway segment traffic volume data collected from StreetLight Data, new count data were also collected on Tuesday January 12, 2021 on Mariposa Road between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road.

For the following freeway mainline roadway segments, 24-hour traffic volume data were collected from the Caltrans Traffic Census Program Internet Website (California Department of Transportation 2021) and applied in this traffic impact study. 101. SR 99 North of Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway (SR 4) West of SR 99
103. SR 99 Between Crosstown Freeway (SR 4) and Golden Gate Avenue 104. SR 99 Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road 110. SR 99 Between Mariposa Road and Arch-Airport Road
112. SR 99 South of Arch-Airport Road
Table 6 presents the existing daily traffic volumes for study roadway segments.

Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Table 6 presents a summary of existing LOS on the 12 study roadway segments. 11 of the study roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS C or better. No improvements are needed on these 11 roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS.
105. Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road Under Existing Conditions, this roadway segment operates at LOS E. This LOS is considered unacceptable. The following improvement is recommended:
ƒ Widen the portions of this roadway segment which are one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction.

Attachment F
931
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 41 July 9, 2021
Table 6. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Conditions
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 95,000 0.55 C
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 104,900 0.61 C
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 94,000 0.54 C and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 92,300 0.53 C
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 2 17,300 16,295 0.94 E
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 2 17,300 10,034 0.58 C
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 2 17,300 9,042 0.52 B
Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 2 17,300 9,042 0.52 B
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 2 17,300 8,149 0.47 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 6 129,600 80,600 0.62 C and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 26,889 0.45 A
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 6 129,600 85,000 0.66 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
932
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 42 July 9, 2021
A summary of LOS with recommended improvements is presented in Table 7. With this recommended improvement, this roadway segment would operate at LOS A. This LOS is considered acceptable.

Table 7. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Conditions With Recommended Improvements
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
105. Mariposa Road - Between 4 38,200 16,295 0.43 A
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

EXISTING RAMP JUNCTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE The following is a description of existing traffic operating conditions at the study ramp junctions.

Ramp Junction Traffic Volumes
As described in more detail previously in this traffic impact study, to ensure data used in this study are representative, the traffic analysis of the Mariposa Industrial Park project is based on both existing traffic volume data collected before the outbreak of Covid-19, and current new traffic volume count data collected since the outbreak.

Traffic volume count data were collected for the following freeway ramp junctions for the Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sanchez-Hoggan Annexation (City of Stockton 2020). These data are applied in this traffic impact study. 208. SR 99 at Mariposa Road Southbound On-Ramp (Slip) Merge 209. SR 99 at Mariposa Road Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge 210. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge 211. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound On-Ramp Merge 212. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Southbound On-Ramp Merge 213. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge Attachment F
933
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 43 July 9, 2021
At the following study ramp junctions, pre-Covid-19 count data were collected for weekday periods between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. from StreetLight Data. These data represent Tuesday through Thursday volumes collected during six non-holiday months between March 2019 and February 2020. Traffic volume count data collected from StreetLight Data are presented in the technical appendix. 201. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway 202. SR 99 Northbound Weave Area Between Crosstown Freeway and Fremont Street 203. SR 99 Northbound at Crosstown Freeway (SR 4) Off-Ramp Diverge 204. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge 205. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Northbound On-Ramp Merge 206. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road 207. SR 99 Northbound Weave Area Between Mariposa Road and Golden Gate Avenue To validate the ramp junction traffic volume data collected from StreetLight Data, peak hour traffic volume data for freeway facilities were collected from the Caltrans PeMS database (http://pems.dot.ca.gov/). Data for Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays between February 4, 2020 and Thursday February 13, 2020 were used to validate the traffic volume data collected from StreetLight Data.

Figure 11 and Figure 12 present the existing a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the existing ramp junctions.

Ramp Junction Levels of Service
Table 8 presents a summary of existing a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at the 13 study ramp junctions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.
12 of the 13 ramp junctions operate at acceptable LOS C or better during both the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour. No improvements are needed at these 12 ramp junctions to achieve acceptable LOS.
201. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway Under Existing Conditions, the SR 99 southbound weave area between the Fremont Street interchange and the Crosstown Freeway interchange operates at LOS E during the a.m. peak hour.

This LOS is considered unacceptable. Existing land use adjacent to SR 99 and the location of the two interchanges results in improvements to the weave area being considered not feasible. As a result, no improvements are recommended to improve LOS at this location.

Attachment F
934
201
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
204
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
207
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
202
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
205
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
208
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Southbound On-Ramp (Slip) Merge
203
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
206
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
209
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 11

EXISTING FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
(3488) 2289 3472 (4203)
3584 (3976)
(3158) 3590
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane (4181) 5683 (2981) 3466
(352) 275
(1863) 1524
3598 (5105) 2349 (3594)
3613 (3302)
158 (191)
546 (415)
(3337) 3604 (3113) 3216
3556 (3944) 3466 (3871)
(246) 172 (319) 262
Attachment F
935
210
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
213
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
211
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
212
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 12

EXISTING FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
3281 (3378)
(2920) 2525
3281 (3378)
(2920) 2525
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane
Attachment F
936
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 46 July 9, 2021
Table 8. State Route 99 Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Level of Service - Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp
Ramp Junction Volume Volume Density LOS Volume Volume Density LOS 201 SB Weave Between 5,688 492 > Capacity F 4,181 334 21.4 C Fremont St & Crosstown Fwy 3,466 2,709 2,981 1,534
202 NB Weave Between 3,598 275 18.1 B 5,105 352 26.3 C
Crosstown Fwy & Fremont St 2,349 1,524 3,594 1,863
203 NB at Crosstown Fwy Off-Ramp 2,289 2,126 < 10 A 3,488 1,624 < 10 A 204 Golden Gate Ave SB Off-Ramp 3,613 529 < 10 A 3,302 589 < 10 A 205 Golden Gate Ave NB On-Ramp 3,584 491 19.3 B 3,976 672 22.9 C 206 SB Weave Between 3,604 158 17.5 B 3,337 191 16.4 B
Golden Gate Ave & Mariposa Rd 3,216 546 3,113 415
207 NB Weave Between 3,556 172 17.3 B 3,944 246 19.7 B
Mariposa Rd & Golden Gate Ave 3,466 262 3,871 319
208 Mariposa Rd SB On-Ramp (Slip) 3,590 118 16.9 B 3,158 161 14.9 B 209 Mariposa Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,472 245 22.2 C 4,203 171 25.8 C 210 Arch-Airport Rd SB Off-Ramp 2,525 1,183 < 10 A 2,920 399 < 10 A 211 Arch-Airport Rd NB On-Ramp 3,281 436 17.3 B 3,378 996 22.3 C 212 Arch-Airport Rd SB On-Ramp 2,525 407 14.0 B 2,920 672 18.3 B 213 Arch-Airport Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,281 694 22.1 C 3,378 339 21.8 C _____________________________________________
Notes: "LOS" = Level of Service. "NB" = Northbound. "SB" = Southbound.

Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. "> Capacity" = volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0.

For weave areas, north freeway and ramp volumes are listed first and south volumes are listed second.

Attachment F
937
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 47 July 9, 2021

EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS

NO MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT CONDITIONS
The EPAP No Mariposa Industrial Park Project condition is a near-term future background condition. This condition is also referred to in this traffic impact study as EPAP No Project conditions. Development of land uses and roadway improvements associated with previouslyapproved but as yet unconstructed projects are assumed in this condition. This scenario does not include development of the proposed Mariposa Industrial Park project. The EPAP No Project condition, therefore, serves as the baseline condition used to assess the significance of near-term project-related traffic effects.

TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
In consultation with City of Stockton staff (Moore pers. comm.), the City of Stockton Travel Demand Model (City of Stockton 2004) was used to develop forecasts of background increases in traffic volumes under near-term EPAP conditions. The increases in traffic volumes reflect development of near-term previously-approved projects in Stockton. The model was modified in the vicinity of the project site to add detail to the model and more accurately represent how land uses are provided access to the roadway network. Minor changes were also made to land uses in the model to accurately represent land uses.

Application of these methods results in the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour intersection traffic volumes presented in Figure 13 and Figure 14, the daily traffic volumes presented in Table 9, and the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour ramp junction traffic volumes presented in Figure 15 and Figure 16.

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The EPAP No Project condition assumes roadway improvements associated with previouslyapproved land use development projects, and approved roadway improvement projects. These near-term roadway improvements were identified in the NorCal Logistics Center – Draft Environmental Impact Report (Project File No. P12-110) (City of Stockton 2014), and the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Mariposa Lakes Specific Plan - State Clearinghouse #2006022035 (City of Stockton 2007) and the Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sanchez-Hoggan Annexation (City of Stockton 2020). The improvements include, for example, construction of a fourth leg at the intersection of Mariposa Road & Austin Road, which is associated with the Sanchez-Hoggan development project.

The resulting lane geometrics assumed for EPAP No Project conditions are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14 and in Table 9.

Attachment F
938
7 Mariposa Rd / Stagecoach Rd
8 Mariposa Rd / Munford Ave
9 Mariposa Rd / Carpenter Rd
1 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 SB Ramps
4 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 West Frontage Rd
2 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 NB Ramps
5 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 SB Ramps
3 Mariposa Rd / 8th St / Farmington Rd
6 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 13

EPAP NO PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
29 (56)43 (63)154 (120)
(27) 12(88) 83
(276) 276
366 (197)298 (500)
61 (44)
168 (220)
(207) 123
(375) 118
(23) 13
(326) 240
(132) 26(114) 69
576 (642)
103 (77)
(695) 565
(52) 92
138 (242)0 (0)45 (27)
(191) 218
(97) 188
645 (880)
210 (402)
(810) 862
(566) 489
752 (451)511 (448)
61 (138)
390 (462)
(867) 753
(310) 234 172 (194) 40 (121)
522 (546)
57 (80)
(306) 113
(589) 324
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
“Free” Right Turn
Future Roadway
Attachment F
939
10 Austin Rd / Mariposa Rd
13 Arch Airport Rd/ SR 99
11 Austin Rd/ Arch Rd
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
12 Arch Airport Rd/ Qantas Ln
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 14

EPAP NO PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
85 (92)1 (1)588 (767)
(2) 0
(1) 1
(13) 5
925 (351)
1469 (1111)
14 (16)
(50) 89
(1434) 1009
(2) 3
135 (165)237 (49)24 (12)
(221) 140
(284) 97
(8) 10
7 (31)
43 (21)
2 (6)
(121) 161
(41) 22
(122) 320
1291 (483)1685 (592)
(319) 648
(322) 624
647 (1593)
504 (657)
363 (576)
(1004) 485
(559) 686
(683) 385
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
“Free” Right Turn
Future Roadway
189 (402)2 (1)36 (83)
(167) 27
(2) 1
(14) 2
124 (26)
479 (191)
17 (7)
(176) 361
(526) 160
(82) 210
Attachment F
940
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 50 July 9, 2021
Table 9. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 110,947 0.64 C
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 117,127 0.68 C
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 120,768 0.70 C and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 119,541 0.69 C
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 2 17,300 25,552 1.48 F
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 4 38,200 16,570 0.43 A
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 4 38,200 15,285 0.40 A Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 15,285 0.40 A
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 11,039 0.29 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 6 129,600 95,887 0.74 D and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 50,887 0.86 E
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 6 129,600 85,077 0.66 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
941
201
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
204
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
207
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
202
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
205
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
208
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Southbound On-Ramp (Slip) Merge
203
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
206
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
209
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 15

EPAP NO PROJECT FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
(4637) 3043 3890 (5783)
4789 (5329)
(3478) 5209
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane
(361) 282
(1892) 1565
4336 (6152) 3053 (4621)
4657 (4257)
332 (398)
710 (539)
(4254) 4628 (4113) 4250
4758 (5262) 4715 (5281)
(500) 350 (481) 393
(5162) 6934 (3938) 4633
Attachment F
942
210
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
213
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
211
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
212
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 16

EPAP NO PROJECT FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
3164 (3472)
(2713) 2467
3164 (3472)
(2713) 2467
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane
Attachment F
943
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 53 July 9, 2021

INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 10 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at each study intersection under EPAP No Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Traffic volumes under EPAP No Project conditions would be generally higher than under Existing Conditions and, as a result, vehicle delay at study intersections under EPAP No Project conditions would be higher than under Existing Conditions.

Under EPAP No Project conditions, LOS at 10 of the 13 study intersections would be at acceptable LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. No improvements are needed at these 10 intersections to achieve acceptable LOS. The following describes the three study intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS under EPAP No Project conditions.

3. Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road
Under EPAP No Project conditions, the intersection of Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road would operate at LOS F with 94.9 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 130.0 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. The following improvement is recommended:
ƒ Split the northeastbound combined through/right-turn lane into an exclusive northeastbound through lane and a “free” northeastbound-to-southeastbound rightturn lane.

The above improvement would be consistent with the recommended improvement (described below) for Roadway Segment 105, Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road, to widen the portions of this roadway segment which are one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction. The added southeastbound departure lane on Mariposa Road would serve vehicles departing the “free” northeastbound-to-southeastbound right-turn lane at this intersection.

The existing northeastbound combined through/right-turn lane is approximately 23 to 24 feet wide and the single southwestbound departure lane is approximately 21 to 22 feet wide. As a result, the existing pavement width on the southwest leg of this intersection is considered wide enough to accommodate the above improvement.

As shown in Table 11, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS D with 38.2 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E with 64.3 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. As described in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, LOS D and E at this intersection are considered acceptable.

Attachment F
944
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 54 July 9, 2021
Table 10. Intersection Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions Signal AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intersections Control Met? LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal B 14.1 B 15.9 2 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal B 15.6 C 23.2 3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road Signal F 94.9 F 130.0 4 Mariposa Road & SR 99 West Frontage Road Signal B 13.7 B 14.2 5 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal B 12.7 B 12.1 6 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal B 10.1 A 9.9 7 Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road Signal B 19.8 B 19.3
8 Mariposa Road & Munford Avenue Signal B 12.7 B 17.8
9 Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road Unsig Yes A 1.8 A 6.3
10 Mariposa Road & Austin Road Signal C 32.7 D 38.7
11 Arch Road & Austin Road Signal D 43.1 D 38.4
12 Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane Signal E 60.0 C 27.8 13 Arch Road & SR 99 Signal F 195.4 E 69.5
14 Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway - - - - - - - - - - 15 Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway - - - - - - - - - - ______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control. "Unsig" = Unsignalized stop-sign control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections, including unsignalized intersections.

Dashes ( "- -" ) indicate intersection not present under this scenario.

Inters. Warrant
Attachment F
945
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 55 July 9, 2021
Table 11. Intersection Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements
AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intersections Control LOS Delay LOS Delay
3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road Signal D 38.2 E 64.3 12 Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane Signal C 31.6 C 26.8 ______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections.

Inters.

12. Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane
Under EPAP No Project conditions, the intersection of Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane would operate at LOS E with 60.0 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C with 27.8 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E is considered unacceptable. The following improvement is recommended:
ƒ Change the signal timing to include overlap phasing on the northwestbound-tonortheastbound right-turn movement.

As shown in Table 11, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS C with 31.6 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C with 26.8 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS C is considered acceptable.

13. Arch Road & SR 99
Under EPAP No Project conditions, the intersection of Arch Road & SR 99 would operate at LOS F with 195.4 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 69.5 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E and F are considered unacceptable.

Attachment F
946
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 56 July 9, 2021
The unacceptable LOS at this intersection under EPAP No Project conditions would be due to increases in traffic volume along Arch Road, and on the SR 99 interchange ramps. Improvement of LOS at this intersection to acceptable LOS would require re-structuring of the interchange facility.

Reconstruction of the Arch–Airport Road interchange on SR 99, including additional eastbound and westbound through lanes would be required to achieve acceptable LOS. The EPAP No Project scenario is considered a near-term condition, and reconstruction of the interchange in the near-term future is not considered feasible. Therefore, improvements at this intersection are not recommended.

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 9 presents a summary of LOS on the 12 study roadway segments under EPAP No Project conditions. 10 of the 12 roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better. No improvements are needed on these 10 roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS. The following describes the two study roadway segments that would operate at unacceptable LOS under EPAP No Project conditions.
105. Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road Under EPAP No Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. This LOS is considered unacceptable. The following improvement is recommended:
ƒ Widen the portions of this roadway segment which are one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction.

A summary of LOS with recommended improvements is presented in Table 12. With this recommended improvement, this roadway segment would operate at LOS C. This LOS is considered acceptable.

This improvement is also recommended under Existing Conditions. 111. Arch-Airport Road Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Under EPAP No Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS E. This LOS is considered unacceptable. Widening of this roadway segment to add through lanes to improve LOS would require reconstruction of the Arch-Airport Road interchange on SR 99. The EPAP No Project scenario is considered a near-term condition, and reconstruction of the interchange in the near-term future is not considered feasible. Therefore, improvement to this roadway segment is not recommended.

Attachment F
947
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 57 July 9, 2021
Table 12. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
105. Mariposa Road - Between 4 38,200 25,552 0.67 C
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

RAMP JUNCTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Figure 15 and Figure 16 presents a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the study ramp junctions under EPAP No Project conditions. Table 13 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at each study ramp junction under EPAP No Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Traffic volumes under EPAP No Project conditions would be generally higher than under Existing Conditions and, as a result, vehicle density at study ramp junctions under EPAP No Project conditions would be higher than under Existing Conditions.

Under EPAP No Project conditions, LOS at 10 of the 13 study ramp junctions would be at acceptable LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. No improvements are needed at these 10 ramp junctions to achieve acceptable LOS.

The following three ramp junction areas would operate at unacceptable LOS under EPAP No Project conditions:
ƒ 201. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway would operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour, ƒ 205. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Northbound On-Ramp Merge would operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour, and
ƒ 211. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound On-Ramp Merge would operate at LOS E in the p.m. peak hour.

Attachment F
948
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 58 July 9, 2021
Table 13. State Route 99 Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp
Ramp Junction Volume Volume Density LOS Volume Volume Density LOS 201 SB Weave Between 6,934 503 > Capacity F 5,162 345 26.6 C Fremont St & Crosstown Fwy 4,633 2,804 3,938 1,569
202 NB Weave Between 4,336 282 21.9 C 6,152 361 32.1 D
Crosstown Fwy & Fremont St 3,053 1,565 4,621 1,892
203 NB at Crosstown Fwy Off-Ramp 3,043 2,764 < 10 A 4,637 2,111 < 10 A 204 Golden Gate Ave SB Off-Ramp 4,657 564 < 10 A 4,257 627 < 10 A 205 Golden Gate Ave NB On-Ramp 4,789 571 26.5 C 5,329 784 31.6 F 206 SB Weave Between 4,628 332 23.7 C 4,254 398 22.1 C
Golden Gate Ave & Mariposa Rd 4,250 710 4,113 539
207 NB Weave Between 4,758 350 24.5 C 5,262 500 28.0 D
Mariposa Rd & Golden Gate Ave 4,715 393 5,281 481
208 Mariposa Rd SB On-Ramp (Slip) 5,209 234 26.5 C 3,478 310 17.8 B 209 Mariposa Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,890 406 24.7 C 5,783 287 33.2 D 210 Arch-Airport Rd SB Off-Ramp 2,467 2,976 < 10 A 2,713 1,075 < 10 A 211 Arch-Airport Rd NB On-Ramp 3,164 1,132 22.3 C 3,472 2,597 35.9 E 212 Arch-Airport Rd SB On-Ramp 2,467 748 16.5 B 2,713 1,259 22.0 C 213 Arch-Airport Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,164 1,272 22.9 C 3,472 641 23.0 C _____________________________________________
Notes: "LOS" = Level of Service. "NB" = Northbound. "SB" = Southbound.

Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. "> Capacity" = volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0.

For weave areas, north freeway and ramp volumes are listed first and south volumes are listed second.

Attachment F
949
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 59 July 9, 2021
201. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway LOS F at the SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway is considered unacceptable. Reconstruction of the Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway interchanges on SR 99, including the addition of lanes on mainline SR 99, would be required to achieve acceptable LOS at this weave area. The EPAP No Project scenario is considered a nearterm condition, and reconstruction of this weave area in the near-term future is not considered feasible. In addition, existing land use adjacent to SR 99 and the location of the two interchanges results in improvements to the weave area being considered not feasible.

Therefore, improvements to this weave area are not recommended. 205. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Northbound On-Ramp Merge LOS F at the Golden Gate Avenue Northbound On-Ramp Merge is considered unacceptable.

Reconstruction of the Golden Gate Avenue interchange on SR 99, including the addition of lanes on mainline SR 99, would be required to achieve acceptable LOS at this ramp junction. The EPAP No Project scenario is considered a near-term condition, and reconstruction of the interchange in the near-term future is not considered feasible. Therefore, improvements to this ramp junction area are not recommended.
211. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound On-Ramp Merge LOS E at the Arch-Airport Road Northbound On-Ramp Merge is considered unacceptable.

Reconstruction of the Arch–Airport Road interchange on SR 99, including the addition of lanes on mainline SR 99, would be required to achieve acceptable LOS at this ramp junction. The EPAP No Project scenario is considered a near-term condition, and reconstruction of the interchange in the near-term future is not considered feasible. Therefore, improvements to this ramp junction area are not recommended.

Attachment F
950
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 60 July 9, 2021

EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS

PLUS MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT IMPACTS
The EPAP Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project scenario is a near-term future condition with the proposed project. This condition is also referred to in this traffic impact study as EPAP Plus Project conditions.

The development of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in vehicle traffic to and from the project site. The amount of additional traffic on a particular section of the street network depends on three factors:
ƒ Trip Generation, the number of new trips generated by the project, ƒ Trip Distribution, the direction of travel for the new traffic, and ƒ Trip Assignment, the specific routes used by the new traffic.

Each of these three factors is described below.

TRIP GENERATION
Development of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would generate new vehicle trips and potentially affect traffic operations on study facilities. The number of vehicle trips expected to be generated by the proposed project has been estimated using typical trip generation rates that have been developed based on the nature and size of project land uses. Trip generation rates developed for the City of Stockton (McDowell pers. comm.) were applied for this traffic impact study. These rates have been applied by the City for other projects in the southeast Stockton area (City of Stockton 2014, and Tellez pers. comm.) with land uses similar to the Mariposa Industrial Park project.

The trip generation rates used in this traffic impact study are presented in Table 14. The trip generation rates are applied to the amount of project-related land uses. The resulting trip generation estimates are presented in Table 15. As shown in Table 15, the Mariposa Industrial Park project would generate an estimated 12,370 vehicle trips per day, with 651 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 796 trips during the p.m. peak hour.

TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Project-related trips were geographically distributed over the study area roadway network. The geographical distribution of trips is based on the relative attractiveness or utility of possible destinations. Trip distribution percentages applied in this traffic impact study are presented in Table 16. The data presented in Table 16 are graphically shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18.

Attachment F
951
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 61 July 9, 2021
Table 14. Trip Generation Rates
Trips per Unit
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Light Industrial Thousand 3.42 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.08 0.14 0.22 Square Feet
_____________________________
Source: McDowell pers. comm. and City of Stockton 2014.

Table 15. Trip Generation Estimate
Trips Generated
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Quantity Daily In Out Total In Out Total
3,616.87
Light Industrial Thousand 12,370 398 253 651 289 506 796 Square Feet
_____________________________
Source: McDowell pers. comm. and City of Stockton 2014.

Total may not equal the sum of components due to rounding.

Attachment F
952
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 62 July 9, 2021
Table 16. Mariposa Industrial Park Project Trip Distribution Percentages Existing Plus
Approved Projects Cumulative
Direction of Travel Background Background
SR 99 North of Fremont Street 19.5 36.0
Fremont Street West of SR 99 0.2 0.3
Fremont Street East of SR 99 2.7 0.9
Crosstown Freeway West of SR 99 26.7 27.4
Golden Gate Avenue West of SR 99 1.9 1.1
Golden Gate Avenue East of SR 99 - - 0.4
8th Street West of Mariposa Road 6.5 2.1
Mariposa Rd Northwest of 8th St/Farmington Rd 7.0 6.2
Farmington Road East of Mariposa Road 0.6 0.3
SR 99 West Frontage Road South of Mariposa Road 0.8 0.8 Stagecoach Road North of Mariposa Road 7.5 0.2
Carpenter Road West of Mariposa Road 4.6 0.3
Carpenter Road East of Mariposa Road 0.2 2.8
Mariposa Road Southeast of Austin Road 2.9 3.7
Austin Road South of Mariposa Road 4.2 0.2
Arch Road West of Qantas Lane 6.0 10.1
Qantas Lane North of Arch Road 1.1 - -
Qantas Lane South of Arch Road 0.4 0.5
Arch Road East of SR 99 0.1 0.2
SR 99 South of Arch Road 7.1 6.5
TOTAL 100.0 100.0
__________________________
Source: City of Stockton General Plan Travel Demand Model Select Link Analysis.

Note: Dashes ( "- -" ) indicate value is less than one-tenth percent.

Attachment F
953
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 17

EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS

BACKGROUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021

ARCH RD

AUSTIN RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
NOTE: THESE PERCENTAGES APPLY TO ALL PROJECT TRIPS,
NOT JUST TRUCKS.

Attachment F
954
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 18

CUMULATIVE BACKGROUND

TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021

ARCH RD

AUSTIN RD

PROJECT

LOCATION
NOTE: THESE PERCENTAGES APPLY TO ALL PROJECT TRIPS,
NOT JUST TRUCKS.

Attachment F
955
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 65 July 9, 2021
The City of Stockton travel demand model (City of Stockton 2004 and City of Stockton 2018b) was used to estimate trip distribution percentages. The travel demand model is considered to be a valid source for the trip distribution percentages because it directly addresses:
ƒ the location of destinations of project-related trips, ƒ the magnitude of land uses that would attract project-related trips, and ƒ the quality of access to the destinations via the roadway network.

This traffic impact study includes analysis of scenarios based on two different background development conditions:
ƒ Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP), and
ƒ 2040 Cumulative Conditions.

The travel demand model for each of these two scenarios was used to estimate trip distribution percentages. Background (non-project) land uses are different in each of the two travel demand models. The different land uses result in different geographic distributions of travel. As a result, the trip distribution percentages are different for each of the two background development conditions. Table 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 present the trip distribution percentages for each of the two background development scenarios.

A “select link” analysis was conducted using each of the two travel demand models to determine the geographic distribution of project-related travel. The select link analysis identifies vehicle trips associated with the proposed project site, and identifies the direction of travel to and from the project site.

Raw, pre-adjustment, traffic model results used in the development of trip distribution percentages are presented in the technical appendix.

TRIP ASSIGNMENT
Traffic that would be generated by the proposed project was geographically distributed over the study area roadway network using the trip distribution percentages shown in Table 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18. Figure 19 and Figure 20 display the project-related-only traffic volumes for each study intersection in the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour. Figure 21 and Figure 22 display the resulting EPAP Plus Project traffic volumes anticipated for each study intersection in the peak hours. The a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour freeway ramp junction traffic volumes are presented in Figure 23 and Figure 24.

Attachment F
956
7 Mariposa Rd / Stagecoach Rd
8 Mariposa Rd / Munford Ave
9 Mariposa Rd / Carpenter Rd
1 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 SB Ramps
4 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 West Frontage Rd
2 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 NB Ramps
5 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 SB Ramps
3 Mariposa Rd / 8th St / Farmington Rd
6 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 19

PROJECTED-RELATED

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0780-18 RA 7/9/20210 (0) 0 (0)
5 (10)
0 (0)
(8) 8
(0) 0
(0) 0(0) 0
223 (446)
0 (0)
(255) 351
(0) 0
(0) 0
(42) 59
129 (258)
75 (150)
(190) 262
(0) 0
0 (0)203 (147)
37 (74)
38 (75)
(0) 0
(43) 59 5 (10) 0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Attachment F
957
10 Austin Rd / Mariposa Rd
13 Arch Airport Rd/ SR 99
11 Austin Rd/ Arch Rd
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
12 Arch Airport Rd/ Qantas Ln
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 20

PROJECTED-RELATED

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
0 (0)0 (0)4 (3)
(0) 0
(0) 0(1) 2
3 (6)
15 (30)
1 (2)
(0) 0
(17) 24
(0) 0
0 (0)11 (21)0 (0)
(0) 0
(12) 17
(0) 0
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(0) 0
(0) 0
(0) 0
19 (38)0 (1)
(0) 0
(0) 0
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
(22) 30
(0) 0
(0) 0
N.T.S.
17 (12)0 (0)0 (0)
(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0
0 (0)
12 (8)
0 (0)
(21) 11
(15) 7
(0) 0
Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Attachment F
958
7 Mariposa Rd / Stagecoach Rd
8 Mariposa Rd / Munford Ave
9 Mariposa Rd / Carpenter Rd
1 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 SB Ramps
4 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 West Frontage Rd
2 Golden Gate Ave / SR 99 NB Ramps
5 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 SB Ramps
3 Mariposa Rd / 8th St / Farmington Rd
6 Mariposa Rd / SR 99 NB Ramps
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 21

EPAP PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
29 (56)43 (63)156 (122)
(27) 12(88) 83
(295) 302
366 (197)298 (500)
61 (44)
173 (230)
(212) 131
(375) 118
(23) 13
(328) 243
(132) 26(114) 69
799 (1088)
103 (77)
(950) 916
(52) 92
138 (242)0 (0)75 (49)
(191) 218(139) 247
774 (1138)
285 (552)
(1000) 1124
(566) 489
752 (451)714 (595)
98 (212)
428 (537)
(910) 812
(310) 234 177 (204) 40 (121)
522 (546)
57 (80)
(306) 113
(589) 324
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
CWLTL
“Free” Right Turn
Center Two-Way
Left Turn Lane
Attachment F
959
10 Austin Rd / Mariposa Rd
13 Arch Airport Rd/ SR 99
11 Austin Rd/ Arch Rd
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
12 Arch Airport Rd/ Qantas Ln
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 22

EPAP PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
85 (92)1 (1)592 (770)
(2) 0
(1) 1
(14) 7
928 (357)
1484 (1141)
15 (18)
(50) 89
(1451) 1033
(2) 3
135 (165)248 (70)24 (12)
(221) 140(296) 114
(8) 10
7 (31)
43 (21)
2 (6)
(121) 161
(41) 22
(122) 320
1310 (521)1685 (593)
(319) 648
(322) 624
647 (1593)
504 (657)
363 (576)
(1026) 515
(559) 686
(683) 385206 (414) 2 (1)
36 (83)
(167) 27
(2) 1
(14) 2
124 (26)
491 (199)
17 (7)
(197) 372
(541) 167
(82) 210
N.T.S.

Stop Sign
Legend
AM Peak Hour Volume
R1-1
XX
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
CWLTL
“Free” Right Turn
Center Two-Way
Left Turn Lane
Attachment F
960
201
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
204
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
207
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
202
SR 99 Northbound Weave Area
Between Crosstown Freeway And Fremont St
205
SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
208
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Southbound On-Ramp (Slip) Merge
203
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
206
SR 99 Southbound Weave Area
Between Mariposa Rd and Golden Gate Ave
209
SR 99 at Mariposa Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 23

EPAP PLUS PROJECT FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
(4750) 3100 3890 (5783)
4913 (5577)
(3552) 5246
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane
(376) 289
(1892) 1565
4385 (6251) 3109 (4735)
4852 (4399)
340 (403)
913 (686)
(4396) 4823 (4113) 4250
4882 (5510) 4715 (5281)
(510) 355 (739) 522
(5218) 7012 (4002) 4723
Attachment F
961
210
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Southbound Off-Ramp Diverge
213
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge
211
SR 99 at Arch-Airport Rd
Northbound On-Ramp Merge
212
SR 99 Northbound
At Crosstown Freeway Off-Ramp Diverge
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 24

EPAP PLUS PROJECT FREEWAY RAMP MERGE, DIVERGE,

AND WEAVE AREA TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
3192 (3493)
(2749) 2485
3192 (3493)
(2749) 2485
N.T.S.

Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Number of Arrows Indicate
Number of Lanes
Weave Area Auxillary Lane
Attachment F
962
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 72 July 9, 2021

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
Implementation of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in roadway improvements needed to provide access to the project site. Improvements to project site access points are shown in the proposed project site plan presented in Figure 2 and project site frontage striping plan presented in Figure 3. These improvements have been previously described in more detail in the Project Description section of this traffic impact study.

Figure 21 and Figure 22 display the resulting EPAP Plus Project intersection lane geometrics for each study intersection. The resulting number of travel lanes assumed for study roadway segments and daily traffic volumes are shown in Table 17.

INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 18 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at each study intersection under EPAP Plus Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, LOS at 11 of the 15 study intersections would be at acceptable LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. No improvements would be needed at these 11 intersections to achieve acceptable LOS. The following describes the four study intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS under EPAP Plus Project conditions.

3. Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 109.3 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 145.8 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. Compared to EPAP No Project Conditions, the projectrelated increase in delay would be greater than five seconds during either the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Split the northeastbound combined through/right-turn lane into an exclusive northeastbound through lane and a “free” northeastbound-to-southeastbound rightturn lane.

The above improvement would be consistent with the recommended improvement (described below) for Roadway Segment 105, Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road, to widen the portions of this roadway segment which are one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction. The added southeastbound departure lane on Mariposa Road would serve vehicles departing the “free” northeastbound-to-southeastbound right-turn lane at this intersection.

Attachment F
963
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 73 July 9, 2021
The existing northeastbound combined through/right-turn lane is approximately 23 to 24 feet wide and the single southwestbound departure lane is approximately 21 to 22 feet wide. As a result, the existing pavement width on the southwest leg of this intersection is considered wide enough to accommodate the above improvement.

Attachment F
964
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 74 July 9, 2021
Table 17. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 113,717 0.66 C
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 120,429 0.70 C
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 126,842 0.73 C and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 125,851 0.73 C
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 2 17,300 27,296 1.58 F
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 4 38,200 26,540 0.69 D
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 4 38,200 26,777 0.70 D Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 16,163 0.42 A
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 11,397 0.30 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 6 129,600 97,705 0.75 D and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 51,815 0.87 E
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 6 129,600 85,955 0.66 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
965
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 75 July 9, 2021
Table 18. Intersection Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions Signal AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intersections Control Met? LOS Delay LOS Delay
1 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal B 14.2 B 16.0 2 Golden Gate Avenue & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal B 15.8 C 23.9 3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road Signal F 109.3 F 145.8 4 Mariposa Road & SR 99 West Frontage Road Signal B 14.2 B 14.5 5 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signal B 18.4 B 15.4 6 Mariposa Road & SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signal B 10.6 B 10.4 7 Mariposa Road & Stagecoach Road Signal B 18.5 B 18.2
8 Mariposa Road & Munford Avenue Signal B 11.5 C 23.9
9 Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road Unsig Yes A 3.7 F 63.9 10 Mariposa Road & Austin Road Signal C 35.0 D 40.2
11 Arch Road & Austin Road Signal D 45.2 D 40.2
12 Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane Signal E 61.7 C 28.4 13 Arch Road & SR 99 Signal F 194.4 E 73.6
14 Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway Unsig No A 0.5 A 1.2 15 Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway Signal B 13.8 C 23.1 ______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control. "Unsig" = Unsignalized stop-sign control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections, including unsignalized intersections.

Inters. Warrant
Attachment F
966
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 76 July 9, 2021
As shown in Table 19, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS D with 40.4 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E with 73.2 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. As described in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, LOS D and E at this intersection are considered acceptable.

This recommended improvement is the same as the improvement recommended at this intersection for EPAP No Project conditions.

9. Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS A with 3.7 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F with 63.9 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. Compared to EPAP No Project Conditions, the project-related increase in delay would be greater than five seconds during either the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Widen the northeastbound Carpenter Road approach. The approach is currently a single-lane approach. The approach should be widened to include an exclusive northeastbound-to northwestbound left-turn lane, and a combined through/right-turn lane.

As shown in Table 19, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS A with 2.9 seconds of delay in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D with 32.7 seconds of delay in the p.m. peak hour. LOS A and D are considered acceptable.

12. Arch-Airport Road & Qantas Lane
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS E with 61.7 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C with 28.4 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in delay would not be greater than a five second increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
967
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 77 July 9, 2021
Table 19. Intersection Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements
AM Peak PM Peak
Signal
Warrant
Study Intersections Control Met? LOS Delay LOS Delay
3 Mariposa Road & 8th Street/Farmington Road Signal D 40.4 E 73.2 9 Mariposa Road & Carpenter Road Unsig No A 2.9 D 32.7
______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control. "Unsig" = Unsignalized stop-sign control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections, including unsignalized intersections.

Inters.

13. Arch Road & SR 99
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this intersection would operate at LOS F with 194.4 seconds of delay during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E with 73.6 seconds of delay during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E and F are considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in delay would not be greater than a five second increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 17 presents a summary of LOS on the 12 study roadway segments under EPAP Plus Project conditions. 10 of the roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

No improvements would be needed on these 10 roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS.

The following two roadway segments would operate at unacceptable LOS. 105. Mariposa Road Between SR 99 and 8th Street/Farmington Road Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. Compared to EPAP No Project Conditions, the project-related increase in volume would be greater than five percent. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the Attachment F
968
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 78 July 9, 2021
General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the projectrelated inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Widen the portions of this roadway segment which are one lane in each direction to two lanes in each direction.

As shown in Table 20, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS D. LOS D is considered acceptable.

This improvement is also recommended under Existing Conditions and the EPAP No Project scenario.

Table 20. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
105. Mariposa Road - Between 4 38,200 27,296 0.71 D
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio. 111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS E. LOS E is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in traffic volume would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
969
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 79 July 9, 2021

RAMP JUNCTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Figure 23 and Figure 24 present the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the ramp junctions under EPAP Plus Project conditions. Table 21 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at each study ramp junction under EPAP Plus Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, LOS at 10 of the 13 study ramp junctions would be at acceptable LOS D or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. No improvements would be needed on these 10 ramp junctions to achieve acceptable LOS. The following are the three ramp junctions that would experience unacceptable LOS. 201. SR 99 Southbound Weave Area Between Fremont Street and Crosstown Freeway Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this ramp junction would operate at LOS F during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in freeway and ramp volumes would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.
205. SR 99 at Golden Gate Avenue Northbound On-Ramp Merge Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this ramp junction would operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in freeway and ramp volumes would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.
211. SR 99 at Arch-Airport Road Northbound On-Ramp Merge Under EPAP Plus Project conditions, this ramp junction would operate at LOS C during the a.m. peak hour, and LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. LOS E is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under EPAP No Project conditions, and the project-related change in freeway and ramp volumes would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
970
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 80 July 9, 2021
Table 21. State Route 99 Ramp Merge, Diverge, and Weave Level of Service - Existing Plus Approved Projects (EPAP) Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp
Ramp Junction Volume Volume Density LOS Volume Volume Density LOS 201 SB Weave Between 7,012 515 > Capacity F 5,218 353 26.9 C Fremont St & Crosstown Fwy 4,723 2,804 4,002 1,569
202 NB Weave Between 4,385 289 22.2 C 6,251 376 32.7 D
Crosstown Fwy & Fremont St 3,109 1,565 4,735 1,892
203 NB at Crosstown Fwy Off-Ramp 3,100 2,832 < 10 A 4,750 2,246 < 10 A 204 Golden Gate Ave SB Off-Ramp 4,852 564 < 10 A 4,399 627 < 10 A 205 Golden Gate Ave NB On-Ramp 4,913 571 27.1 C 5,577 784 33.0 F 206 SB Weave Between 4,823 340 24.8 C 4,396 403 22.9 C
Golden Gate Ave & Mariposa Rd 4,250 913 4,113 686
207 NB Weave Between 4,882 355 25.2 C 5,510 510 29.4 D
Mariposa Rd & Golden Gate Ave 4,715 522 5,281 739
208 Mariposa Rd SB On-Ramp (Slip) 5,246 234 26.7 C 3,552 310 18.2 B 209 Mariposa Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,890 465 24.8 C 5,783 329 33.3 D 210 Arch-Airport Rd SB Off-Ramp 2,485 2,995 < 10 A 2,749 1,113 < 10 A 211 Arch-Airport Rd NB On-Ramp 3,192 1,162 22.2 C 3,493 2,619 38.0 E 212 Arch-Airport Rd SB On-Ramp 2,485 748 16.6 B 2,749 1,259 22.2 C 213 Arch-Airport Rd NB Off-Ramp 3,192 1,272 23.0 C 3,493 641 23.1 C _____________________________________________
Notes: "LOS" = Level of Service. "NB" = Northbound. "SB" = Southbound.

Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. "> Capacity" = volume-to-capacity ratio greater than 1.0.

For weave areas, north freeway and ramp volumes are listed first and south volumes are listed second.

Attachment F
971
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 81 July 9, 2021

INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR TRANSIT
Implementation of the proposed Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in an increase in demand for public transit service. Currently, there is limited direct public transit service to the vicinity of the project site, and the development of urban uses would result in an increase in demand. The frequency and proximity of future transit service is not known at this time and, as a result, demand for transit cannot be quantified. However, it is expected that SJRTD can accommodate the additional passengers the project would generate. This is considered a less-thansignificant impact. No mitigation measures are required

INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Implementation of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in an increase in demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As noted in the Project Description section of this traffic impact study, the proposed project includes sidewalks along the project site frontage of Mariposa Road.

Because sidewalks are not present along the Mariposa Road frontage of nearby properties, the sidewalks along the Mariposa Industrial Park project site frontage would be discontinuous in the near-term. In the longer-term, sidewalks along the project site frontage would incrementally improve the safety and convenience of bicycle and pedestrian travel along Mariposa Road. The City General Plan includes widening of Mariposa Road to four lanes in the future, and the Mariposa Industrial Park project site frontage improvements would contribute to a more continuous system of bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Mariposa Road. Therefore, the increase in demand for facilities is considered a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation measures would be required.

Attachment F
972
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 82 July 9, 2021

CUMULATIVE NO PROJECT CONDITIONS
The Cumulative No Project condition represents a long-term future background condition.

Development of approved and planned land uses and roadway improvements are assumed in this condition. The Cumulative No Project condition, therefore, serves as the baseline condition used to assess the significance of long-term project-related traffic effects.

The Cumulative No Project condition does not include development of the Mariposa Industrial Park project as proposed. Consistent with the approach described in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (City of Stockton 2003), this scenario serves as baseline condition for determining project-related impacts, and the traffic analysis of this condition assumes land uses on the project site consistent with the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018a).

TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
As previously described in the Travel Forecasting section of this traffic impact study, the City of Stockton Travel Demand Model (City of Stockton 2018b) was used to develop forecasts of background increases in traffic volumes under Cumulative No Project conditions. The increases in traffic volumes reflect development of land uses consistent with approved land use designations.

The model was modified in the vicinity of the project site to add detail to the model and more accurately represent how land uses are provided access to the roadway network. Minor changes were also made to land uses in the model to reflect existing and planned development.

Application of the methods described in the Travel Forecasting section results in the daily traffic volumes presented in Table 22.

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The analysis of Cumulative No Project conditions assumes roadway improvements consistent with the long-term future context. These include improvements from the City of Stockton General Plan (City of Stockton 2018b), and the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Mariposa Lakes Specific Plan - State Clearinghouse #2006022035 (City of Stockton 2007). The improvements include:
ƒ widening of Mariposa Road northwest of Carpenter Road to six lanes, ƒ widening of Mariposa Road southeast of Carpenter Road to four lanes, and ƒ widening of SR 99 from north of the Crosstown Freeway to south of Arch Road to eight lanes.

The resulting number of travel lanes assumed for study roadway segments are shown in Table

22. Attachment F
973
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 83 July 9, 2021
Table 22. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative No Project Conditions
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 144,268 0.83 D
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 131,917 0.76 D
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 139,739 0.81 D and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 168,962 0.98 E
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 36,756 0.62 C
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 32,512 0.55 C
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 4 38,200 23,483 0.61 C Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 23,483 0.61 C
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 13,259 0.35 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 8 172,800 115,758 0.67 C and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 67,860 1.14 F
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 8 172,800 106,202 0.61 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
974
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 84 July 9, 2021

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 22 presents a summary of LOS on the 12 study roadway segments under Cumulative No Project conditions. Ten of the roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better.

No improvements are needed on these 10 roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS. The following two roadway segments would operate at unacceptable LOS. 104. SR 99 Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road Under Cumulative No Project condition, this roadway segment would operate at LOS E. LOS E is considered unacceptable. This roadway segment is already assumed to be eight lanes wide under Cumulative conditions. In the Transportation Concept Report State Route 99 (California Department of Transportation 2017), Caltrans describes the eight-lane width as the conceptual facility width, and this is considered to be the maximum feasible size in this traffic impact study.

Therefore, improvements are not recommended.
111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Under Cumulative No Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. The following improvement is recommended to improve LOS on this roadway segment:
ƒ Widen this roadway segment from six lanes to eight lanes.

Implementing this recommended improvement would result in this roadway segment operating at LOS E. This LOS is considered unacceptable. However, eight lanes is considered to be the maximum feasible width for this roadway segment. A summary of LOS with recommended improvements is presented in Table 23.

Table 23. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative No Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
111. Arch-Airport Road - 8 78,400 67,860 0.87 E
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
975
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 85 July 9, 2021

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT IMPACTS
The analysis of Cumulative Plus Project conditions describes long-term traffic operations in the year 2040 assuming development of the proposed project. Comparing traffic operation under this condition to traffic operations under Cumulative No Project conditions allows an identification of the long-term project-related effects of the proposed project.

The development of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in vehicle traffic to and from the project site. Methods used to estimate project-related travel have been previously described in the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project Impacts section of this traffic impact study. Table 24 displays the resulting Cumulative Plus Project roadway segment daily traffic volumes.

Development of forecasts of future year background traffic volumes has been previously described in the Cumulative No Project Conditions section of this traffic impact study.

Project-related roadway improvements and future year background roadway improvements assumed in this analysis have been previously described in the Existing Plus Approved Projects Plus Mariposa Industrial Park Project Impacts and the Cumulative No Project Conditions sections of this traffic impact study.

ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Table 24 presents a summary of LOS on the 12 study roadway segments under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Nine of the 12 roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS D or better. No improvements are needed on these nine roadway segments to achieve acceptable LOS. The following three roadway segments would operate at unacceptable LOS. 104. SR 99 Between Golden Gate Avenue and Mariposa Road Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under Cumulative No Project conditions, and the project-related change in traffic volume would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
976
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 86 July 9, 2021
Table 24. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
101. SR 99 - North of 8 172,800 148,870 0.86 D
Crosstown Freeway (SR 4)
102. Crosstown Freeway - 8 172,800 135,307 0.78 D
West of SR 99
103. SR 99 - Between Crosstown Fwy 8 172,800 147,731 0.85 D and Golden Gate Avenue
104. SR 99 - Between 8 172,800 177,140 1.03 F
Golden Gate Ave and Mariposa Rd
105. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 37,820 0.64 C
SR 99 and 8th St./Farmington Rd
106. Mariposa Road - Between 6 59,300 43,992 0.74 D
Carpenter Road and SR 99
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 4 38,200 35,371 0.93 E Project Site and Carpenter Road
108. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 23,965 0.63 C
Southeast of the Project Site
109. Mariposa Road - 4 38,200 13,717 0.36 A
East of Austin Road
110. SR 99 - Between Mariposa Road 8 172,800 117,898 0.68 C and Arch-Airport Road
111. Arch-Airport Road - 6 59,300 69,172 1.17 F
Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
112. SR 99 - 8 172,800 107,006 0.62 C
South of Arch-Airport Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio.

Attachment F
977
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 87 July 9, 2021
107. Mariposa Road, Between the Project Site and Carpenter Road Under long-term future Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS E. LOS E is considered unacceptable. Compared to Cumulative No Project Conditions, the project-related increase in volume would be greater than five percent. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered significant. The following improvement is recommended to improve operating conditions to acceptable LOS and reduce the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies to a less than significant level:
ƒ Under long-term future cumulative conditions, widen this roadway segment from four lanes to six lanes.

As shown in Table 25, implementation of the above recommended improvement would improve traffic operations to LOS C. LOS C is considered acceptable.

Table 25. Roadway Segment Level of Service -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions With Recommended Improvements Number Daily Daily V/C Level of
Roadway Segment of Lanes Capacity Volume Ratio Service
107. Mariposa Road - Between the 6 59,300 35,371 0.60 C Project Site and Carpenter Road
__________________________
Notes: "SR" = State Route. "V/C Ratio" = volume-to-capacity ratio. 111. Arch-Airport Road, Between Qantas Lane and SR 99
Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, this roadway segment would operate at LOS F. LOS F is considered unacceptable. However, LOS would also be unacceptable under Cumulative No Project conditions, and the project-related change in traffic volume would not be greater than a five percent increase. Therefore, based on criteria presented in the General Plan Policy Consistency Criteria section of this traffic impact study, the project-related inconsistency with General Plan policies is considered less than significant and no improvements are recommended.

Attachment F
978
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 88 July 9, 2021

PROJECT SITE ACCESS
To assess the adequacy of project site access under long-term future conditions, LOS at the two project site driveway intersections were analyzed under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

These two intersections are:

14. Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway

15. Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway
Cumulative Plus Project a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and intersection lane geometrics at these two intersections are shown in Figure 25.

Table 26 presents the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS at the two study intersections under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The worksheets presenting the calculation of LOS are included in the technical appendix.

Table 26. Intersection Level of Service -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
AM Peak PM Peak
Study Intersections Control LOS Delay LOS Delay
14 Mariposa Road & Northwest Project Driveway Signal A 3.2 A 5.1 15 Mariposa Road & Southeast Project Driveway Signal B 12.8 C 20.1 ______________________________________________
Notes: LOS = Level of Service. "Inters. Control" = Type of intersection control. "Signal" = Signalized light control.

Delay is measured in seconds per vehicle.

Per City of Stockton guidelines, intersection average delay is reported for all intersections.

Inters.

Under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, LOS at both of the two project site access intersections would be at acceptable LOS C or better during both the a.m. peak hour and the p.m. peak hour. As a result, traffic operations at the project site access locations are considered to be adequate. No improvements would be needed at these two intersections to achieve acceptable LOS.

Attachment F
979
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.

Transportation Engineers
figure 25

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT

INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS
0780-18 RA 7/9/2021
N.T.S.
14 Mariposa Rd / Northwest Project Dwy
15 Mariposa Rd / Southeast Project Dwy
Legend
XX AM Peak Hour Volume
(XX) PM Peak Hour Volume
Signalized Intersection
“Free” Right Turn
Attachment F
980
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 90 July 9, 2021

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
As noted earlier in the Significance Thresholds section of this traffic impact study, the effects of the proposed project on VMT are determined by comparing travel associated with the Mariposa Industrial Park project as proposed to travel associated with development of the project site with the current General Plan land use designations.

As noted earlier in the Project Description section of this traffic impact study, the Mariposa Industrial Park project proposes industrial land uses on the project site. As also noted in the Project Description section, the project site currently has an Industrial land use designation in the City of Stockton General Plan. Therefore, in this traffic impact study, vehicle travel associated with the Mariposa Industrial Park project would be the same as the Industrial land uses currently designated in the City of Stockton General Plan. That is, implementation of the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in no net change from travel associated with the current General Plan-designated land uses.

VMT is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle trips by the length of vehicle trips. As a result, a certain percent change in the number of vehicle trips would cause an equivalent change in VMT. Therefore, for the Mariposa Industrial Park project, a comparison of vehicle trips is considered equivalent to a comparison of VMT. Because the Mariposa Industrial Park project would result in no net change from travel associated with the current General Plan–designated land use, the project would result in no net change in VMT.

As described in the Vehicle Miles Traveled Significance Threshold section of this traffic impact study,
“Consistent with General Plan Action TR4.3A, if a project would result in a 15 percent or more reduction of vehicle travel, a project is considered to have a lessthan-significant impact. A project that would not result in a reduction of 15 percent or more is considered to have a significant impact.” Because the Mariposa Industrial Park project would not result in a 15 percent reduction in VMT, the project is considered to have a significant impact on VMT. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact of the project on VMT. The numbering of the following mitigation measures is from the document Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures - A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2010), which contains more detailed information on these measures. The numbering of the following mitigation measures is not sequential in this traffic impact study. The out-of-sequence numbering is provided below to allow direct reference to the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) document. The “TRT” acronym shown below is used in the numbering of the CAPCOA document and refers to Trip Reduction – Transportation.

Mitigation Measure TRT-1. Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary
The Mariposa Industrial Park project will implement a Commute Trip Reduction Attachment F
981
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 91 July 9, 2021
(CTR) Program – Voluntary with employers to discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. This is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures.

The CTR program will provide employees with assistance in using alternative modes of travel, and provide both “carrots” and “sticks” to encourage employees.

The CTR program should include all of the following:
ƒ Carpooling encouragement
ƒ Ride-matching assistance
ƒ Preferential carpool parking
ƒ Flexible work schedules for carpools
ƒ Half time transportation coordinator
ƒ Vanpool assistance
ƒ Bicycle end-trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) Other strategies may also include:
ƒ new employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, ƒ event promotions and publications,
ƒ flexible work schedule for all employees,
ƒ transit subsidies,
ƒ parking cash-out or priced parking,
ƒ shuttles,
ƒ emergency ride home, and
ƒ improved on-site amenities.

Mitigation Measure TRT-5. Provide End of Trip Bicycle Facilities The Mariposa Industrial Park project will provide "end-of-trip" facilities for bicycle riders including showers, secure bicycle lockers, and changing spaces.

End-of-trip facilities encourage the use of bicycling as a viable form of travel to destinations, especially to work. End-of trip facilities provide the added convenience and security needed to encourage bicycle commuting.

Mitigation Measure TRT-11. Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle The Mariposa Industrial Park project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost.

Attachment F
982
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 92 July 9, 2021
Implementation of the measures listed above would reduce project-related VMT and reduce the significance of the impact on VMT. However, quantification of the reduction is not possible at this time. At the time this traffic impact study was prepared, potential occupants of the Mariposa Industrial Park project were not identified. While the type of land use is expected to be industrial, specific tenants were not known. As a result, the following factors which would affect the ability to implement VMT reduction measures are not known:
ƒ hours of operation, including times of the day when work shift would change; ƒ the portion of work positions which would be full-time versus part-time; ƒ feasibility of implementing flexible work schedules; and ƒ degree to which working remotely is feasible.

Because the potential occupants of the project are not known, it is not possible to establish an enforceable commitment to reduce VMT by more than 15 percent. As a result, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Attachment F
983
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 93 July 9, 2021

REFERENCES

DOCUMENTS CITED
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures - A Resource for Local Government to Assess Emission Reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2014. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 Edition. Sacramento CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2017. Transportation Concept Report – State Route 99 - District 10. Stockton, CA.

California Department of Transportation. 2021. Caltrans Traffic Census Program Internet Website. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/.

California, State of. 2018. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Sacramento, CA.

Fehr & Peers. 2014. Traffic Impact Analysis – NorCal Logistics Center. Walnut Creek, CA.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Washington, D.C.

San Joaquin Regional Transit District. 2021. San Joaquin Regional Transit District Internet Webpage. http://www.sanjoaquinrtd.com/. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2003. City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2004. Travel Demand Model Development Report October 2004. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Report - Mariposa Lakes Specific Plan - State Clearinghouse #2006022035. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2014. NorCal Logistics Center – Draft Environmental Impact Report (Project File No. P12-110). Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2018a. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2018b. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR. Stockton, CA.

Attachment F
984
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 94 July 9, 2021
Stockton, City of. 2009. Truck Routes Map. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2017. STAA Truck Routes Map. Stockton, CA.

Stockton, City of. 2020. Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report For The SanchezHoggan Annexation. Stockton, CA.

Trafficware. 2019. Trafficware Internet Website. http://www.trafficware.com/ Transportation Research Board. 1982. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design.

Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Washington, D.C.

Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition. Washington, D.C.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Dumas, Tom. Chief, Office of Metropolitan Planning, Caltrans District 10. October 23, 2007 letter to David Stagnaro, City of Stockton Community Development Department.

McDowell, Mike. Acting Deputy Director. City of Stockton, Community Development Department, Planning and Engineering Services. February 15, 2012 E-mail message to Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: Highway Capacity Manual Methods. November 15, 2012 E-mail message to Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: Industrial Trip Generation Rates. May 8, 2019 E-mail message to Heba El-Guindy, City of Stockton; and Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: EPAP Traffic Forecasts. September 19, 2019 telephone conversation with Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates. June 20, 2020 E-mail message to Charlie Simpson, BaseCamp Environmental; Subject: Industrial Trip Generation.

Moore, Nicole D. Senior Planner. City of Stockton Community Development Department.

December 15, 2020 E-mail message to Ken Anderson and Wayne Shijo, KD Anderson & Associates; Subject: Mariposa Industrial Park Traffic Study Scope of Work.

Tellez, Kathrin. Fehr & Peers. June 30, 2016 E-mail message to Mike McDowell, City of Stockton. Subject: Tidewater Crossing All-Industrial Project Traffic Impact Assessment Analysis Assumptions.

Attachment F
985
Mariposa Industrial Park Project Traffic Impact Study Page 95 July 9, 2021

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

IN SEPARATE ELECTRONIC FILES
Attachment F
986
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 1

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DRAFT

ANNEXATION REPORT

MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK ANNEXATION
ANNEXATION FILE NO. ________
APRIL 4, 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION
This report provides background information and analysis in support of the proposed Mariposa Industrial Park annexation to the City of Stockton. The report addresses annexation compliance with applicable San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) rules and regulations, describes the plan for provision of City services to the annexation area, analyzesthe fiscal effects of the annexation and documentsthe availability of adequate potable water supply to the project. The contents of this document are as follows:

1.0 Introduction and Project Information

2.0 Consistency of Proposed Annexation with LAFCo Policy

3.0 City Services Plan for Proposed Annexation Area

4.0 Fiscal Effects of Proposed Annexation

5.0 Availability of Adequate Water Supply
The Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation project proposes the annexation of nine parcels of land totaling approximately 203.5 acres into the City of Stockton (City), along with the adjacent Mariposa Road frontage. The proposed annexation area, hereinafter referred to as the “subject site,” is located along Mariposa Road north of North Littlejohns Creek (Figures 1 and 2). The Stockton city limits are on the southern boundary of the subject site.

The parcels constituting the subject site are identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 179-220-10, -11, -12, -13, -16, -17, -18, -19, and -24.

The subject site is currently within the land use jurisdiction of San Joaquin County; it has a County General Plan designation of Agriculture-Urban Reserve and a zoning designation of AG-40 (General Agriculture; 40-acre minimum parcel size). The subject site is designated Industrial in the City of Stockton General Plan, as is much of the surrounding area (Figure 3), much of which has been developed for industrial use (Figure 5). The subject site is within the City of Stockton's existing Sphere of Influence (Figure 4). The project includes a proposed amendment to the City’s Municipal Services Review document that will include the site within the City’s 10-year planning horizon.

The City has received and is processing an application for annexation, pre-zoning, and industrial development of the subject site, including preparation of an Environmental Attachment H 987
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 2
Impact Report (EIR). The project proposes to pre-zone the subject site as IL – Industrial, Limited. These approvals, which will take effect upon annexation of the subject site to the City, would permit proposed development of approximately 3,616,870 square feet of highcube warehousing or other light industrial land uses, off-site street and utility improvements, and associated on-site utility services and site improvements (Figure 6).

Proposed pre-zoning and development are consistent with the existing Industrial designation under the City’s General Plan. The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project.

2.0 CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION WITH LAFCO POLICY

REQUIREMENTS
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (California Government Code Section 56000 et seq.) provides LAFCo with its authority, procedures, and functions. The Act gives LAFCo power to “approve or disapprove with or without amendment, wholly, partially or conditionally,” proposals concerning the formation of cities and special districts, annexation or detachment of territory to/from cities and special districts, and other changes in jurisdiction or organization of local government agencies.

Criteria for project consistency with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act are identified in California Government Code Section 56337 and shown below. The following sections of this report provides information in support of each of these findings for the proposed annexation as summarized below.
1) Lands within the annexation area are planned for urban uses in the Stockton General Plan.

As documented in Section 1.0 and shown on Figures 2 and 3, the subject site is designated “Industrial” in the City of Stockton General Plan and is adjacent to the Stockton city limits.
2) The project is located within the City of Stockton Sphere of Influence and 10-year development timeframe.

As documented in Section 1.0 and shown on Figure 4, the subject site is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and will be within the 10-year planning horizon upon adoption of a proposed amendment of the City’s Municipal Service Review. 3) The project proposes an orderly and logical boundary for annexation and is contiguous to the City limits.

As noted above, the project is in a developing industrial area and is designated for industrial development. As shown on Figure 5, the proposed annexation would permit a logical extension of existing ongoing industrial development in the southeast Stockton region.
4) The project creates a logical extension of the City boundaries and can be served by existing infrastructure.

Attachment H 988
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 3
As discussed in Section 1.0 and the above findings, the subject site is adjacent to the City boundary and represents a logical extension of those boundaries. All required City services and utilities are available to the subject site as described in Sections 3.0 and 5.0.

3.0 CITY SERVICES PLAN
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 56653, the San Joaquin LAFCo requires that any application for a change of organization or reorganization be accompanied by a plan for providing services. The plan must include the following information:
(a) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the affected territory.
(b) The level and range of those services.
(c) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory.
(d) An indication of any improvements or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed.
(e) Information with respect to how those services will be financed.

The following City Services Plan meets the above requirements (a) through (d) with respect to annexation of the subject site. The subject site would require extension of existing City services, including public safety and utilities. Overall, existing public services, with improvements proposed as part of the project, would be adequate to serve the subject site and planned industrial development. The proposed level and range of services to be provided are described in more detail below. The design and construction of required infrastructure improvements, both on- and off-site, will be the responsibility of the project developers, as required by project conditions of approval and subject to engineering approval by the City. Information with respect to how those services will be financed is provided in Section 4.0, which will meet requirement (e) above.

The City of Stockton provides a full range of municipal services. These municipal services include public safety (police, fire, paramedics, building), sanitation (solid waste disposal, sanitary wastewater, and stormwater utility), potable water utility, community development, library, parks and recreation, and general administrative services. Public safety and general services will be extended to the subject site upon annexation. Utility services will be provided upon completion and connection of required on-site and off-site improvements.

3.1 DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE
Water systems in the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area use a combination of treated surface water and pumped groundwater from City wells. Stockton water purveyors include Attachment H 989
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 4
the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (COSMUD), California Water Service Company, and San Joaquin County maintenance districts. Should the annexation be approved, water service to the subject site would be provided by COSMUD. COSMUD provides water to service areas in North Stockton and South Stockton; the subject site is in the South Stockton service area.

Sources of water provided by COSMUD include purchases from the Stockton East Water District (SEWD) and the Woodbridge Irrigation District, groundwater wells, and surface water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through the City’s Delta Water Supply Project (DWSP). Water from SEWD is treated at its water treatment plant east of Stockton.

Prior to operation of the DWSP in 2012, the City’s planned delivery and allocation of SEWD treated water was 17,500 acre-feet per year, which was 37.6 percent of SEWD’s total supplies. The City currently uses 6,500 acre-feet per year from SEWD. By agreement, the City purchases 6,500 acre-feet of water per year from the Woodbridge Irrigation District for municipal and industrial use. This water will augment the DWSP supply.

The DWSP provides the majority of the potable water supply for the City’s service areas.

It draws water from the San Joaquin River and treats the water at a plant in north Stockton.

This plant currently treats an average of 30 million gallons per day (mgd). The projected 2035 capacity of the DWSP is 60 mgd, with an annual production of approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year. The City’s supply from the San Joaquin River is curtailed annually from February through June of each year due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The DWSP has the objectives of reducing groundwater overdraft and of protecting the underlying groundwater basin from further saltwater intrusion and water quality degradation. Extensive groundwater pumping in the past has caused movement of the saline waters eastward from under the Delta. With the DWSP now online, the City uses less groundwater in wet and average years, but it increases groundwater use in dry years to make up for reductions in surface water deliveries. The City has determined that the sustainable groundwater yield is 0.75 acre-feet per acre per year, equivalent to a groundwater yield of approximately 50,000 acre-feet per year. Based on available monitoring data, extraction rates appear to be below the maximum sustainable yield of the groundwater basin.

The South Stockton water system pumps from groundwater wells and receives surface water from the SEWD Water Treatment Plant, supplied in large part by the DWTP. There are seven active groundwater wells. with pump design flows ranging from 900 to 2,500 gallons per minute. There is also the South Stockton Aqueduct, which can supply surface water from the SEWD Water Treatment Plant.

The South Stockton water system distributes water from the DWSP, SEWD, and groundwater wells. The entire system is one pressure zone with the lowest elevation (5 feet above mean sea level) on the western side of the system and the highest elevation (30 feet above mean sea level) on the eastern side. Additionally, there are two tanks, each with a capacity of three million gallons, located near the Weston Ranch Subdivision in southwest Stockton. Distribution lines provide water service to the South Stockton area, serving Attachment H 990
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 5
development that includes the existing Norcal Logistics Center and the CDCR facilities near the subject site.

The subject site is currently within the service area for the Stockton potable water system, and connection to the system will be available upon annexation. An existing 24-inch diameter trunk line runs along Mariposa Road. On-site lines would be installed to provide water to future development, and the on-site water system would connect to the Mariposa Road line. The developer(s) will comply with plumbing, metering, and other water conservation measures in effect in the City of Stockton, including the policies in the City's 2015 UWMP. The existing water connection fee charged by COSMUD for non-residential development varies from approximately $2,264 to $156,828 or higher, depending on the size of the water meter.

The City prepared a Water Supply Assessment for the project in January 2021. The Water Supply Assessment was prepared in accordance with California Water Code sections 10910 through 10915, as established by Senate Bill (SB) 610, which requires detailed information regarding water supply availability to be provided to decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. The project assessment projected potable demands for buildout of the project to be approximately 283 acre-feet per year. Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10910(4), and based on technical analyses, the Water Supply Assessment concluded that the COSMUD existing and additional planned future water supplies are sufficient to meet existing and future water demands associated with the project. Section 5.0, Availability of Adequate Water Supply, provides more detail on the Water Supply Assessment for the project.

3.2 WASTEWATER
The subject site is not presently connected to a wastewater collection and treatment system and contains no individual wastewater disposal systems. Should the annexation be approved, the subject site would be served by the City’s existing wastewater and collection system.

The Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF) provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater gathered from the city as a whole. The RWCF has a designed flow capacity of 55 mgd and average daily flow rate of 31.7 mgd.

Treated effluent from the RWCF is dechlorinated and discharged to the San Joaquin River.

The RWCF operations are regulated by the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

The City’s wastewater collection system is divided into 14 designated subareas or “systems.” The subject site would upon annexation be incorporated within Wastewater Collection System No. 8. Pump stations are located throughout Stockton and are integral to the sanitary sewer collection system. Most of the pump stations discharge to pressure lines that convey flow directly to the RWCF or to an available gravity sewer.

An existing 24-inch sanitary sewer main, oriented from south to north, is located along the western boundary of the subject site south of Marfargoa Road. At Marfargoa Road, this main terminates at a manhole, from where a 42-inch diameter main continues east to west Attachment H 991
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 6
along Marfargoa Road. On-site sewer lines will be installed to provide service to future development, and the on-site system would connect to the existing 42-inch diameter main.

The subject site is within the South of Calaveras Sanitary Connection fee area. The existing sewer connection fee in that area is $2,850 per single family residential unit equivalent.

3.3 STORM DRAINAGE
The City of Stockton is situated just east of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, a low-lying region of sloughs and channels connecting local waterways with the Suisun and San Francisco Bays. The city and surrounding areas depend on creeks, rivers, and sloughs to collect and convey storm runoff to the San Joaquin River and the Delta. The primary watercourses include the San Joaquin River, Bear Creek, Mosher Slough, Five Mile Slough, Fourteen Mile Slough, Calaveras River and Stockton Diverting Canal, Smith Canal, and French Camp and Walker Sloughs.

The subject site is within the North Littlejohns Creek watershed, which is tributary to French Camp Slough and the San Joaquin River. Most storm drains and pump stations within the service area have adequate capacity to collect stormwater drainage; however, North Littlejohns Creek flows at or near capacity that results in flooding of adjacent lands through most of its length during peak storm events. Recognizing this, stormwater detention infrastructure has been developed to serve existing industrial development in the area, such as the Norcal Logistics Center project north and west of the subject site.

The Stormwater Utility Division of COSMUD operates and maintains 620 miles of storm drains, 72 pump stations, and over 100 discharge pipes that collect and route runoff from the streets and gutters to local rivers, creeks, and sloughs. Most storm drains and pump stations have adequate capacity to collect stormwater Like other industrial development in the vicinity, subject site development will include new stormwater detention facilities, including an approximately seven-acre, on-site detention basin in the southern portion of the subject site. On-site runoff would be collected by a storm drainage system of inlets and lines and stored in the detention basin. The runoff in the basin would eventually be discharged through a metered outfall into North Littlejohns Creek, when capacity in the creek is available to avoid potential downstream flooding. On this basis, potential project impacts related to flooding are considered less than significant with implementation of proposed on-site storm drainage features and compliance with City standards.

Stormwater discharges from the Stockton urbanized area contain substantial urban runoff pollution. Five Mile Slough, Mosher Slough, the Stockton Deep Water Channel, and the San Joaquin River are listed as “water quality impaired”. The City of Stockton provides local management of the federal and state programs for implementation of the Clean Water Act’s NPDES program. Stormwater quality is governed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No.

CAS0085324. The regulations of the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance and the Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance establish local oversight of the general permit system and effective control of storm water quality impacts. The design of drainage facilities is regulated by the City. The City Department of Public Works Standard Specifications Section 71, Sanitary Sewers and Storm Sewers, and Section 79, Attachment H 992
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 7
Storm Water Basins, cover much of the design criteria for these facilities. The City’s General Plan commits the City to maintaining the existing storm drain and flood management facilities.

The City’s General Plan includes policies that ensure and require that stormwater drainage planning be addressed in conjunction with new development, including requirements for inclusion of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce stormwater runoff pollution.

Any costs associated with new facilities must be met or offset by the project, including costs of storm water BMP maintenance.

3.4 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
City ordinance requires collection of municipal refuse. This ordinance would apply to development on the subject site upon annexation. The City’s franchise haulers provide solid waste collection in Stockton. The waste provider bills the property owner monthly for collection service, based on the size of collection container utilized. Industrial waste – such as construction and demolition debris and manufacturer waste – may only be collected and hauled with a valid City-issued Industrial Waste Collector Permit. There are currently two waste haulers permitted to collect and transport industrial waste within the City of Stockton limits: Republic Services and Waste Management.

Solid waste generated in the City of Stockton is disposed at existing County-owned and private landfill facilities. There is currently no shortage of space available at the Countyowned landfills, with one estimated to have available capacity to 2048 and another to 2082.

Recent information regarding individual jurisdiction diversion of solid waste from landfills is no longer available. The most recent information from 2006 indicates that about 33% of the City of Stockton’s solid waste is landfilled while the remainder is handled by one or more of the City’s waste diversion (recycling) programs. To increase construction and demolition debris recycling, the City adopted a Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance in 2008; the ordinance requires construction and demolition contractors to divert from the landfill 50% of all waste generated, by weight, and to document these reductions in written reports filed with the City. Upon annexation of the subject site, construction associated with future development will be subject to this ordinance.

3.5 NATURAL GAS, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, AND CATV SERVICES Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) currently provides both natural gas and electricity services to the vicinity of the subject site. Local telephone service is provided by AT&T, and cable television service is provided by Comcast. These systems are obligated to extend service to the subject site on request. Developer/utility company costsharing agreements to provide these services will be executed as required.

3.6 POLICE PROTECTION
Law enforcement services to the subject site currently are provided by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department. Should the subject site be annexed, law enforcement would be the responsibility of the Stockton Police Department. The Police Department serves the area within City limits, covering more than 65 square miles. As of February 2021, the Attachment H 993
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 8
Police Department consists of 486 sworn officers, 47 police telecommunicators, and 179 civilian staff. The staffing level is determined each year by the Stockton City Council and is subject to change as the Council, City Manager, and Chief of Police determine the needs of the city.

The service area is organized into six Community Policing Districts, one of which (Park) is adjacent to the subject site. It is the Police Department’s policy to respond to all emergency calls within three to five minutes. Currently, there are no adopted service levels for the Police Department; however, it is understood that a higher level of service may be required as population increases. The project would receive law enforcement service during construction as well as upon completion of development.

Capital costs of Police Department expansion are accounted for by the City’s Public Facilities Fee program. The City of Stockton has adopted a Public Facility Fee for police facilities payable upon issuance of a building permit. For warehouse/low density land uses, the fee is $62 per 1,000 square feet. Additionally, Stockton’s voters approved Measure A, which instituted a three-quarter cent (0.75%) sales tax to provide funding for law enforcement, crime prevention services, and other essential City services. City voters also approved Measure W, which instituted a one-quarter cent (0.25%) sales tax to provide funding for law enforcement and fire protection services.

3.7 FIRE PROTECTION
The subject site is currently within the Montezuma Fire Protection District, which serves approximately 10 square miles within unincorporated San Joaquin County located adjacent to the southeast portion of Stockton. The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is also within the Montezuma Fire District service area.

Should annexation occur, the subject site would be detached from the Montezuma Fire District, and fire protection services would be the responsibility of the Stockton Fire Department. The Fire Department provides fire protection, fire prevention, paramedic emergency medical, and other related services to all areas of the City of Stockton, as well as on a contract basis to the Lincoln, Eastside, Boggs Tract, and Country Club Fire Districts. Specific services provided include fire hydrant maintenance, training, fire dispatch, hazardous materials intervention, and weed abatement services. The Fire Department currently serves an area of about 86 square miles and has about 181 total personnel.

The Fire Department currently has twelve stations located throughout the greater Stockton metropolitan area. On July 1st 2022 the Stockton Fire Department will be reopening Fire Station 1 at 1818 S. Fresno Ave. increasing the total number of fire stations to 13. The closest station to the subject site is Station 12, located at 4010 East Main Street, approximately four miles to the north of the site. The station is equipped with one engine and one grass rig, and is staffed by a captain, an engineer, and a firefighter. Two of the staff are also paramedics. The response time from Station 12 to a standard structure fire call would be between three and four minutes. Response times to the industrial area within which the subject site is located are currently longer – approximately 7-8 minutes. This response time is within the industry standard for Rural/Semi-Urban responses.

Attachment H 994
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 9
Additionally, to address the long-term Fire Protection and eventual area urbanization, the City of Stockton is currently working to establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund the construction of a new Stockton Fire Station in the Mariposa corridor. The new station will be staffed with 3 personnel from the ongoing CFD assessment.

To provide adequate fire protection services, future development will coordinate with the Fire Department during planning and design phases to ensure site access, response time, sprinkler requirements, water system design, and hydrant placement are acceptable.

Improvements to the City of Stockton water system will also be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code fire flow standards, and hydrants will be placed in accordance with Fire Department standards. Also, the Stockton Fire Department participates in the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. This agreement allows the City to share resources with all fire department agencies in San Joaquin County and request assistance from the County fire districts when additional services are required. The City currently provides most of the fire services within and around the City limits, since some of the County fire districts have reduced staffing, supply shortages, or operations on a temporary basis. The existing mutual aid agreement allows the City and County agencies to share resources when needed.

A mitigation measure in the Mariposa Industrial Park EIR requires new development on the subject site to install Early Suppression Fast Response (ESFR) fire sprinkler systems. The purpose of the ESFR systems is to allow for a variety of commodities to be capable of meeting high-bay storage up to five feet below roof deck. They are considered the best engineered fire protection system that the National Fire Protection Association recognizes, capable of flowing up to 100 gallons per minute per nozzle. Their design purpose is to completely extinguish the fire rather than controlling the spread of fire. Testing results from nationally recognized testing agencies have proven this.

As with police facilities, capital costs of fire station expansion are accounted for by the City’s Public Facilities Fee program. The City of Stockton has adopted a Public Facility Fee for fire stations payable upon issuance of a building permit. For warehouse/low density land uses, the fee is $54 per 1,000 square feet. As with other Public Facility Fees, these fees would be payable upon issuance of a building permit. In addition, as noted, City voters approved Measure W, which instituted a one-quarter cent (0.25%) sales tax to provide funding for law enforcement and fire protection services.

3.8 SCHOOLS
The subject site is within the boundaries of the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD).

The nearest public school to the subject site is Nightingale Charter School, a SUSD facility located at 1721 Carpenter Road approximately three miles to the northwest. SUSD experiences overcrowding in its schools but collects required school impact fees and coordinates with residential developers to ensure that sufficient capacity exists within the school system to accommodate residential-related student generation.

The subject site is proposed for industrial development and would result in no residential development or student generation. Nevertheless, the project would contribute developer fees from industrial development in accordance with State law. Based on a non-residential Attachment H 995
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 10
development rate of $0.61 per square foot, the project would generate an estimated $1,296,177 in school impact fees. Project development will contribute to these fees in conjunction with building permit issuance.

3.9 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
The City of Stockton provides park and recreational services. The nearest City Park to the subject site is Ernie Shropshire Park, on Logan Lane approximately two miles to the west.

Shropshire Park, a neighborhood park, is equipped with picnic tables, tot lots, a tennis court, a basketball court, and barbecue facilities. The Stockton General Plan establishes policies and standards for the size and siting of parklands.

San Joaquin County also provides parks and recreational facilities available to the public.

The nearest County park is the Regional Sports Complex, a facility with softball and soccer fields adjacent to Stockton Metropolitan Airport, approximately 1.25 miles south of the site, adjacent to SR 99.

No new residential development is proposed on the subject site. Public Facility Fees for parklands are only assessed on new residential development; industrial development as proposed is exempt from parkland fees. However, industrial development would be subject to the payment of Public Facility Fees for community recreation centers. As with other Public Facility Fees, these fees would be payable upon issuance of a building permit.

Additionally, Stockton’s voters approved Measure M, which instituted a one-quarter cent (0.25%) sales tax to provide funding for recreation and library services.

3.10 LIBRARIES
The public library system in the Stockton area is operated jointly by the City and San Joaquin County. The nearest library branch to the subject site is the Maya Angelou Branch Library at 2324 Pock Lane in Stockton, approximately 2.5 miles to the northwest. A new library is planned for construction in northeast Stockton adjacent to the Ronald McNair High School campus.

Capital costs of library expansion are accounted for by the City’s Public Facilities Fee program. The City of Stockton has adopted a Public Facility Fee for libraries payable upon issuance of a building permit. For warehouse/low density land uses, the fee is $56 per 1,000 square feet. Additionally, as noted, Stockton’s voters approved Measure M, which instituted a one-quarter cent (0.25%) sales tax to provide funding for recreation and library services.

3.11 MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES/OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES Mariposa Road, a public road abutting the northeastern boundary of the subject site, is currently maintained by San Joaquin County. This road is paved but does not have street improvements such as curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Proposed industrial development will require street improvements along the subject site frontage of Mariposa Road, including additional pavement width, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, all of which would be designed and constructed by the applicant pursuant to City of Stockton standards.

Attachment H 996
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 11
With increased vehicular traffic resulting from the development of the subject site, the need for road maintenance will increase. Future development will be responsible for payment of adopted Public Facility Fees for street improvements and traffic signals to fund intersection and roadway segment improvements identified in the City's Street Improvement Plan. For warehouse/low density land uses, street improvement fees are $931.50 per 1,000 square feet. Traffic signal fees would be $83.25 per 1,000 square feet. The City requires that these fees be paid prior to building permit issuance.

A Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) also will be required of future development on the subject site. The RTIF’s objectives are to generate funding from new development projects that impact the Regional Transportation Network and to integrate these funds with federal, state, and other local funding to make transportation improvements identified in the RTIF Program. Proposed improvements in the RTIF Program that are in the vicinity of the subject site include Arch-Airport Road from State Route 99 to Pock Lane and a Bus Rapid Transit project on the Arch Road/Sperry Road corridor. Assuming future development is high-cube warehouses as anticipated, the Regional Transportation Impact Fee would be $450 per 1,000 square feet.

Measure K was passed by voters in 1990 and extended for another 30 years by voter approval in 2006. This measure instituted a one-half cent (0.50%) sales tax dedicated to transportation improvement projects in San Joaquin County. Measure K funding is allocated to specific projects including improved highways and local streets, new passenger rail service, regional and interregional bus routes, park-and-ride lots, new bicycle facilities, and railroad crossings by the San Joaquin Council of Governments. San Joaquin County and cities within the County share 35% of the sales tax revenue for local street repair. The local jurisdictions receive an annual funding allocation for local street repairs and safety and operations improvements. The local share of Measure K funds is distributed by formula based primarily on the City’s proportionate share of the overall County population.

4.0 FINANCING OF CITY SERVICES AND FISCAL EFFECTS
California Government Code Section 56653 requires that the required plan for services to a subject site include information on how the extension services would be financed. For the purposes of this analysis, services extensions are classified as 1) public road improvements and utility services such as water, wastewater, storm water, electrical, gas and communication systems that require construction of new pipelines, power lines, pump stations or other physical facilities needed to extend urban services to the subject site, and 2) general City services such as police and fire protection would, generally speaking, be provided without major improvements to capital facilities. These concerns are addressed in the following Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.

4.1 FINANCING OF ROADS AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements needed to extend public road and utility services to the site would be constructed in conjunction with the development of proposed industrial structures, access, parking and other on-site improvements. These improvements would include off-site improvements to the frontage of Mariposa Road, any required extension of water and wastewater lines and electrical, gas and communication lines.

Attachment H 997
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 12
As prescribed in the project conditions of approval, the project will be responsible for design and construction of required improvements to City roads and utility systems in accordance with adopted City standards. Unless improvements are deferred per a specific agreement with the City, they will be constructed prior to occupancy of the project site.

The costs of extending electrical, gas and communication facilities will be borne by the project and the responsible franchise utility as prescribed in adopted rules and regulations.

Costs of operating public infrastructure for the benefit of the project will be met through existing monthly service fee systems established by the City and franchise utilities.

Long-term capital improvement needs associated with new development, including the proposed project, are met through the City's adopted Public Facilities Fees (PFFs), which provide for expansion of City offices, libraries, community recreation centers, fire and police stations, street improvements, park land, surface water resource development improvement, air quality, and related administrative costs as these needs are identified.

Similarly, the City has also adopted development fees for sanitary sewer and water connections, traffic signals, and street trees, and various local benefit district fees. PFF and connection fee payments are required when building permits are issued, in accordance with the City’s adopted fee schedule, which is annually updated to keep pace with infrastructure and public facility costs. As a result, the City operates from year to year with a fee structure that reasonably anticipates and collects fees sufficient to meet capital improvement needs associated with new development.

Along with the PFFs and connection fees, the City also collects development-related fees for the following:
• Agricultural Land Mitigation Program
• Air quality
• County facilities
• Habitat/Open Space for San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) • Surface water for SEWD ($0.283 per square feet of retail/0.30) • Related administrative costs
Table 1 summarizes the estimated development-related fees for the proposed development of the subject site. These include development impact fees collected by other agencies, such as the Stockton Unified School District and SJCOG. This information is also in Exhibit 7 of this City Services Plan.

TABLE 1

ESTIMATED PUBLIC FACILITY FEES

FEE CATEGORY ESTIMATED PROJECT FEES
Impact Fees $5,997,979
Habitat/Open Space (SJCOG) $3,533,371
School District Fees (SUSD) $1,296,177
TOTAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FEES $10,827,527
Attachment H 998
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 13

4.2 FINANCING OF GENERAL SERVICES
This section describes the anticipated revenues to the City of Stockton, which would be the main provider of services. As noted above, the design, engineering, and construction of these services and infrastructure improvements will be financed by developers of the subject site, subject to approval by the City. This section also analyzes financial impacts on the Montezuma Fire District, which currently provides fire protection services to the subject site and from which the subject site would be detached upon annexation to the City.

4.2.1 Estimated Change in Annual Revenue for City of Stockton As a Charter City, the City of Stockton benefits from the same revenue sources as general law cities, as well as a utility user tax. The City receives a portion of the property tax collected within the City limits, and it receives franchise payments from electrical distribution, cable television and solid waste collection franchises. As discussed in Section

4.1, the City operates its public utilities (i.e., water and sanitary sewer) as enterprise functions, and it engages in public recreation activities on a quasi-enterprise basis, subsidized by its General Fund (e.g., golf courses, ice arena, civic auditorium).

The major sources of revenue that will be generated by the proposed future development for the City of Stockton General Fund are summarized in Table 2 below. Revenue estimates were generated primarily on a person-served basis, which accounts for project-related population and employee growth. Please see the attached Exhibits 1-6 for more information regarding the derivation of Table 3 calculations. More detailed information regarding specific sources of revenues is provided below.

Property Tax
Property tax rates are set at 1% of assessed property value. The potential property tax revenues resulting from the project were based on information provided by the project applicant and the current City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement for annexations. As shown in Exhibit 3, the estimated assessed valuation on the subject site with proposed development is $325,518,300.

Approximately 60% of every property tax dollar from the subject site is allocated among the Stockton Unified School District, San Joaquin Delta Community College, and the State’s educational fund. This leaves an “available share” of approximately 40% of the overall property tax revenue, which is divided between the County General Fund, the Montezuma Fire District, and other County agencies. This division of the property tax is the basis for estimating the property tax the City will receive upon annexation and development of the subject site (see Exhibit 3).

Based upon information from the San Joaquin County Auditor-Controller’s Office, upon annexation, approximately 20% of total property tax revenue from the subject site would go to the City. Based on this and the anticipated valuation of the subject site once fully developed, the property tax amount that would be collected by the City would be approximately $821,298 (see Exhibit 3). Current property taxes paid to the County General Fund on the subject site are approximately $33,170.

Attachment H 999
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 14
TABLE 2

ESTIMATED CITY OF STOCKTON GENERAL REVENUES

RESULTING FROM ANNEXATION AND BUILDOUT OF THE SUBJECT SITE General Fund Revenue Category Total Project
Property Tax $827,985
Property Tax: Vehicle License Fee $420,871
Document Transfer Tax $11,295
Sales Tax $55,736
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $13,934
Measure A Transaction Tax $41,802
Franchise Tax $66,262
Hotel/Motel Tax $10,573
Business License $38,710
Utility Users Tax $137,119
Licenses and Permits -
Revenue from Other Agencies -
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu -
Charges for Services -
Fire Contracts -
Code Enforcement -
Fines and Forfeitures -
Other Revenues -
Transfers In -
TOTAL REVENUES $1,624,287
Property transfer taxes are taxes charged as a percentage of the value of property that has a transfer of title. It is estimated that the amount of property transfer tax the City would receive after annexation of the subject site would be $11,295. Exhibit 3 provides details on the property transfer tax estimate.

In 2004, the State Legislature and the Governor agreed to a swap of city and county vehicle license fee revenue for an additional share of property tax revenue to be provided to the local governments. This Property Tax in-Lieu of Motor Vehicle Fees is a substantial source of revenue based on property taxes. It is estimated that the amount of property tax in-lieu of motor vehicle fees associated with the subject site would be $420,871. See Exhibit 3 for development of this estimate.

Attachment H 1000
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 15
Sales Tax
The current sales tax rate in the City of Stockton is 9.00%, with the City receiving 2.25% of taxable sales, 1.25% of which is a result of measures approved by City voters (Measure A – 0.75%, Measure W (police and fire) – 0.25%, Measure M (library and recreation) –

0.25%). The proposed development is not a commercial land use and therefore would not directly generate sales tax. However, employees working at the proposed development would generate sales tax revenue through local spending. It is estimated that sales tax generated by employee spending would be approximately $55,736. See Exhibit 4 for development of this estimate, along with Exhibit 6 for estimates of revenues from voterapproved measures.

In addition, the City collects sales tax revenue from Proposition 172, approved by California voters in 1993. Proposition 172 imposes a one-half cent sales tax to provide revenues for public safety services. It is estimated that sales tax generated by Proposition 172 would be approximately $13,934. See Exhibit 4 for development of this estimate.

Utility User Tax
A utility user tax is levied against utility charges for all non-public users of gas, electric, water, telephone, and cable television services. This tax is 6% of a customer’s monthly bill.

As noted in Table 2 above, future development on the subject site would generate an estimated $137,119 annually in utility user tax revenues. See Exhibit 5 for how the estimate of utility user tax revenue was developed.

Franchise Tax
Franchise taxes are levied upon the providers of natural gas, electric, refuse removal and cable television service. The franchise tax, which is 2% for most utilities and 3% for cable TV, is levied upon the provider rather than the customer and is charged against all utility revenues. The anticipated future development on the subject site would generate approximately $66,262 in franchise tax revenue annually (see Exhibit 1).

Business License Tax
The City of Stockton assesses a business registration fee and a license tax on any person engaged in or carrying on any profession, trade, calling, occupation, or business in the City.

Beyond a registration fee of $24, businesses are assessed at varying rates based typically on their gross receipts; gross receipts information for the annexation area is unknown.

Future development on the subject site is estimated to yield an annual business license tax revenue of $38,710 (see Exhibit 1).

Other Revenue Sources
The City has a variety of other revenue sources, which are listed in the City’s budget. These include licenses and permits, fines and forfeitures, charges for services, motor vehicle inlieu revenues, and revenues from fire service contracts, among others. Table 2 and Exhibit 1 list these other sources. No estimates were developed for subject site revenues from these Attachment H 1001
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 16
sources, in part because not all these revenue sources would be associated with annexation and development of the subject site.

4.2.2 Estimated Change in Annual Expenditures for City of Stockton As discussed in Section 4.1, immediate and future capital costs of the project would be met through developer improvements to public road and utility systems and through payment of the City PFFs and connection fees. The project is industrial in nature and would not result in increases in the resident population of Stockton, with concurrent costs in providing City services. However, the addition of project-related employees would contribute to the “service population” of the City, which could contribute to service costs.

Preliminary work done for the Mariposa Industrial Park EIR indicates that impacts of proposed future development on the City’s water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems would be less than significant. The City’s sanitary sewer system has adequate capacity to accommodate additional wastewater from the project, and existing sewer lines in the area can carry the anticipated flow. The City’s water system has sufficient supplies to satisfy potential project demand, and no new supplies would need to be obtained. In accordance with City requirements, the project developer would construct the necessary improvements and connections to the City’s water and sewer systems and storm drainage facilities to accommodate runoff in accordance with City standards. Expenses to operate the required City utilities to the subject site are expected to be minimal and would be covered by monthly utility billing to the project activities.

The Draft EIR also concluded that impacts of the Mariposa Industrial Park project on public services provided by the City, primarily fire and police protection, would be less than significant with the installation of the fire sprinkler systems required by the City.

Expenses to provide City fire and police services to the subject site are also expected to be minimal.

The project would place an incremental demand on the City for future fire and police services, the project in and of itself would not result in a need for new or expanded fire facilities and services. Future capital costs for these services would ordinarily be met through payment of PFFs. However, the Stockton Fire Department is experiencing increased demand for fire protection and related services in the south Stockton industrial areas as a result of ongoing industrial and other development. City departments, including Fire, Community Development and Finance, together with industrial project proponents, are engaged in planning for financing, construction and staffing of a new fire station serving the south Stockton industrial areas, including the proposed project site.

Development and implementation of the plan will involve a multi-year process helping the Department meet increasing service demands and reduce response times (Chief Edwards, pers. comm.). Nonetheless, the City and the Mariposa Industrial Park project applicant are in discussions as to how the proposed project could facilitate development of the new fire station.

The proposed annexation would include approximately 750 feet of Mariposa Road frontage. Improvements would be installed along this frontage and are likely to include widening, turn lanes, acceleration and/or deceleration lanes, shoulders, and intersection Attachment H 1002
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 17
improvements at the proposed entry, including street lighting and signage. The frontage improvements would be funded by the developer. The annexed frontage would increase costs to the City for ongoing maintenance. A rough approximation of the increased maintenance cost was obtained by dividing the total miles currently maintained by the City of Stockton into total street maintenance cost, then applying the results to the segments to be annexed. According to the FY 2020/21 budget for the City of Stockton, the City maintains 763 miles of streets at a cost of $12,996,825. Based on these figures, the additional cost to maintain the annexed frontage would be approximately $2,420 annually.

This cost may increase if more of the segment of Mariposa Road fronting the subject site is annexed than proposed. Road maintenance costs are met from a variety of sources.

The project is not expected to result in additional costs for schools or parks and recreation, as the project would not increase the resident population. Nonetheless, the project would contribute to future school and park capital needs through payment of school mitigation fees and park and recreation PFFs.

An approximation of maximum potential increases in City services costs associated with the project was calculated by dividing total general fund expenditures by the City service population, and by multiplying that factor by the increase in service population on the subject site. The per-unit cost factor would be $587.92. The expected increase in service population would be 1,531 (see Exhibit 2). Therefore, potential service costs to the City would be approximately $900,106. See Exhibit 8 for a development of the expenditure estimate for the subject site.

4.2.3 Overall Impact of Project on City Budget
As indicated in Table 2, proposed future development of the subject site is expected to generate approximately $1,624,287 in annual revenues to the City. With estimated annual expenditures of $900,106, the City would have adequate annual revenues to provide services to the subject site. In addition, as indicated in Table 1, proposed future development would generate $5,997,979 in one-time impact fees to the City to cover expenses associated with new or expanded public facilities and services. Additional fees would be paid to SUSD and SJCOG.

In summary, the City would be expected to expect to receive substantial revenues from proposed development of the subject site, while the expenses incurred in providing City services to the subject site would be less than the anticipated revenues. Thus, at the project level, the City would likely operate at a budget surplus.

4.3 PROPERTY TAX IMPACT TO THE MONTEZUMA FIRE DISTRICT
Based on information provided by the County Auditor-Controller' s Office, the Montezuma Fire District currently receives approximately 10.4 percent of the general one-percent property tax levy from the subject site. Based on the most current information from the County Auditor-Controller, this generates approximately $2,913 of property tax revenue for the Fire District, based on current valuation of the property. Upon annexation and development of the subject site, the assessed valuation of the site would increase substantially. However, as a part of the annexation process, the subject site would Attachment H 1003
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 18
be detached from the Fire District, and the Fire District would no longer receive tax revenue from the site.

In comments on another proposed annexation, the Fire Chief of the Montezuma Fire District stated that he looks for the Fire District to be made whole for any loss of revenue resulting from annexation. Also, LAFCo policy dictates that adverse fiscal impacts resulting from such detachments from special districts or annexations that fail to provide adequate mitigation of the adverse impact on the district will not be approved. It is expected that the City and the Fire District will reach an agreement that will reduce adverse revenue impacts on the Fire District resulting from the proposed annexation. LAFCo may determine an appropriate temporary mitigation, if any, and impose that temporary mitigation to the extent it is within its powers.

Attachment H 1004
Mariposa Industrial Park Annexation Report Page 19

5.0 AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY
As noted, California Government Code Section 56668(l) requires an assessment of the timely availability of water supplies for an annexation area. The UWMP for the City of Stockton’s water system assessed the reliability of its water supply for its service area, which includes the subject site. The UWMP includes a description of the water supply sources, projected water use, and a comparison of water supply water demands during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. The definitions of the three water year scenarios, as described by the State Department of Water Resources, are provided below.

1. Average year is a year, or an averaged range of years in the historical sequence that most closely represents median water supply availability to the agency.

Normal and average are used interchangeably within the Department of Water Resources guidebook.

2. Single dry year is the year with the lowest water supply availability to the agency.

3. Multiple dry year is the lowest average water supply availability to the agency for a consecutive multiple-year period (three years or more) for a watershed since 1903.

As part of the UWMP, a Water Supply Reliability Assessment was conducted to determine the reliability of the City’s water supply for all three water year scenarios from 2020 to 2040. This Water Supply Reliability Assessment is currently the most up-to-date and reliable source of information regarding the City’s long-term water supplies and their reliability. Under the normal water year scenario, water supply would exceed demand by 34,546 to 50,351 acre-feet per year. Under the single dry water year scenario, supply would exceed demand by 30,546 to 44,351 acre-feet per year. Under the third year of a multiple dry year scenario, supply would exceed demand by the same amounts as in the single dry year scenario.

As noted in Section 3.1, Domestic Water Supply, the City conducted a Water Supply Assessment for the proposed project in January 2021. Under SB 610, a Water Supply Assessment is required for a proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. The purpose of the Water Supply Assessment is to demonstrate the sufficiency of the purveyor’s water supplies to satisfy the water demands of the proposed project, while still meeting the water purveyor’s existing and planned future uses. COSMUD is the purveyor for this project.

The Water Supply Assessment determined that COSMUD’s water supply would exceed the projected water demand by the amounts in the UWMP described above. Updated water use factors based on recent water consumption trends within the COSMUD service area were used to determine the projected water demand for the Proposed Project, which is equal to 283 acre-feet per year. Based on this information, the Water Supply Assessment concluded that the project could be adequately served by COSMUD from its existing and future water supplies without requiring additional supplies or entitlements.

Attachment H 1005
BaseCamp
Figure 1
BaseCamp Environmental REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Humboldt
San Diego Imperial
Orange
Riverside
San Bernardino
Ventura Los Angeles
Santa Barbara
Kern San Luis
Obispo
Inyo
Tulare
Kings Monterey
Fresno
San
Benito
Mono
Madera
Mariposa
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Amador
El Dorado
Sacramento
Alpine
Santa
Clara
San
Joaquin
Contra
Costa
Merced
Marin
Napa
Yolo
Solano
Sutter
Placer
Nevada
Sierra
Plumas
Glenn Butte
Lake
Mendocino
Shasta Lassen
Tehama
Trinity
Colusa Yuba
Sonoma
Stanislaus Alameda
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
San Francisco
www.csac.counties.org

PROJECT LOCATION
Attachment H 1006
BaseCamp
Figure 2
BaseCamp Environmental PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND PREZONING

PROPOSED ANNEXATION

AND PREZONING BOUNDARY
PROPOSED PREZONING: AG-40
(COUNTY) TO IL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

EXISTING

CITY LIMITS
EXISTING ZONING: IL - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
Attachment H 1007
BaseCamp
Figure 3
BaseCamp Environmental STOCKTON GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS

PROJECT SITE
Attachment H 1008
BaseCamp
Figure 4

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE/
BaseCamp Environmental 10-YEAR PLANNING HORIZON
!
!
!
Attachment H 1009
Figure 5
BaseCamp Environmental PROJECT AREA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LEGEND
Existing Industrial
Approved Industrial
Institutional

PROJECT SITE
Attachment H 1010

DAORAOGRAFRAM
BLDG 3 FOOTPRINT: 1,021,440 SF
CLR. HGT: 36'
BLDG 4 FOOTPRINT:1,021,440 SF
CLR. HGT: 36'
BLDG 1 FOOTPRINT: 670,320 SF
CLR. HGT: 36'
BLDG 2 FOOTPRINT: 637,450 SF
CLR. HGT: 36'
BLDG 6
100,980 SF
CLR. HGT:
32'

DETENTION
570' 570'
570' 570'
170'
1792'
1792'
594'
1176'
1176'

DAORKRALC
BLDG 7
100,980 SF
CLR. HGT:
32'
170'
594' BLDG 5
64,260 SF
CLR. HGT:
32'
378'

MARIPOSA ROAD
scheme: 1
BaseCamp
Figure 6
BaseCamp Environmental CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SOURCE: Ware Malcomb
Attachment H 1011
EXHIBITS 1-6

ESTIMATED PROJECT REVENUE SOURCES
Attachment H 1012
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

CITY OF STOCKTON GENERAL FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
General Fund Revenue Category
2021-22
City Budget
Revenue per
Person
Service
Population Total Project
Property Tax $38,416,000 - - $827,985
Property Tax: Vehicle License Fee $26,791,495 - - $420,871 Measure A Transaction Tax $36,132,000 - - $41,802
Sales Tax $56,076,000 - - $55,736
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $2,379,000 - - $13,934
Document Transfer Tax $852,000 - - $11,295
Franchise Tax $16,595,630 $43.27 1,531 $66,262
Hotel/Motel Tax $2,648,000 $6.90 1,531 $10,573
Business License $9,695,000 $25.28 1,531 $38,710
Utility Users Tax $34,342,000 $89.55 1,531 $137,119
Licenses and Permits $0 - - -
Revenue from Other Agencies $3,253,496 $8.48 1,531 -
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu $200,000 $0.52 1,531 -
Charges for Services $3,150,079 $8.21 1,531 -
Fire Contracts $4,691,240 - - -
Code Enforcement $3,498,413 - - -
Fines and Forfeitures $501,694 - - -
Other Revenues $11,026,889 - - -
Transfers In $0 - - -
TOTAL REVENUES $250,248,936 -- -- $1,624,287
Source: DPFG, Economic Benefit Report, Mariposa Industrial Park, City of Stockton, CA, February 4, 2022.

Attachment H 1013
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

LAND USE AND DEMOGRAPHICS SUMMARY
I. NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Non-Residential Land Uses Square Feet Average Value
(square foot)
Industrial (Building 1) 900,000 $164
Industrial (Building 2) 1,224,880 $125
TOTAL 2,124,880 $142
II. CITY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
City of Stockton Population [1] 320,876
City of Stockton Employees [2] 125,248
City of Stockton Persons Served [3] 383,500
III. PROJECT DEMOGRAPHICS
Employees (Building 1) 2,450
Employees (Building 2) 1,962
Total Employees 3,062
Persons Served Population [4] 1,531
Source: DPFG, Economic Benefit Report, Mariposa Industrial Park, City of Stockton, CA, February 4, 2022. [1] California Department of Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1-1-2021. [2] City of Stockton Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget.
[3] City population plus 50% of employees.
[4] Assumes 50% of employees.

Attachment H 1014
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
I. GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ASSUMPTIONS
Pre-Annexation - 1% General Property Tax Breakdown [1]
Public Agency Property Tax Breakdown
County General Fund 20.7%
Montezuma Fire Protection District 10.4%
School districts and other agencies 68.9%
TOTAL 100.00%
Property Tax Allocation Upon Annexation [1]
Public Agency Property Tax Breakdown
County General Fund 20.2%
City of Stockton 16.7%
School districts and other agencies 63.1%
TOTAL 100.00%
II. SECURED PROPERTY TAX ANALYSIS
Nonresidential Land
Use Type
Square Feet Estimated
Valuation
1% General
Property Tax
Property Tax
to City
Industrial 2,124,880 $410,710,000 $4,107,100 $821,298
III. PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER ANALYSIS
Nonresidential Land
Use Type
Property
Turnover Rate
Estimated Assessed
Valuation Turnover
Property Transfer
Tax to City
Total Estimated
Transfer Tax
Industrial 5.00% $20,535,000 0.055% $11,295
Attachment H 1015
IV. PROPERTY TAX VEHICLE LICENSE FEE ANALYSIS
Nonresidential Land
Use Type
Total City Assessed
Valuation with
Project[1]
Percent Change in
Assessed Valuation
Total Property Tax
In-Lieu of VLF
Adopted Revenue[1]
Estimated Property
Tax In-Lieu of MVF
Industrial $26,555,400,583 1.57% $26,791,495 $420,871
Source: DPFG, Economic Benefit Report, Mariposa Industrial Park, City of Stockton, CA, February 4, 2022. [1] Fiscal Year 2021-22.

Attachment H 1016
EXHIBIT 4
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

SALES TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
I. DIRECT SALES TAX ANALYSIS
Nonresidential Land Use
Type
Taxable Spending per
Employee per Day
Employees Total Taxable
Spending[1]
Industrial (Building 1) $10 2,450 $6,370,000
Industrial (Building 2) $10 612 $1,592,344
TOTAL -- 3,062 $7,962,344
Leakage (30%) $2,388,703
City of Stockton Capture (70%) $5,573,641
City of Stockton General Fund Sales and Use Tax Revenues:

City Taxable Spending Capture $5,573,641
City Share of Sales Tax 1.00% $55,736
Project-Derived Sales Tax Revenue to City $55,736
Prop. 172 Sales Tax 0.25% $13,934
Source: DPFG, Economic Benefit Report, Mariposa Industrial Park, City of Stockton, CA, February 4, 2022. [2] Assumes 260 working days per year.

Attachment H 1017
EXHIBIT 5
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

UTILITY USERS TAX REVENUE ANALYSIS
Revenue per
Person[1]
Service
Population[2]
Total Project
Revenue
Utility Users Tax $89.95 1,531 $137,119
Source: DPFG, Economic Benefit Report, Mariposa Industrial Park, City of Stockton, CA, February 4, 2022. [1] See Exhibit 1.
[2] See Exhibit 2.

Attachment H 1018
EXHIBIT 6
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

VOTER APPROVED REVENUE ANALYSIS
Project Taxable
Spending [1] Tax Rate Project Revenue
San Joaquin County (Measure K) Sales Tax $5,573,641 0.500% $27,868 Stockton Safe Neighborhood Gang and Drug Prevention
Police & Fire (Measure W)
$5,573,641 0.250% $13,934
Law Enforcement, Crime Prevention, Essential City
Services (Measure A)
$5,573,641 0.750% $41,802
Library and Recreation ‐ Strong Communities Special
Tax (Measure M)
$5,573,641 0.250% $13,934
TOTAL $97,539
Source: DPFG, Economic Benefit Report, Mariposa Industrial Park, City of Stockton, CA, February 4, 2022. [1] See Exhibit 4.

Attachment H 1019
EXHIBIT 7
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

PUBLIC FACILITY AND IMPACT FEE SUMMARY
Fee Category Estimated Project Fees
City Impact Fees $5,997,979
School District Fees (SUSD) $3,533,371
Habitat/Open Space (SJCOG) $1,296,177
TOTAL $10,827,527
Source: DPFG, Economic Benefit Report, Mariposa Industrial Park, City of Stockton, CA, February 4, 2022.

Derived from Administrative Review Draft Annexation Report, updated with new square footage assumptions.

Attachment H 1020
EXHIBIT 8
CITY OF STOCKTON – PROPOSED MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK

ESTIMATED PROJECT EXPENDITURES
I. CITY EXPENDITURES
Program Appropriations City Budget [1]
Police $129,061,956
Fire 45,767,332
Administration 17,739,576
Public Works 15,008,881
Community Services 8,080,000
Other Programs 5,868,315
Economic Development 4,962,670
Debt Service 3,582,175
TOTAL $230,070,905
II. PROJECT EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS
2020 City of Stockton Persons Served Population [2]: 391,332 City Expenditures per Person Served: $587.92
Persons Served Population on Subject Site [3]: 1,531
Total Subject Site Expenditures: $900,106
NOTES:
[1] Source: City of Stockton Fiscal Year 2019/20 Budget [2] See Exhibit 2.

Attachment H 1021
Attachment I
1022
Attachment I
1023

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN
TO:

City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St, 1st Floor
Stockton, CA 95202
Attention: City Clerk
Record for the Benefit of
The City of Stockton
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 27383
Space Above Reserved for Recorder’s Use Only

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF STOCKTON, a
California municipal corporation
AND

GREENLAW DEVELOPMENT, LLC
a California limited liability company

MARIPOSA INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT
Effective Date: _____________, 2022
Attachment J 1024
Attachment J 1025
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS...........................................................................................................

ARTICLE 2. LAFCO CONDITION; REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ...................

ARTICLE 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM.............................................................................

ARTICLE 4. DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS; APPLICABLE LAWS................................................

ARTICLE 5. FEES AND FEE CREDITS.......................................................................................

ARTICLE 6. POTENTIAL CFD FOR FIRE STATION FACILITY.............................................

ARTICLE 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS; COMMUNITY BENEFITS ...................................

ARTICLE 8. COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................

Attachment J 1026
ARTICLE 9. THIRD PARTY LEGAL CHALLENGE, IMDEMNITY AND
INSURANCE ........................................................................................................

ARTICLE 10. ANNUAL REVIEW ................................................................................................

ARTICLE 11. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION...............................................................................

ARTICLE 12. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS....................

ARTICLE 13. ASSIGNMENT........................................................................................................

Attachment J 1027
ARTICLE 14. DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION ...........................................................

ARTICLE 15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS........................................................................

Attachment J 1028
Attachment J 1029

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) dated for reference purposes as of _____________, 2022 (“Agreement Date”), is entered into by and between GREENLAW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”) and the CITY OF STOCKTON, a California municipal corporation (“City”). Developer and City are sometimes referred to individually herein as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

R E C I T A L S
This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the Parties. The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement; capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined are defined in Article 1 of this Agreement.

A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs and risks of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code (“Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes a city and a developer having a legal or equitable interest in real property to enter into a binding, long-term development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property.

B. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, the City Council has adopted a development agreement ordinance codified as Chapter 16.128 of the City’s Municipal Code (“Development Agreement Ordinance”), which authorizes the execution of development agreements and sets forth the required contents and form of those agreements. The provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and the City’s Development Agreement Ordinance are collectively referred to herein as the “Development Agreement Law.” C. Developer holds a legal or equitable interest in that certain approximately 203-acre real property, as defined by Government Code subsections 65865(a) and (b), located within the unincorporated area of the County of San Joaquin (the “County”) commonly known as the Mariposa Industrial Park (the “Property”). The Property is currently comprised of nine (9) separate parcels bearing Assessors Parcel Numbers 179-220-100, 179-220-110, 179-220-120, 179- 220-130, 179-220-160, 179-220-170, 179-220-180, 179-220-190, and 179-220-240. The Property is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.

D. Not later than fourteen (14) days following its execution of this Agreement, the City will submit an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) to annex the Property into the City (the “Annexation Proceedings”). The potential environmental impacts from development of the Property were evaluated by the City, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in that certain Environmental Impact Report for the Mariposa Industrial Park (State Clearinghouse No. 2020120283) certified by the City on __________, 2022 (the “MIP EIR”). Development of the Property as described in the MIP EIR, with the modifications requested by the County shown on Exhibit B hereto, is referred to herein as the “Project.”
E. This Agreement sets forth, among other things, the applicable fees, policies Attachment J 1030
and zoning requirements that apply to development of the Property, and is intended by the City and Developer to provide Developer with vested rights to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Consistent with the State policy expressed by Government Code section 65864, this Agreement is intended to reduce the uncertainty of the planning and entitlement process which can result in waste of resources and escalation of development costs; provide certain assurances to Developer that upon successful completion of the Annexation Proceedings Developer may proceed with development of the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals and Applicable Law (as defined herein) and subject to the terms of this Agreement; strengthen the public planning process; encourage private participation in comprehensive planning; and reduce the economic costs of development.

F. The Planning Commission on February ___, 2022, recommended, by adoption of Resolution No. _______, that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Make the appropriate written findings relating to significant environmental impacts, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, and certify the MIP EIR, all in accordance with the applicable requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

2. Adopt an ordinance authorizing the City to execute this Agreement and allow structures of up to 100 feet tall on the Property G. Prior to its approval of this Agreement, the City Council took the following actions to review and plan for the future development and use of the Property (collectively, the “Existing Approvals”):

3. Made written findings relating to significant environmental impacts, adopted a statement of overriding considerations, adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, and certified the MIP EIR, all in accordance with the applicable requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

4. Adopted Ordinance No. ______, authorizing the City to execute this Agreement and allowing for structures of up to 100 feet tall on the Property.

H. Under this Agreement, Developer will provide substantial public benefits to the City through its development of the Property and the Project as described herein, including:

1. The Project will, at no cost to the City, fund the preparation of a Rate and Method of Apportionment and other formation documents to support the formation of a Community Facilities District to support the design, construction, staffing, operation and maintenance of critical fire and police protection facilities for the Mariposa Industrial Park area and surrounding areas in south Stockton and its sphere of influence and, if the City establishes such Community Facilities District, the Property will participate in the Community Facilities District.

2. The Project will generate short-term construction jobs related to Property development, including Property grading, infrastructure and building construction, and long-term Attachment J 1031
employment-generating uses in the industrial components of the Project consistent with City objectives for creating employment opportunities for residents.

3. The Project will implement the City’s General Plan land use and economic development policies designed to attract employment- and tax-generating businesses that support and promote the economic diversity of the City (General Plan Policy LU-4.2).

I. As provided in Article 6 of this Agreement, the Parties intend to work in good faith to consider potential use of public financing under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code sections 53311 et seq.) (“Mello-Roos Act”) for certain Public Benefit Facilities needed in connection with the Project. The financing of such facilities through a MelloRoos Act community facilities district would fulfill the express legislative goals of the Development Agreement Statute; strengthen the public planning process by linking development rights to financing of public facilities; encourage participation by private landowners in the comprehensive planning required by such financing; reduce economic risk and costs of development by spreading the costs of needed facilities over time; and allow Developer, in exchange for voluntary participation in such financing programs, to proceed with development in accordance with existing City policies, rules and regulations.

J. For the reasons recited herein, City and Developer have determined that the Project is a development for which this Agreement is appropriate. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty regarding Project Approvals, thereby encouraging planning for, investment in, and commitment to use and development of the Property. Development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement will in turn provide substantial public benefits to the City, thereby achieving the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Law was enacted.

K. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone review by City staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council at publicly noticed meetings, and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable, in conformance with the Development Agreement Law and consistent with the goals, policies, standards and land use designations specified in the General Plan, and consistent with the requirement under Government Code Section 65867.5, and further, the City Council finds that the economic interests of City’s citizens and the public health, safety and welfare will be best served by entering into this Agreement.

L. The City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance No. __________, adopted by the City Council on _________________, 2022 (“Enacting Ordinance”).

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and provisions set forth herein, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

A G R E E M E N T
ARTICLE 1.

DEFINITIONS
“Agreement” means this Development Agreement and all Exhibits hereto.

Attachment J 1032
“Agreement Date” means the reference date identified in the preamble to this Agreement.
“Annexation Date” is defined in Section 2.1.
“Annexation Deadline” is defined in Section 2.1.
“Annexation Proceedings” is defined in Recital D.
“Annual Review” is defined in Section 10.1.
“Applicable City Regulations” is defined in Section 4.2. “Applicable Law” means the Applicable City Regulations and all State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to the Property and the Project as such State and Federal laws are enacted, adopted and amended from time to time, as more particularly described in Section 4.5 (Changes in Applicable Law).
“Assignee” is defined in Section 13.3.
“Assignment” is defined in Section 13.2.
“Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy” means the City’s Debt Management Policy for Capital and Land Secured Financing, Policy Number 17.01.040, with an effective date of October 30, 2018, as it may be amended from time to time. “CEQA” is defined in Recital D.
“CEQA Guidelines” means the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq.), as amended from time to time. “CFD” is defined in Section 7.2.2.
“Changes in Applicable Law” is defined in Section 4.5.
“City” means the City of Stockton, a California municipal corporation. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Stockton. “City Manager” means the City’s City Manager or his or her designee. “City Parties” means and includes City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees, contractors and representatives. “Claims” means liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
“Connection Fees” means those fees charged by City on a citywide basis or by a utility provider to utility users as a cost for connecting water, sanitary sewer, and other Attachment J 1033
applicable utilities, except for any such fee or portion thereof that constitutes an Impact Fee, as defined below.
“Consultant Fees” is defined in Section 5.3.
“Default” is defined in Section 14.1.
“Developer” means Greenlaw Development, LLC, and its permitted successors and assignees.
“Development Agreement Law” is defined in Recital B.
“Development Agreement Ordinance” is defined in Recital B. “Development Agreement Statute” is defined in Recital A. “Effective Date” means the date that this Agreement becomes effective as determined under Section 3.1.
“Enacting Ordinance” refers to the Ordinance identified in Recital L. “Existing Approvals” is defined in Recital G.
“Extension Term” is defined in Section 3.2.2.
“Final” means the date on which (1) all applicable appeal periods for the filing of any administrative appeal challenging the issuance or effectiveness of each of the Existing Approvals and this Agreement shall have expired and no such appeal shall have been filed; (2) in the event of any administrative appeal or Litigation Challenge challenging any of the Existing Approvals and/or this Agreement, that the administrative appeal or Litigation Challenge is settled or there is a final determination or judgment upholding the Existing Approvals and this Agreement, as applicable, and the administrative appeal or Litigation Challenge is no longer subject to appeal.
“General Plan” means the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan of the City of Stockton adopted by the City Council on December 4, 2018. “Impact Fees” means the monetary amount charged by City in connection with a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of mitigating the impacts of the development project or development of the public facilities related to the development project, including, any “fee” as that term is defined by Government Code section 66000(b). For purposes of this Agreement, a fee that meets both the definitions of an Impact Fee and an Exaction will be considered to be an Impact Fee. Impact Fees do not include Other Agency Fees.
“Impact Fee Lock Period” is defined in Section 5.1.
“Initial Term” is defined in Section 3.2.1.

Attachment J 1034
“LAFCO” is defined in Recital D.
“Litigation Challenge” is defined in Section 9.1.1.
“Litigation Delay” is defined in Section 15.4.2.
“Major Modification” is defined in Section 12.2.
“Mello-Roos Act” is defined in Recital I.
“Minor Modification” is defined in Section 12.2.
“MIP EIR” is defined in Recital D.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage, deed of trust, security agreement, and other like security instrument encumbering all or any portion of the Property, or any of the Developer’s rights under this Agreement.
“Mortgagee” means the holder of any Mortgage, and any successor, assignee or transferee of any such Mortgage holder.
“Municipal Code” means and refers to the Municipal Code of the City of Stockton, as amended from time to time.
“New City Laws” means and includes any ordinances, resolutions, orders, rules, official policies, standards, specifications, guidelines or other regulations, which are promulgated or adopted by the City (including but not limited to any City agency, body, department, officer or employee) or its electorate (through their power of initiative or otherwise) after the Effective Date.
“Notice of Breach” is defined in Section 14.1.
“Party/Parties” is defined in the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals of this Agreement.
“Permitted Delay” is defined in Section 15.4.1.
“PFF Credits” means credits for PFF Impact Fees as provided by Section

16.72.260 of the City of Stockton Municipal Code.
“PFF Impact Fees” means Impact Fees imposed by the City under the City’s Municipal Code, as it may be amended or replaced from time to time. “Planning Commission” means the Planning Commission of the City of Stockton.
“Processing Fees” means all fees charged on a City-wide basis to cover the cost of City processing of Subsequent Approvals and further including any required supplemental or further environmental review, plan checking, inspection and monitoring at the rates which are in Attachment J 1035
effect at the time those permits, approvals, parcel and/or subdivision maps, entitlements, reviews or inspections are applied for or requested.
“Project” is defined in Recital D.
“Project Approvals” means the Existing Approvals and, when and as approved in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Subsequent Approvals. “Property” is defined in Recital C.
“Subdivision Map Act” means California Government Code sections 66410 through 66499.58, as it may be amended from time to time. “Subsequent Approvals” is defined in Section 8.1.
“Term” is defined in Section 3.2.1.

ARTICLE 2.

LAFCO CONDITION; REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
LAFCO Annexation. The Parties hereby acknowledge that pursuant to Government Code subsection 65865(b), this Agreement shall not become operative unless and until the Property is annexed to the City; provided, however, that the Parties’ obligations in this Section 2.1 shall be effective and binding on the Parties immediately upon the Effective Date.

The Parties agree to cooperate diligently and in good faith to submit an annexation application to LAFCO as soon as practicable following the Effective Date. The Parties further agree that this Agreement shall automatically terminate if the Annexation Proceedings have not been successfully completed on or before the Annexation Deadline (defined below), and as a result of such termination this Agreement shall be entirely null and void. Subject to potential extension as provided herein, the “Annexation Deadline” shall be December 31, 2022. The Annexation Deadline shall be subject to automatic extension in the event of Litigation Challenge as provided in Section 15.4.2 and may also be extended by mutual agreement of the Parties, each in its sole and absolute discretion. To avoid uncertainty, the Parties acknowledge that the action which must occur to successfully complete the Annexation Proceedings by the Annexation Deadline is issuance of the Certificate of Completion by LAFCO. The date upon which LAFCO issues such Certificate of Completion shall be the “Annexation Date”. In the event this Agreement is terminated or deemed terminated as a result of the inability or failure to successfully complete the Annexation Proceedings by the Annexation Deadline then, upon request by either Party, City and Developer shall execute, acknowledge and record in the Official Records a memorandum of termination memorializing the termination of this Agreement.

City Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Developer that:

2.2.1 Corporate Formation and Powers. City is a municipal corporation, and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of City under this Agreement.

Attachment J 1036

2.2.2 Duly Authorized. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations of City hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary City Council action and all necessary approvals have been obtained.

2.2.3 Valid Obligation. This Agreement is a valid obligation of City and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.

The foregoing representations and warranties are made as of the Agreement Date.

During the Term of this Agreement, City shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section 2.2 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Developer.

Developer Representations and Warranties. Developer represents and warrants to City that:

2.3.1 Company Formation and Powers. Developer is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of California and is authorized to conduct business in California and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to own property and in all other respects enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of Developer under this Agreement.

2.3.2 Duly Authorized. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of the obligations of Developer hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate, partnership or company action and all necessary shareholder, member or partner approvals, as applicable, have been obtained.

2.3.3 Valid Obligation. This Agreement is a valid obligation of Developer and is enforceable in accordance with its terms.

2.3.4 Developer’s Property Interest. Developer has a legal or equitable interest in each of the parcels comprising the Property.

2.3.5 No Bankruptcy. Developer has not (a) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (b) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Developer’s creditors; (c) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; (d) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Developer’s assets; or (e) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due.

The foregoing representations and warranties are made as of the Agreement Date. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this 2.3 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City.

Attachment J 1037
ARTICLE 3.

EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM
Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement (“Effective Date”) shall be the later of (a) the date that is thirty (30) days after the date the Enacting Ordinance is adopted, or (b) the date this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties. Said date shall function as the Effective Date for purposes of this Agreement even if, as anticipated by the Parties, the Annexation Date occurs later. The Parties acknowledge that section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement Statute requires that this Agreement be recorded with the County Recorder no later than ten (10) days after the City enters into this Agreement, and that the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all permitted successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. The City Clerk shall cause such recordation.

Term.

3.2.1 Initial Term of Agreement. Subject to extension for Litigation Delay as provided in Section 15.4.2 below, the “Initial Term” of this Agreement shall commence on the Annexation Date and shall expire on the tenth (10th) anniversary of the Annexation Date, unless extended or earlier terminated as provided herein. As used herein “Term” means the Initial Term, plus any Extension Term (defined below).

3.2.2 Extension of Initial Term. The Initial Term of this Agreement may be extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties from the date of expiration of the Initial Term until the date which is five (5) years following the expiration of the Initial Term (“Extension Term”), provided that at the end of the Initial Term: (a) Developer is not, at the time, in Default of any of its obligations hereunder following notice and expiration of applicable cure periods; and (b) the applicable Developer warranties and representations in Section 2.3 above continue to be true and correct. Following the expiration of the Term, or the earlier completion of development of the Project and satisfaction of all of Developer's obligations in connection therewith, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect.

3.2.3 Memorandum of Extension. If the Extension Term is granted, City and Developer agree to execute, acknowledge and record in the Official Records of San Joaquin County a memorandum evidencing approval of the Extension Term.

ARTICLE 4.

DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS; APPLICABLE LAWS
Vested Rights. The Property is hereby made subject to the provisions of this Agreement. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Property in accordance with and subject to the Existing Approvals, the Subsequent Approvals, Applicable Law and this Agreement, which shall control the permitted uses, density and intensity of use of the Property, rate of development, and the maximum height (as amended by this Agreement) and size of buildings on the Property.

Attachment J 1038
Applicable City Regulations. City and Developer acknowledge and agree that, per the Development Agreement Statute, City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the particular limitations, reservations and exceptions set forth in this Agreement are intended to reserve to City those selected police powers that cannot be so limited.

Notwithstanding the foregoing reservations and exceptions, it is the intent of City and Developer that this Agreement be construed to provide Developer with rights afforded by law, including but not limited to, the Development Agreement Statute. Therefore, the laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of City applicable to the development of the Property and Project shall be, collectively, the following “Applicable City Regulations”:

4.2.1 Project Approvals and Agreement. Those rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications of the City set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement, including without limitation the right to construct structures of up to one hundred (100) feet tall on the Property;

4.2.2 City Rules as of Effective Date. With respect to matters not addressed by and not otherwise inconsistent with the Project Approvals and this Agreement, those laws, rules, regulations, official policies, standards and specifications (including City ordinances and resolutions) in force and effect on the Effective Date governing permitted uses, building locations, timing and manner of construction, densities, intensities of uses, heights (as set forth herein) and sizes, subdivisions and requirements for on- and off-site infrastructure and public improvements, including the City’s zoning development standards applicable to the Project and the Property. In the event of a conflict between the City Rules described in this Section 4.2.2 and the Project Approvals or this Agreement, such conflict shall be resolved in favor of the Project Approvals or this Agreement.

4.2.3 Procedural Rules. New City Laws that relate to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure imposed at any time, provided such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties.

4.2.4 Building Codes. New City Laws that revise City’s uniform construction codes, including City’s building code, plumbing code, mechanical code, electrical code, fire code, grading code and other uniform construction codes, as of the date of permit issuance, provided, that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;

4.2.5 Public Health and Safety. New City Laws that are necessary to protect physical health and safety of the public; provided, that such New City Laws are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties;

4.2.6 New City Laws Not in Conflict. New City Laws that do not materially interfere with Developer’s vested rights under this Agreement or the Project Approvals;

4.2.7 New City Laws Mandated by Changes in Applicable Law. New City Laws mandated by Changes in Applicable Law as provided in Section 4.5 below; and Attachment J 1039

4.2.8 Other New City Laws. New City Laws that do not apply to the Property and/or the Project due to the limitations set forth above, but which the Parties mutually agree in writing shall be incorporated into the Applicable City Regulations.

Life of Project Approvals. The term of any and all Project Approvals shall automatically be extended for the longer of the Term of this Agreement or the term otherwise applicable to such Project Approvals. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, any vesting or tentative maps heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with development of the Project or the Property shall be extended for the Term (and may be subject to other extensions provided under the Subdivision Map Act). In the event that this Agreement is terminated prior to the expiration of the Term, the term of any Project Approval and the vesting period for any subdivision map approved as a Project Approval shall be the term otherwise applicable to the approval, which shall commence to run on the date that the Project Approval was issued. If upon expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement and the Project Approvals, Developer has not developed the entirety of the Property consistent with this Agreement and the Project Approvals, then the City Council, in its discretion, at any time may change the underlying and use designations or entitlements applicable to the parcels comprising such Property consistent with all Applicable Laws and procedures.

Timing of Development. City and Developer acknowledge that Developer cannot at this time predict what portions of the Project will be included within any phase of the Project, when or the rate at which the phases will be developed or the order in which each phase will be developed. Such decisions can depend upon numerous factors that are not within the control of Developer, such as market orientation and demand, interest rates, absorption rates of residential units, availability of financing and other similar factors. In particular, and not in any limitation of any of the foregoing, since the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. The Town of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to consider and expressly provide for the timing of development resulted in a lateradopted initiative restricting the timing of development prevailing over such parties’ agreement, it is the desire to avoid that result by acknowledging that, except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, Developer’s vested rights under this Agreement include the right to develop the Property and the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its discretion, subject to the terms, requirements and conditions of the Existing Approvals and this Agreement, including provisions addressing required phasing of on- and off-site public improvements.

Changes in Applicable Law. As provided in Section 65869.5 of the Development Agreement Law, this Agreement shall not preclude the applicability to the Project of changes in laws, regulations, plans or policies, to the extent that such changes are specifically mandated and required by (i) changes in State or Federal laws or (ii) any regional governmental agency that, due to the operation of State law (and not the act of City through a memorandum of understanding, joint exercise of powers authority, or otherwise that is undertaken or entered into following the Effective Date) (“Changes in Applicable Law”). In the event Changes in Applicable Law prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith in order to determine whether such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended, or performance thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with Changes in Applicable Law. Following the meeting between the Attachment J 1040
Parties, the provisions of this Agreement may, to the extent legally feasible, and upon mutual agreement of the Parties, be modified or suspended, but only to the minimum extent necessary to comply with such Changes in Applicable Law. In such event, this Agreement together with any required modifications shall continue in full force and effect. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude Developer from contesting by any available means (including administrative or judicial proceedings) such Changes in Applicable Law or their applicability to the Project.

ARTICLE 5.

CITY FEES AND FEE CREDITS
Impact Fees
For the period commencing on the Annexation Date and continuing until the 10th anniversary of the Annexation Date (“Impact Fee Lock Period”), Developer shall pay when due any and all PFF Impact Fees imposed by City at the time of the Annexation Date in accordance with the current City PFF Impact Fee Rate Table provided in this Section below:

CITY PFF IMPACT FEE RATE TABLE
Public Facilities Fee Name Warehouse/Low
Density
High Cube Distribution
(Building over 500ksf)
Agricultural Mitigation (Rate Per
Net Parcel Area within Pay Zone
Area. Note: May acquire the
agricultural easement in lieu of
paying fee)
$10,494.00 $10,494.00
Air Quality
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$405 $405
City Office Space
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$25.50 $25.50
Community Recreation Center
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$23.25 $23.25
Fire Station
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$54.00 $54.00
Libraries
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$56.00 $56.00
Police
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$62.00 $62.00
Street Improvement
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$931.50 $390.17
Traffic Signal Fee
(Rate Per 1,000 sq.ft.)
$108 $108
Surface Water
(Rate Per square foot floor area
divided by 0.60)
$0.228 $0.228
Attachment J 1041
All City PFF Impact Fees are subject to a 3.5% Administrative Fee at the time of fee collection.

On the first anniversary of the Annexation Date and every twelve (12) months thereafter until expiration of the Impact Fee Lock Period, all City PFF Impact Fee Rates are subject to a two percent (2%) inflationary increase adjustment. Developer agrees that City shall not be bound by the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000 et seq.) with respect to such Impact Fees. Developer hereby further waives and releases any claims it may have to challenge the legality of the imposition, use or expenditure of the Impact Fees collected by City during the Impact Fee Lock Period on the grounds that City’s imposition, use or expenditure of such fees violates one or more requirements or limitations imposed by the Mitigation Fee Act or any other provision of Applicable Law.

Following expiration of the Impact Fee Lock Period, City may charge and, subject to Developer’s right to pay under protest and pursue a challenge in law or equity to any new or increased Impact Fees, Developer shall pay any and all Impact Fees imposed by City, including new Impact Fees adopted after the Annexation Date; provided, however, City shall only require Developer to pay new Impact Fees (including increases in existing Impact Fees) that are uniformly applied by City to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties. To the extent Developer has earned PFF Credits for completed public improvements, City shall apply such accrued PFF Credits toward PFF Impact Fees payable by Developer until such PFF Credits are exhausted. Except as explicitly set forth in this Agreement, the application and administration of PFF Impact Fees to and for the Property shall be as set forth in the normally applicable requirements of the Stockton Municipal Code.

Other Applicable City Fees. Except as explicitly excluded by this Agreement, City may charge, and Developer agrees to pay, all Processing Fees, Connection Fees, and all passthrough fees collected by the City on behalf of other outside agencies, based on fee rates established by said outside agencies that are uniformly applied on a City-wide basis to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties.

Consultant Fees. In addition to charging the foregoing Processing Fees, City, in its reasonable discretion and following consultation with Developer, may contract with one or more outside inspectors, engineers or consultants to perform all or any portion of the monitoring, inspection, testing and evaluation services to be performed in connection with construction and development of the Project (“Consultant Fees”). Developer shall pay to City, within thirty (30) days following City’s written demand therefor and the City’s submission of invoices, the full amount of all Consultant Fees, plus a fifteen percent (15%) administration charge. The Consultant Fees, together with the associated administrative charge, shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the Processing Fees; provided, however, City agrees not to doublecharge Developer (through the imposition of both a Processing Fee and Consultant Fee) for any individual monitoring, inspection, testing or evaluation service.

Attachment J 1042
ARTICLE 6.

CFD FOR FIRE STATION FACILITY
CFD Formation. The Parties shall cooperate in good faith to establish a Community Facilities District consistent with the provisions of Section 7.2.2 of this Agreement, pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act and the City’s Capital Financing and Debt Management Policy for the design and construction of a fire station to provide fire protection services to the Property and surrounding areas within the City of Stockton and its sphere of influence, consistent with this Agreement, the Project Approvals and Applicable Law.

Funding for CFD Formation. Developer shall fund the analysis and preparation of a Rate and Method of Apportionment (“RMA”) and formation documents for a Community Facilities District (South Stockton Industrial/Commercial Services and Maintenance District) (the “CFD”) consistent with the provisions of Section 7.2.2, in an amount not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00).

Developer’s Cooperation and Consent. Regarding formation of a Community Facilities District consistent with the provisions of Section 7.2.2 of this Agreement, Developer will (i) execute all necessary petitions and ballots and waive all election waiting and protest periods at City’s request; (ii) support City’s adoption of local policies related to use of said Community Facilities District financing; (iii) allow special tax liens to encumber the Property to accomplish the goals of the Community Facilities District; (iv) be deemed to have irrevocably consented to formation of the Community Facilities District, issuance of Community Facilities District bonds, and the imposition of a special tax against the Property at rates and pursuant to a method of apportionment appropriate to fund the debt service on any Community Facilities District bonds sold to finance the construction of the fire station; and (v) agree not to protest or object to formation of the Community Facilities District or levy of an appropriate special tax consistent therewith.

ARTICLE 7.

COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS; COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Compliance with Applicable Law. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with requirements of, and obtain all permits and approvals required by Applicable Law, including requirements of regional, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Project.

Community Benefits. The Project will afford the City the following public benefits, which could not be secured from Developer in the absence of the Project and this Agreement:

7.2.1 The Project will generate short-term construction jobs related to the development of the Property and the Project, including Property grading, infrastructure and building construction, and long-term employment-generating uses in the industrial and office components of the Project, consistent with City objectives for creation of employment opportunities for residents.

Attachment J 1043

7.2.2 Not later than thirty (30) days following the Effective Date of this Agreement, Developer shall pay to City $60,000 to fund the analysis and preparation of a Rate and Method of Apportionment (“RMA”) and formation documents for a Community Facilities District (South Stockton Industrial/Commercial Services and Maintenance District) (the “CFD”). Should the costs of preparing the RMA and formation documents exceed $60,000, Developer shall provide additional funding, but the total of Developer’s funding for the RMA and the formation documents (including Developer’s $60,000 initial funding payment) shall not exceed $100,000.

The primary purposes of the CFD are to provide funding for the construction, staffing, equipment, and maintenance for a fire station with a police substation office (the “Station”).

The current estimated construction cost for the Station is $10 million, and the total of the currently estimated annual staffing, equipment, and maintenance costs for the Station is $3.0 million ($2.2 million for staffing and $0.8 million for equipment and maintenance costs).

The annexation area for the CFD will include all currently unapproved commercial and industrial development and parcels within the service area of the Station, both within City limits and that may be annexed into City limits in the future. The CFD will be formed to levy a facilities special tax with a fixed duration, and a services special tax that will continue in perpetuity.

As a condition of the Project approval, Developer shall cooperate with City in the formation of the CFD, based on the RMA and formation documents and on the terms and conditions described above, and in compliance with the requirements of the Mello – Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Government Code §§ 53311 et seq.), including without limitation affirmative votes and the recordation of a Notice of Special Tax Lien.

7.2.3 The Project will implement the City’s General Plan land use and economic development policies designed to attract tax-generating businesses that support the economic diversity of the City (General Plan Policy LU-4.2).

7.2.4 Developer will guarantee certain levels of funding for the Station. If on the fifth anniversary of the Annexation Date the CFD has not collected $1,500,000 in special taxes from all parcels within the CFD, then Developer is obligated to make a payment to the CFD, that payment amount being $1,500,000 less any special taxes already collected by the fifth anniversary of the Annexation Date. Additionally, if on the tenth anniversary of the Annexation Date the CFD has not collected $3,000,000 in special taxes from all parcels in the CFD, then Developer is obligated to make a payment to the CFD, that payment amount being $3,000,000 less all special taxes already collected by the tenth anniversary of the Annexation Date and less any payments previously made by Developer pursuant to this Section 7.2.4. Both the fifth and tenth anniversary payments are separate, independently occurring, obligations. Payments, if obligated, become due 30 days after the respective anniversary date. If the CFD has not been formed on the date that a Developer payment becomes due under this Section 7.2.4, then Developer shall make the payment or payments to the City.

Attachment J 1044
ARTICLE 8.

COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Subsequent Approvals. Certain subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Existing Approvals (collectively, “Subsequent Approvals”), will be necessary or desirable for implementation of the Project. The Subsequent Approvals may include the following ministerial and discretionary applications and permits: amendments of the Existing Approvals, grading permits, building permits, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, lot line adjustments, site plans, development plans, land use plans, building plans and specifications, parcel maps and/or subdivision maps, conditional use permits, design review, demolition permits, improvement agreements, encroachment permits, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. In connection with any Subsequent Approval, the City shall exercise its discretion in accordance with Applicable Law, the Project Approvals and, as provided by this Agreement, including the reservations of authority set forth herein.

Processing Applications for Subsequent Approvals.

8.2.1 Processing Consistent with Vested Rights. With the Existing Approvals, City has made a final policy decision that the Project is in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. Applications for Subsequent Ministerial Approvals that are consistent with this Agreement and the Existing Approvals shall be processed and considered in a manner consistent with the vested rights granted by this Agreement and shall be deemed to be tools to implement those final policy decisions, and shall be approved by City so long as they are consistent with this Agreement and the Existing Approvals. While City expressly reserves its discretion with respect to all Subsequent Discretionary Approvals, City agrees that it shall not use its authority in considering any application for a Subsequent Discretionary Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by the Existing Approvals, including changing the permitted uses of the Property or the permitted rate of development, or otherwise to prevent development of the Project as set forth in the Existing Approvals.

8.2.2 City Discretion. Nothing herein shall limit the ability of City to require the necessary reports, analysis or studies to assist in determining that the requested Subsequent Ministerial Approval is consistent with this Agreement and the Existing Approvals.

If the City determines that an application for a Subsequent Ministerial Approval is not consistent with this Agreement or the Existing Approvals and should be processed as an application for a Subsequent Discretionary Approval rather than a Subsequent Ministerial Approval, the City shall specify in writing the reasons for such determination and may propose a modification which would be processed as a Subsequent Ministerial Approval. Developer shall then either modify the application to conform to this Agreement and the Existing Approvals, as the case may be, or the City shall process the application as an application for a Subsequent Discretionary Approval.

Mitigation Measures. To the extent applicable, Developer shall comply with the mitigation measures in the MIP EIR, which reflect the mutually agreed-upon timing of specified improvements and Developer’s pro rata share of funding, where applicable.

Other Agency Subsequent Approvals; Authority of City. Other public agencies not within the control of City may possess authority to regulate aspects Attachment J 1045
of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies. Nevertheless, City shall be bound by, and shall abide by, its covenants and obligations under this Agreement in all respects when dealing with any such agency regarding the Property. City shall cooperate with Developer, to the extent appropriate and as permitted by law, in Developer’s efforts to obtain, as may be required, Other Agency Subsequent Approvals.

Subsequent CEQA Review. The City has certified the MIP EIR, which evaluates the environmental effects of full development, operation and use of the Project, and has imposed all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significant environmental effects of the Project. The Parties understand and agree that the MIP EIR is intended to be used not only in connection with the Existing Approvals, but also, to the extent legally permitted, in connection with any necessary Subsequent Approvals.

ARTICLE 9.

THIRD PARTY LEGAL CHALLENGE, IMDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge.

9.1.1 Cooperation by Parties. City and Developer shall cooperate in the defense of any court action or proceeding instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals (“Litigation Challenge”), and the Parties shall keep each other informed of all developments relating to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements that may prevent the communication of such information.

9.1.2 Potential Joint Defense. If Developer desires to contest or defend a Litigation Challenge and the Parties determine to undertake a joint defense or contest of such Litigation Challenge: i) the Parties will cooperate in the joint defense or contest of such challenge; ii) Developer shall select the attorney(s) to undertake such defense, subject to City’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld; iii) Developer will take the lead role in defending such Litigation Challenge; iv) upon Developer’s request, City shall enter into a joint defense agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney to facilitate the sharing of materials and strategies related to the defense of such Litigation Challenge without waiver of attorney client privilege; v) Developer shall reimburse City, within forty-five (45) days following City’s written demand therefor, which may be made from time to time during the course of such litigation, all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with the Litigation Challenge.

9.1.3 Potential Separate Defense. If Developer desires to contest or defend any Litigation Challenge and if at any time one or both of the Parties determine that they require separate representation: i) Developer shall take the lead role in defending such Litigation Challenge; ii) Developer shall be separately represented by legal counsel of its choice; iii) in any action or proceeding, City shall be separately represented by the legal counsel of its choice, selected after consultation with Developer (including consultation as to the scope and budget for such separate representation), with reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by Developer; iv) Developer shall reimburse City, within forty-five (45) days following City’s written demand therefor, which may be made from time to time during the course of such Attachment J 1046
litigation, all reasonable costs incurred by City in connection with the Litigation Challenge; v) prior to exceeding any previously established budget for the separate City legal representation, City shall confer with and obtain Developer’s input on any proposed budget augmentation or scope revision; and vi) upon Developer’s request, City shall enter into a joint defense agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney to facilitate the sharing of materials and strategies related to the defense of such Litigation Challenge without waiver of attorney client privilege.

9.1.4 Cost Awards and Proposed Settlements. Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City Parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees or cost awards, assessed or awarded against City by way of judgment, settlement, or stipulation entered in connection with a Litigation Challenge. Any proposed settlement of a Litigation Challenge by a Party shall be subject to the approval of the other Party, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. If the terms of the proposed settlement would constitute an amendment or modification of this Agreement or any Project Approvals, the settlement shall not become effective unless such amendment or modification is approved by City in accordance with Applicable Law, and the City reserves its full legislative discretion with respect thereto.

Indemnity. Developer shall indemnify, at City’s request defend, and hold the City Parties harmless from and against any and all Claims arising directly as a result of Developer’s acts, omissions, negligence or willful misconduct in connection with Developer’s performance under this Agreement or arising directly as a result of Developer’s (or Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees) work performed in connection with the development of the Property or the Project, including without limitation, Claims involving bodily injury, death or property damage. Developer’s indemnification obligations set forth in this Section shall not apply to the extent any such Claims are the result of the negligence or willful misconduct of any City Party.

Insurance. Prior to commencement of construction of the Project, Developer shall procure and maintain, or cause its contractor(s) to procure and maintain, until the earlier of (a) the expiration of the Term; or (b) the completion of the Project, a commercial general liability policy in an amount not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) combined single limit, including contractual liability together with a comprehensive automobile liability policy in the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000), combined single limit. Such policy or policies shall be written on an occurrence form, so long as such form of policy is then commonly available in the commercial insurance marketplace and shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII or a rating otherwise approved by the City in its sole discretion. If Developer desires to satisfy the foregoing insurance requirements through its contractor, then Developer shall require in its construction contract with the general contractor that said general contractor comply with all of the requirements of this Section 9.3. Developer or its contractor shall furnish at City’s request appropriate certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder, and City Parties shall be named as additional insured parties in such policies. The certificate of insurance shall contain a statement of obligation on the part of the carrier to notify City of any material change, cancellation or termination of the coverage at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of any such material change, cancellation or termination ten (10) days advance notice in the case of cancellation for nonpayment of premiums) where the insurance carrier provides such notice to the Developer. Coverage provided hereunder Attachment J 1047
by Developer or its contractor shall be primary insurance and shall not be contributing with any insurance, self-insurance or joint self-insurance maintained by City, and the policy shall contain such an endorsement. The insurance policy or the endorsement shall contain a waiver of subrogation for the benefit of City.

ARTICLE 10.

ANNUAL REVIEW
Annual Review. As required by California Government Code Section 65865.1 and pursuant to Section 16.128.110 of the Development Agreement Ordinance, the City of Stockton Planning Commission shall review this Agreement and all actions taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement with respect to the development of the Project every twelve (12) months to determine good faith compliance with this Agreement (“Annual Review”). Specifically, the Annual Review shall be conducted for the purposes of determining good faith compliance with the terms and/or conditions of this Agreement. Each Annual Review shall also document the status of Project development. In the event the Planning Commission recommends modification or termination of this Agreement in connection with such Annual Review, the action to effectuate such modification or termination must be taken by City Council.

Conduct of Annual Review. The annual review shall be conducted as provided in this Section 10.2. By December 1st of each year, Developer shall provide documentation of its good faith compliance with this Agreement during the calendar year, including a completed annual review form in a form reasonably specified by City from time to time. The information required to be provided as part of the annual review may include, among other items, the status of Project construction and the status of building permit issuances. If the City Manager finds good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall be notified in writing and the review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Manager is not satisfied that Developer is performing in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Manager shall prepare a written report specifying why the Developer may not be in good faith compliance with this Agreement, refer the matter to the City Council, and notify Developer in writing at least fifteen (15) business days in advance of the time at which the matter will be considered by the City Council. This notice shall include the time and place of the City Council’s public hearing to evaluate good faith compliance with this Agreement, a copy of the City Manager’s report and recommendations, if any, and any other information reasonably necessary to inform Developer of the nature of the proceeding. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing at which Developer must submit evidence that it has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The findings of the City Council on whether Developer has complied with this Agreement for the period under review shall be based upon substantial evidence in the record.

If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence, that Developer has complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the review for that period shall be concluded. If the City Council determines, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that Developer has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or there are significant questions as to whether Developer has complied with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City Council, at its option, may continue the hearing and may notify Developer of the City’s intent to meet and confer with Developer within thirty (30) days of such determination, prior to taking further action. Following such meeting, the City Council shall Attachment J 1048
resume the hearing in order to further consider the matter and to make a determination regarding Developer’s good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In the event City determines Developer is not in good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, City may give Developer a written Notice of Breach, in which case the provisions of Article 14, below, shall apply.

Failure to Conduct Annual Review. Failure of City to conduct an annual review shall not constitute a waiver by the City of its rights to otherwise enforce the provisions of this Agreement nor shall Developer have or assert any defense to such enforcement by reason of any such failure to conduct an annual review.

ARTICLE 11.

MORTGAGEE PROTECTION
Mortgagee Protection. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent or limit Developer, at its sole discretion, from granting one or more Mortgages encumbering all or a portion of Developer’s interest in the Property or portion thereof or improvement thereon as security for one or more loans or other financing, but all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of Mortgagee who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the deed of trust or mortgage within ten (10) days after its recording in the official records of San Joaquin County; provided, however, that Developer’s failure to provide such document shall not affect any Mortgage, including without limitation, the validity, priority or enforceability of such Mortgage.

Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee (including one who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise) shall have any obligation to construct or complete construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any use except in full compliance with this Agreement and the other Project Approvals nor to construct any improvements thereon or institute any uses other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Agreement, or otherwise under the Project Approvals. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 11.2, all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and the other Project Approvals shall be binding upon and effective against and shall run to the benefit of any person or entity, including any Mortgagee, who acquires title or possession to the Property, or any portion thereof.

Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any Notice of Default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City agrees to use its diligent, good faith efforts to deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any Notice of Default given to Developer. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of Default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s Notice of Default. If a Mortgagee is required to obtain Attachment J 1049
possession in order to cure any Default, the time to cure shall be tolled so long as the Mortgagee is attempting to obtain possession, including by appointment of a receiver or foreclosure, but in no event may this period exceed 120 days from the date the City delivers the Notice of Default to Developer.

No Supersedure. Nothing in this Article 11 shall be deemed to supersede or release a Mortgagee or modify a Mortgagee’s obligations under any subdivision or public improvement agreement or other obligation incurred with respect to the Project outside this Agreement, nor shall any provision of this Article 11 constitute an obligation of City to such Mortgagee, except as to the notice requirements of Section 11.3.

ARTICLE 12.

AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
Amendment by Written Consent. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein (including Article 10 relating to City’s annual review and Article 14 relating to termination in the event of a breach), this Agreement may be terminated, modified or amended only by mutual written consent of the Parties hereto or their successors in interest or assignees and in accordance with the provisions of Government Code sections 65967, 65867.5 and 65868, and City Municipal Code Section 16.128.

Major Modifications to Agreement. Any amendment to this Agreement which affects or relates to (a) the Term; (b) permitted uses of the Property; (c) provisions for the reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the type, location, density and intensity of the use of the Property or the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) providing of community benefits by Developer, shall be deemed a “Major Modification” and shall require giving of notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition, any modifications or changes to the County-requested Project modifications described in Exhibit B hereto shall be deemed a Major Modification for which the County shall be given notice in accordance with Stockton Municipal Code section 16.128.120, and an opportunity to comment thereon. Any amendment which is not a Major Modification shall be deemed a “Minor Modification” and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by Applicable Law, require notice of public hearing before the Parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to determine if an amendment is a Major Modification or a Minor Modification.

Minor Modifications. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority to review and approve amendments to this Agreement provided that such amendments are not Major Modifications. No public notice shall be required for a Minor Modification.

Requirement for Writing. No modification, amendment or other change to this Agreement or any provision hereof shall be effective for any purpose unless specifically set forth in a writing which refers expressly to this Agreement and is signed by duly authorized representatives of both City and Developer.

Attachment J 1050
ARTICLE 13.

ASSIGNMENT
General. Because of the necessity to coordinate development of the entirety of the Property pursuant to plans for the Project, certain restrictions on the right of Developer to assign or transfer its interest under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, are necessary in order to assure the achievement of the goals, objectives and public benefits of the Project and this Agreement. Developer agrees to and accepts the restrictions set forth in this Article 13 as reasonable and as a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement.

Notice of Assignment. Developer shall provide the City with written notice of any proposed transfer or assignment of Developer’s rights or obligations hereunder (each, an “Assignment”) at least thirty (30) days prior to such Assignment and request City’s consent to such Assignment, as provided herein. Each such notice of proposed Assignment shall be accompanied by evidence of the corporate, limited liability company or other legal entity’s existence and good standing and a proposed form of Assignee’s assumption of Developer’s obligations hereunder substantially in the form of Exhibit C, which would be recorded in the Official Records of San Joaquin County concurrent with the transfer. Developer shall pay the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed Assignment, including the costs incurred by the City Attorney’s Office.

Assignment Processing. Notwithstanding any other limitations in this Article 13, Developer may, upon provision of Notice, execution of an agreement documenting such Assignment in accordance with Section 13.2, and provision of evidence of entity formation and good standing, at any time, assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement with respect to all or any portion of the Property without the consent of City to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm, company, corporation or other entity (any of the foregoing, an “Assignee”) acquiring all or a portion of the Property.

Release of Transferring Developer. Upon a transfer of all or a portion of the Property, Developer shall be released from any further liability or obligations hereunder with respect to the portion so transferred and the Assignee shall be deemed to be the Developer under this Agreement with respect to such transferred Property as specified in the assignment and assumption agreement provided: (i) neither Developer nor Assignee is in default under this Agreement at the time of such transfer; (ii) Developer and Assignee have executed and acknowledged and delivered to City for recordation in the Official Records of the County an assignment and assumption agreement substantially in the form of Exhibit C attached hereto; and (iii) the Assignee has expressly assumed for the benefit of City the obligations of Developer as to the portion of the Property so transferred. No release of Developer shall be effective unless and until each of the above conditions have been met. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, if an Assignee Defaults under this Agreement, such Default shall not constitute a Default by Developer (or any other Assignee) with respect to any other portion of the Property hereunder and shall not entitle City to terminate or modify this Agreement with respect to such other portion of the Property.

Attachment J 1051
Partial Assignment. Subject to the limitations set forth in this Article 13, in the event of a transfer of a portion of the Property, Developer shall have the right to assign its rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement that are applicable to the transferred portion, and retain all rights, duties and obligations applicable to the retained portions of the Property.

Upon Developer’s request, City, at Developer’s expense, shall cooperate with Developer and any proposed Assignee to allocate rights, duties and obligations under this Agreement and the Project Approvals between the assigned portion of the Property and the retained Property. Assignee shall succeed to the rights, duties and obligations of Developer only with respect to the parcel or parcels, or portion of the Property so purchased, transferred, ground leased or assigned, and Developer shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement with respect to any remaining portions of the Property retained by Developer and not assigned.

Successive Assignment. In the event there is more than one Assignment under the provisions of this Article 13, the provisions of this Article 13 shall apply to each successive Assignment and Assignee.

Other Permitted Transfers. The provisions in this Article 13 shall not be deemed to prohibit or otherwise restrict Developer from (i) granting easements or licenses or modifying existing easements to facilitate development of the Property consistent with the Project Approvals; (ii) encumbering the Property or any portion hereof or of the improvements thereon by a Mortgage securing financing with respect to the Property or Project; or (iii) transferring all or a portion of the Property pursuant to a foreclosure, conveyance in lieu of foreclosure, or other remedial action in connection with a Mortgage, or to any transferee from a Mortgagee or owner of the Property upon foreclosure or after a conveyance in lieu of foreclosure.

ARTICLE 14.

DEFAULT; REMEDIES; TERMINATION
Breach and Default. Subject to Permitted Delays or by mutual consent in writing, and except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, breach of, failure, or delay by either Party to perform any term or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a “Default.” In the event of any alleged Default of any term, condition, or obligation of this Agreement, the Party alleging such Default shall give the defaulting Party notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged Default and the manner in which the Default may be satisfactorily cured (“Notice of Breach”).

The defaulting Party shall cure the Default within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Notice of Breach, provided, however, if the nature of the alleged Default is non-monetary and such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period, and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter at the earliest practicable date, shall be deemed to be a cure, provided that if the cure is not diligently prosecuted to completion, then no additional cure period shall be provided. If the alleged failure is cured within the time provided above, then no Default shall exist and the noticing Party shall take no further action to exercise any remedies available hereunder. If the alleged failure is not cured, then a Default shall exist under this Agreement and the non-defaulting Party may exercise any of the remedies available under this Agreement. Further, as provided in Section 13.6 above, following transfer of all or any portion of the Property and an assignment or a partial assignment of this Agreement to an Assignee, a Default by such Assignee under this Agreement shall not constitute a Default by Developer (or any other Assignee) and shall not entitle City to terminate Attachment J 1052
or modify this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Property retained by Developer.

Withholding of Permits. In the event of a Default by Developer (where the determination of such Default has been made by the City Council based on substantial evidence presented at a noticed public hearing), City shall have the right to refuse to issue any permit or other Subsequent Approvals to which Developer would otherwise have been entitled pursuant to this Agreement until such Default is cured. This provision is in addition to and shall not limit any actions that City may take to enforce the conditions of the Project Approvals.

Termination. In the event of a Default by a Party, the non-defaulting Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon giving notice of intent to terminate pursuant to Government Code section 65868 and regulations of City implementing such section. Following notice of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review in the manner set forth in Government Code section 65867 and City regulations implementing said section. Following consideration of the evidence presented in said review before the City Council, a Party alleging Default by the other Party may give written notice of termination of this Agreement to the other Party. Termination of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of Section 14.9. Where Developer is the defaulting Party and Developer has previously conveyed portions of the Property and partially assigned this Agreement to one or more third party transferees, City’s right to terminate this Agreement shall be limited to those portion(s) of the Property then owned by Developer.

Specific Performance for Violation of a Condition. If City issues a Project Approval pursuant to this Agreement in reliance upon a specified condition being satisfied by Developer in the future, and if Developer then fails to satisfy such condition, City, in addition to its other rights and remedies available under public improvement agreements, performance bonds or other instruments, shall be entitled to specific performance for the purpose of causing Developer to satisfy such condition.

Legal Actions.

14.5.1 Institution of Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies and subject to the limitation of damages in Section 14.7, a Party may institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy any Default, to enforce any covenants or agreements herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, or to obtain any other remedies consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Any such legal action shall be brought in the Superior Court for San Joaquin County, California, except for actions that include claims in which the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of the State of California has original jurisdiction, in which case the Eastern District of the State of California shall be the proper venue.

14.5.2 Acceptance of Service of Process. In the event that any legal action is commenced by Developer against City, service of process on City shall be made by personal service upon the City Clerk of City or in such other manner as may be provided by law. In the event that any legal action is commenced by City against Developer, service of process on Developer shall be made by personal service upon Rob Mitchell, Greenlaw Development, LLC, who is an agent of Developer for service of process, or in such other manner as may be provided by law.

Attachment J 1053
Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative, and the exercise by a Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same Default or any other Default by the other Party, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.

No Money Damages. In no event shall a Party, or its boards, commissions, officers, agents or employees, be liable in money damages, including without limitation, actual, consequential or punitive damages, for any Default under this Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed that the sole legal remedy available to a Party for a breach or violation of this Agreement by the other Party shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance or other injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, or to terminate this Agreement. This limitation on damages shall not preclude actions by a Party to enforce payments of monies or the performance of obligations requiring an obligation of money from the other Party under the terms of this Agreement including, but not limited to, obligations to pay attorneys’ fees and obligations to advance monies or reimburse monies. In connection with the foregoing provisions, each Party acknowledges, warrants and represents that it has been fully informed with respect to, and represented by counsel of such Party’s choice in connection with, the rights and remedies of such Party hereunder and the waivers herein contained, and after such advice and consultation has presently and actually intended, with full knowledge of such Party’s rights and remedies otherwise available at law or in equity, to waive and relinquish such rights and remedies to the extent specified herein, and to rely to the extent herein specified solely on the remedies provided for herein with respect to any breach of this Agreement by the other Party.

Surviving Provisions. In the event this Agreement is terminated, neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for those obligations of City and Developer set forth in Sections 9.1 and 9.2.

ARTICLE 15.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Incorporation of Recitals, Exhibits and Introductory Paragraph. The Recitals contained in this Agreement, the introductory paragraph preceding the Recitals, and the Exhibits attached hereto are incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.

Convenants Binding on Successors and Assigns and Run with Land. Except as otherwise more specifically provided in this Agreement, this Agreement and all of its provisions, rights, powers standards, terms, covenants and obligations, shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise) and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring the Property, or any interest therein, and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, as provided in Government Code Section 65868.5.

Notice. Any notice, demand or request which may be permitted, required or desired to be given in connection herewith shall be given in writing and directed to the City and Developer as follows:

Attachment J 1054
If to the City: City Clerk
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St, 1st Floor
Stockton, CA 95202
Telephone: (209) 937-8458
Email: [email protected]
with copies to: City Manager
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St, 2nd Floor
Stockton, CA 95202
Telephone: (209) 937-8212
Email: [email protected]
and: City Attorney
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St, 1st Floor
Stockton , CA 95202
Telephone: (209) 937-8333
Email: [email protected]
If to Developer: Greenlaw Development, LLC
Attention: Rob Mitchell
18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 301
Irvine, CA 92612Telephone: (949) 331-1353
Email: [email protected]
with a copy to: Thia Cochran
Cochran Law Group
18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 301
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 833-9600
Email: [email protected]
Notices are deemed effective if delivered by: (a) certified mail, return receipt requested; (b) commercial courier, with delivery to be effective upon verification of receipt; or (c) email, upon actual receipt at the email addresses listed above. Any Party may change its respective address for notices by providing written notice (including email) of such change to the other Parties.

Permitted and Litigation Related Delays.

15.4.1 Permitted Delay. Performance by either Party of an obligation hereunder shall be excused during any period of “Permitted Delay.” Permitted Delay shall mean delay beyond the reasonable control of a Party caused by (a) calamities, including without limitation earthquakes, floods, and fire; (b) civil commotion; (c) riots or terrorist acts; (d) strikes or other forms of material labor disputes; (e) shortages of materials or supplies; or (f) vandalism.

Attachment J 1055
A Party’s financial inability to perform or obtain financing or adverse economic conditions generally shall not be grounds for claiming a Permitted Delay. The Party claiming a Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party of its intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of the Permitted Delay within thirty (30) business days after the occurrence of the conditions which establish the grounds for the claim. If notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other Party more than thirty (30) days after the commencement of the cause, the period shall commence to run only thirty (30) days prior to the giving of such notice. The period of Permitted Delay shall last no longer than the conditions preventing performance. In no event shall any Permitted Delay extend the Term of this Agreement.

15.4.2 Litigation Delay. If, as a result of a Litigation Challenge, the Annexation Proceedings cannot be completed by the initial Annexation Deadline of two years following the Agreement Date as specified in Section 2.1 above, then the Annexation Deadline shall be extended for the period of the Litigation Challenge but in no event more than 12 months beyond the initial Annexation Deadline as specified in Section 2.1. If, following the Annexation Date, this Agreement or any of the Existing Approvals are still not Final as a result of a Litigation Challenge (a “Litigation Delay”), then the Initial Term of this Agreement and the time within which each Party shall be required to perform any act under this Agreement shall be extended by the period of time between the Annexation Date and the date on which the Existing Approvals and this Agreement all become Final, subject to an outside date that is 36 months after the Annexation Date, at which point there shall be no further extension of the Term as a result of any Litigation Delay, unless approved by the City Council in its sole, absolute discretion.

Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

Waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, any failures or delays by any Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any such rights or remedies, or deprive any such Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. A Party may specifically and expressly waive in writing any condition or breach of this Agreement by the other Party, but no such waiver shall constitute a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision. Consent by one Party to any act by the other Party shall not be deemed to imply consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or similar acts in the future.

Construction of Agreement. All Parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement and this Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not Attachment J 1056
exclusive; (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting; and (f) “days” means calendar days unless specifically provided otherwise.

Headings. Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement.

Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a specific situation, is found to be invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part for any reason, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect unless an essential purpose of this Agreement would be defeated by loss of the invalid or unenforceable provisions, in which case any Party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice thereof to the other Party.

Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. All references to time in this Agreement shall refer to the time in effect in the State of California.

Extension of Time Limits. The time limits set forth in this Agreement may be extended by mutual consent in writing of the Parties in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

Signatures. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of Developer and City.

Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including all exhibits attached hereto, each of which is fully incorporated herein by reference), integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and constitutes the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, representations and statements, and all prior written agreements, understandings, representations, and statements are terminated and superseded by this Agreement.

Estoppel Certificate. Developer or its lender may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the City requesting the City to certify in writing that: (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect; (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified or, if so amended or modified, identifying the amendments or modifications; and (c) Developer is not in Default of the performance of its obligations, or if in Default, to describe therein the nature and extent of any such Defaults. Developer shall pay, within thirty (30) days following receipt of City’s invoice, the actual costs borne by City in connection with its review of the proposed estoppel certificate, including the costs expended by the City Attorney’s Office in connection therewith. The Community Development Director shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Developer hereunder. The form of estoppel certificate shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Attorney. The Community Development Director shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following Developer’s request therefor. Developer and City acknowledge that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by tenants, assignees, investors, partners, bond counsel, underwriters, bond holders and Mortgagees. The request shall clearly indicate that failure of the City to respond within the thirty-day period will lead to a second and Attachment J 1057
final request. Failure to respond to the second and final request within fifteen (15) days of receipt thereof shall be deemed approval of the matters set forth in the estoppel certificate.

Recordation of Termination. Upon completion of performance of the Parties or termination of this Agreement, a written statement acknowledging such completion or termination shall be recorded by City in the Official Records of San Joaquin County.

City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by City, the City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to act on behalf of City, unless specifically provided otherwise or the context requires otherwise.

Negation of Partnership. The Parties specifically acknowledge that the Project is a private development, that no Party to this Agreement is acting as the agent of any other in any respect hereunder, and that each Party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the Parties in the businesses of Developer, the affairs of the City, or otherwise, or cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise.

No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the signatory Parties and their successors and assigns, including Mortgagees. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision in this Agreement.

Standard for Consents and Approvals. In cases where the written consent or approval of a party is required hereunder and a standard of review and/or timeline for the granting or withholding of such consent or approval is not set forth, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

Governing State Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its choice of law provisions.

Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference for all purposes as if set forth herein in full:

Exhibit A: Property Description
Exhibit B: Project Modifications Requested by County
Exhibit C: Form of Assignment and Assumption Agreement
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Attachment J 1058
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY:

CITY OF STOCKTON,
a California municipal corporation
By:
[Signature must be notarized]
ATTEST:

By:

Eliza R. Garza, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

John Luebberke, City Attorney
DEVELOPER:

By:

Name:

Its:

By:

Name:

Its:
[Signatures must be notarized]
Attachment J 1059

EXHIBIT A
[Property Description – To be Inserted]
Attachment J 1060

EXHIBIT B
[Project Modifications Requested by County – To be Inserted] Attachment J 1061

EXHIBIT C

FORM ASSIGNMENT AND

ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St, 1st Floor
Stockton , CA 95202
Attention: City Clerk
Record for the Benefit of
The City of Stockton
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 27383
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
(Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use Only)

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (“Assignment Agreement”) is entered into as of the ____ day of __________, 20__, by and among Greenlaw Development, LLC, a California limited liability company, (“Assignor”), ____________________________, a ___________________ (“Assignee”), and the City of Stockton, a municipal corporation (“City”).

R E C I T A L S
A. Assignor has entered into a Development Agreement with City effective ______________ (Recorder’s Document No. ________) (“Development Agreement”), to facilitate the development and use of that certain real property consisting of approximately 120 acres within the City of Stockton, County of San Joaquin, State of California, which is legally described in Exhibit A to the Development Agreement and shown on the map attached to the Development Agreement as Exhibit B (“Site”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Development Agreement.

B. Assignor is the fee owner of the Site, designated as APNs _____________, more particularly described in Attachment 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein (“Property”).

C. Assignor desires to transfer its interest in the Property to Assignee concurrently with execution of this Assignment Agreement and Assignee desires to so acquire such interest in the Property from Assignor.

D. Article 13 of the Development Agreement provides that Assignor may assign its rights and obligations under the Development Agreement to another party, provided that the Assignor shall have provided to City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice and provided that the assignor and the assignee document the assignment in an agreement substantially in the form of this Assignment Agreement.

Attachment J 1062
E. Assignor has provided the required written notice to City of its intent to enter into an assignment and assumption agreement as required by Section 13.2 of the Development Agreement.

F. Assignor desires to assign to Assignee and Assignee desires to assume all rights and obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement [or describe portion of rights and obligations assigned in case of partial assignment]. Upon execution of this Assignment Agreement and transfer to Assignee of legal title to the Property, Assignor desires to be released from any and all obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to the Property.

A G R E E M E N T
NOW, THEREFORE, Assignor, Assignee and City hereby agree as follows:

1. Assignment by Assignor. Assignor hereby assigns, transfers and grants to Assignee, and its successors and assigns, all of Assignor’s rights, title and interest and obligations, duties, responsibilities, conditions and restrictions under the Development Agreement with respect to the Property (collectively, “Rights and Obligations”).

2. Acceptance and Assumption by Assignee. Assignee, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby accepts such assignment and assumes all such Rights and Obligations, whether accruing before or on or after the Assignment Agreement Effective Date (defined in Section 16 below). Assignee agrees, expressly for the benefit of City, to comply with, perform and execute all of the Rights and Obligations of Developer with respect to the Property arising from or under the Development Agreement.

3. Release of Assignor. Assignee and City hereby fully release Assignor from all Rights and Obligations. Both Assignor and Assignee acknowledge that this Assignment Agreement is intended to fully assign all of Assignor’s Rights and Obligations to Assignee, and it is expressly understood that Assignor shall not retain any Rights and Obligations whatsoever with respect to the Property.

4. Substitution of Assignor. Assignee hereafter shall be substituted for and replace Assignor in the Development Agreement with respect to the Property. Whenever the term “Developer” appears in the Development Agreement with respect to the Property, it shall hereafter mean Assignee.

5. Assignor and Assignee Agreements, Indemnifications and Waivers. a. Assignee represents and warrants to City as follows:
(i) Assignee is a ____________________ duly formed within and in good standing under the laws of the State of ________________. The copies of the documents evidencing the formation of Assignee, which have been delivered to City, are true and complete copies of the originals, as Attachment J 1063
amended to the date of this Assignment Agreement. Assignee has full right, power and lawful authority to undertake all obligations as provided herein and the execution, performance and delivery of this Assignment Agreement by Assignee has been fully authorized by all requisite actions on the part of Assignee.
(ii) Assignee’s execution, delivery and performance of its obligations under this Assignment Agreement will not constitute a default or a breach under any contract, agreement or order to which Assignee is a party or by which it is bound.
(iii) Assignee has not (i) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, (ii) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Assignee’s creditors, (iii) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all, or substantially all, of Assignee’s assets, (iv) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure of all, or substantially all, of Assignee’s assets, (v) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due, or (vi) made an offer of settlement, extension or composition to its creditors generally. (iv) As of the Assignment Agreement Effective Date, Assignee will own fee simple title to the Property.
b. Assignor and Assignee hereby acknowledge and agree that the City has not made, and will not make, any representation or warranty that the assignment and assumption of the Development Agreement provided for hereunder will have any particular tax implications for Assignor or Assignee.
c. Assignor and Assignee each hereby waives and releases and each hereby agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all damages, liabilities, causes of action, claims or potential claims against City (including attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of this Assignment Agreement.
d. Assignor acknowledges and agrees that the Rights and Obligations with respect to the Property have been fully assigned to Assignee by this Assignment Agreement and, accordingly, that Assignee shall have the exclusive right to assert any claims against City with respect to such Rights and Obligations. Accordingly, without limiting any claims of Assignee under the Development Agreement, Assignor hereby waives any claims or potential claims by Assignor against City to the extent arising solely out of the Rights and Obligations with respect to the Property.

6. Development Agreement in Full Force and Effect. Except as specifically provided herein with respect to the assignment, all the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of the Development Agreement are hereby ratified and shall remain in full force and effect.

Attachment J 1064

7. Recording. Assignor shall cause this Assignment Agreement to be recorded in the Official Records of San Joaquin County, California, and shall promptly provide conformed copies of the recorded Assignment Agreement to Assignee and City.

8. Successors and Assigns. Subject to the restrictions on transfer set forth in the Development Agreement, all of the terms, covenants, conditions and provisions of this Assignment Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns, pursuant to Article 13 and Section 15.2 of the Development Agreement.

9. Assignee Address for Notices. The address of Assignee for the purpose of notices, demands and communications under Section 15.3 of the Development Agreement shall be:
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
Attention: ______________________
Telephone: _____________________
With a copy to: _______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
Attention: ______________________
Telephone: _____________________

10. Applicable Law/Venue. This Assignment Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to its choice of law provisions. Any legal actions under this Assignment Agreement shall be brought only in the Superior Court of the County of San Joaquin State of California.

11. Interpretation. All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Assignment Agreement and this Assignment Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Assignment Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; and (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting.

12. Headings. Section headings in this Assignment Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions of this Assignment Agreement.

Attachment J 1065

13. Severability. Except as otherwise provided herein, if any provision(s) of this Assignment Agreement is (are) held invalid, the remainder of this Assignment Agreement shall not be affected, except as necessarily required by the invalid provisions, and shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties.

14. Counterparts. This Assignment Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to constitute an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument, with the same effect as if all of the parties to this Assignment Agreement had executed the same counterpart.

15. City Consent. City is executing this Assignment Agreement for the limited purpose of consenting to the assignment and assumption and clarifying that there is privity of contract between City, on the one hand, and Assignee on the other, with respect to the Development Agreement.

16. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Assignment Agreement shall be the date upon which Assignee obtains fee title to or a ground lease for the Property and Assignor delivers evidence of the transfer to City (“Assignment Agreement Effective Date”). For the purposes of this Section, the evidence of transfer shall consist of a duly recorded deed or ground lease, and title report.
[SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON SEPARATE PAGES]
Attachment J 1066
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Assignor, Assignee and City have entered into this Assignment Agreement as of the date first above written.

ASSIGNOR
_____________________________, a
_______________________________
By:

Name:

Its:
[Signature must be notarized]
By:

Name:

Its:
[Signature must be notarized]

ASSIGNEE
___________________________________, a
_______________________________________
By:

Name:

Its:
[Signature must be notarized]
By:

Name:

Its:
[Signature must be notarized]
[SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]
Attachment J 1067
CITY
CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal corporation
By:
_______________________, City Manager
[Signature must be notarized]
ATTEST:

By:
__________________, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:
________________, City Attorney
Attachment J 1068
A
A

EAST MARIPOSA ROAD

CLARK DRIVE

MARFARGOA ROAD NORTH LITTLE JOHNS CREEK

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
BY
JOB NO.

SCALE
DATE

MBE / JTQ
A20631-3
APRIL, 2022
SHEET
250 Cherry Lane, Suite 107, 208 Manteca, CA 95337Phone: (209) 328-1123 www.kierwright.com

REQUESTED BY

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

AS SHOWN
1 OF 2
NORTH
EXHIBIT "B"
Attachment J 1069

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
PROJECT MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED BY AS SHOWN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 2 OF 2 BYJOB NO. DATE MBE / JTQ A20631-1 APRIL, 2022 SHEET SCALE 250 Cherry Lane, Suite 107, 208 Manteca, CA 95337 Phone: (209) 328-1123 www.kierwright.com 10' TALL LANDSCAPED BERM A EXHIBIT "B" · · · 60' NO TRUCK ZONE THERE SHALL BE NO TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS ALLOWED WITHIN THE 60' NO TRUCK ZONE. THE BERM AND WALL DEPICTED ON THIS EXHIBIT B SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE OCCUPANCY OF ANY STRUCTURES ON THE PROJECT SITE. NO TRUCK TRAILER CIRCULATION OR PARKING SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE 60' NO TRUCK ZONE DEPICTED ON THIS EXHIBIT B.

Attachment J
1070
Attachment K 1071
Attachment K 1072
Attachment K 1073
Attachment K 1074
Attachment K 1075
Attachment K 1076
Attachment K 1077
Attachment K 1078
FIGURE -7: 10-YEAR PLANNING HORIZON ANNEXATION AREAS
Source: City of Stockton, 2016 Placeworks, revised February 22, 2022 Attachment L 1079
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2020120283), STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 5110, 5150, 5268, 5280, AND 5290 MARIPOSA ROAD, 4500 EAST CLARK ROAD, AND 4600 AND 4610 MARFARGOA DRIVE (APPLICATION NO. P20-0805)
On October 19, 2020, the applicant, Greenlaw Partners, LLC submitted a request for a Development Agreement and Prezoning of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 179- 220-10; -11; -12; -13; -16; -17; -18; -19; -24 to the Industrial, Limited (IL) zoning designation for the purposes of future industrial development. The nine (9) legal parcels combined total approximately 203.48 acres and would be developed for future industrial and warehouse uses. While the design and size of the future buildings will be determined in the subsequent Site Plan Review and Design Review processes required prior to construction, at full buildout, these facilities could total approximately 3.6 million square feet distributed amongst seven (7) buildings; and
On December 14, 2020, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for public review and comment, to evaluate if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the project, and what should be evaluated. The State Clearinghouse subsequently transmitted the NOP to State agencies on December 16, 2020. The City’s NOP period closed on January 12, 2021, and the State Clearinghouse review period closed on January 14, 2021; and
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and distributed locally and through the State Clearinghouse for agency and public comments between August 24, 2021, through October 7, 2021. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts which could occur from development of the Project, and where feasible, application of mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant; and
The Draft EIR addressed environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project that are known to the City, and that were raised during the NOP process, or that were raised during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR discussed potentially significant impacts associated with; Aesthetics and Visual Resources; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Noise; and Transportation.

After analysis, mitigation measures were applied to lessen any significant impacts that resulted from the annexation and prezone request; and
1080
No new significant environmental impacts or issues, beyond those already covered in the Mariposa Industrial Park DEIR, were raised during the 45-day comment period. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or add “significantly new information” that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088, all substantive comments are responded to in the Final EIR. Comments received were from; and
A total of six (6) written communications, were received during the review period, from: the California Air Resources Board, received October 8, 2021; the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, received October 7, 2021; the California Department of Justice, received October 7, 2021, the Montezuma Fire District, received January 7, 2022; the San Joaquin County, received January 7, 2022; and the Sierra Club, Motherlode Chapter, received January 17, 2022; and
Each of the comments has been responded to by the City’s environmental consultant as part of the Final EIR, and, where appropriate, modifications have been made to the Draft EIR. Most impact issue areas will be less than significant with mitigation. For this, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has also been prepared; and
The Draft EIR also determined that there are six (6) potential environmental effects of the Mariposa Industrial Park Project, that are potentially significant and unavoidable, or cannot be mitigated to a Less than Significant or substantially reduced by the available mitigation measures documented in the EIR, and that require a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). The SOC describes the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological and/or other benefits or considerations that warrant the City Council’s decision to approve the project, even though all the environmental effects of the project are not fully mitigated; and The significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SOC relate to Agricultural Land Conversion, impacts to Air Quality Plans and Standards, Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Criteria Pollutants, Project Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions, Increase in Noise Levels in Excess of Standards related to Traffic, and Impact of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Because no other feasible mitigation measures are available for these items, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with supportive findings; and
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15092, 15093, and 15094, the Planning Commission must consider the EIR before acting on the Project. An approval recommendation to certify the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations is presented, including the adoption of a corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Planning Commission is requested to make a recommendation to the City Council to certify the EIR and adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations per the CEQA Findings; and
1081
On March 10, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application, in compliance with SMC Section 16.88.040, at which point all persons wishing to be heard were provided such opportunity; and At the March 10, 2022, public hearing, and prior to acting on this request, the Planning Commission considered and recommended certification of an EIR (SCH #2020120283) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
On April 19, 2022, the City Council convened a public hearing regarding the Planning Commission’s decision. In such meeting, the City Council considered the requested recommendations of the Planning Commission based on the findings indicated in said resolution; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference.

2. Based on its review of the entire record herein, the City Council finds:
a. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. The Draft EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts which could occur from development of the Project, and, where feasible, application of mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant.
c. Potentially significant environmental impacts identified where mitigation measures were not feasible, resulting in the creation of potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Most potentially significant effects were identified and paired with feasible mitigation measures to reduce them to less than significant levels.
d. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is needed to accommodate the six (6) significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SOC relating to 1) Agricultural Land Conversion, 2) Air Quality Plans and Standards, 3) Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Criteria Pollutants, 4) Project Greenhouse Gas Construction Emissions, 5) an Increase in Noise Levels in Excess of Standards related to Traffic, and 6) the Impact of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Because no other feasible mitigation measures are available for these items, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with supportive findings. 1082
(1) Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the March 10, 2022 Planning Commission staff report, all supporting, referenced, and incorporated documents, and all comments received, the City Council finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Mariposa Industrial Park project (SCH #2020120283) has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 16.88.040 (Environmental Determination); and (2) The City Council finds that the EIR has been presented to it, that the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR and has considered the information contained in the EIR prior to recommending certification to the City Council on the proposed Project, and that the EIR reflects the City Council and Planning Commission’s independent judgement and analysis; and
(3) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, and in support of approval of the Project, the City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report, attached as Exhibit 1, including its accompanying Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit 2, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein; and
,
(4) The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Department, upon approval of the Project, to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of San Joaquin County and State Office of Planning and Research pursuant to CEQA section 21152; and
(5) Pursuant to CEQA section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based are located in and may be obtained from, the Office of the City Clerk at 425 N. El Dorado Street, 1st Floor, Stockton, CA 95202; the City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED April 19, 2022 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
1083


































!! !!#"





!#

!!!


 



















&'(











,(%#%

!%#,"
,&* +%))

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1084







































!! !!#"





!#

!!!


 



















&'(











,(%#%

!%#,"
,&* +%))


 












+#%









,(%'#

!%#,"
%%' +%$&

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1085
'



 


%#


+0.,"1!0',+




.,(#!0
+"

2#.2'#3






.,!#//'+%
+"
'+)






#.0'$'!0',+
+"
'+"'+%/



#2'/#"

1**.5
,$





.,(#!0
#/!.'-0',+




+2'.,+*#+0)
*-!0/
+"
'0'%0',+
#/1.#/





,**#+0/
+"
,+!#.+/





1**.5
,$

)0#.+0'2#/





'%+'$'!+0
+"

+2,'" )#
+2'.,+*#+0)
*-!0/






1**.5
,$
0&#.


//1#/



,**#+0/
,+
.$0

+"
#"

%#+!5
#/-,+/#/
0,
,**#+0/




.$0

..0







1 )'!
#2'#3
0#.')



#2'/#"
),"
#-,.0


.,-,/#"
#/0

2') )#

'.
1)'05
'0'%0',+
#/1.#/


#2'/#"

.$$'!
*-!0

01"5









#%',+)
,!0',+
-






-





#.')
&,0,




.,(#!0

.#
+"1/0.')
#2#),-*#+0



Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1086
''


.,-,/#"

++#40',+
+"
.#6,+'+%




,+!#-01)

'0#
)+











#2'/#"

1**.5
,$
*-!0/
+"
'0'%0',+
#/1.#/



Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1087
















 











(23=
38+6
8@3<987/8>+6

7:+->
&/:9<>
38+6

&
./=-<3,/=
>2/
:9>/8>3+6
/8@3<987/8>+6

37:+->=
>2+>
A9?6.
</=?6>
0<97
3>C
90
'>9-5>98
3>C
+::<9@+6
+8.
=?,=/;?/8>
./@/69:7/8>
90
>2/
:<9:9=/.
!+<3:9=+

8.?=><3+6
$+<5
:<94/->
(2/

&
/@+6?+>/=
>2/

:9>/8>3+6
/8@3<987/8>+6
/00/->=
90
>2/
:<9:9=/.
+88/B+>398
+8.
38.?=><3+6
./@/69:7/8>
90
>2/
:<94/->
=3>/
A23-2
-98=3=>=
90
838/
:+<-/6=
90
6+8.
>9>+6381


+-</=
(2/
=3>/
3=

-?<</8>6C
38
>2/
?838-9<:9<+>/.
+</+
90
'+8
9+;?38
9?8>C
+.4+-/8>
>9
>2/
=9?>2/+=>/<8
'>9-5>98
-3>C
6373>=
31?</=



>2<9?12





98-/:>?+6
:6+8=
09<
38.?=><3+6
./@/69:7/8>
38@96@/
=/@/8
E2312-?,/F
A+</29?=/=
A3>2
+
>9>+6
0699<
+</+
90




=;?+</
0//>
+6981
A3>2
:+<5381
=>+66=
+==9-3+>/.
?>363>C
380<+=><?->?</
+8.
@/23-?6+<
+--/==
/B>/8./.
0<97
!+<3:9=+
&9+.
98>9
>2/
=3>/
(2/
:<94/->
A9?6.
</;?3</
.3=-</>398+<C
+::<9@+6=
0<97
>2/
3>C
90
'>9-5>98
-98=3=>381
90
+?>29<3D+>398
>9
+::6C
>9
>2/
'+8
9+;?38
9-+6
1/8-C
9<7+>398
9773==398
 9
09<
+88/B+>398
:</D98381
>/8>+>3@/
=?,.3@3=398
7+:
+8.
+
./@/69:7/8>
+1<//7/8>
(2/
:<94/->
A9?6.
+6=9
</;?3</
=3>/
:6+8
</@3/A
+8.
./=318
</@3/A
+::<9@+6=
A23-2
9--?<
+>
>2/
=>+00
6/@/6
+8.
+</
7383=>/<3+6
9
A366
,/
</=:98=3,6/
09<
-98=3./<+>398
+8.
+::<9@+6
90
>2/
+88/B+>398


%

?3./638/=
'/->398



,
</;?3</=
>2+>
>2/
:<94/->
./=-<3:>398
-98>+38
+
-6/+<6C
A<3>>/8
=>+>/7/8>
90
:<94/->
9,4/->3@/=
38-6?.381
>2/
:?<:9=/
90
>2/
:<94/->
(2/
=>+>/7/8>
90
:<94/->
9,4/->3@/=
3=
+8
37:9<>+8>
./>/<738+8>
09<
>2/
6/+.
+1/8-C
A2/8
3>
./@/69:=
+
</+=98+,6/
<+81/
90
+6>/<8+>3@/=
>9
/@+6?+>/
38
>2/

&


(2/
:<37+<C
:<3@+>/
+8.
:?,63-=/->9<
9,4/->3@/=
09<
>2/
:<9:9=/.
:<94/->
38-6?./
• /@/69:7/8>
90
+::<9B37+>/6C


7366398
=;?+</
0//>
90
38.?=><3+6
=:+-/
09<

6/+=381
>9
@+<39?=
:9>/8>3+6
>/8+8>=
>91/>2/<
A3>2
+==9-3+>/.
=3>/
+8.
?>363>C
37:<9@/7/8>=

• (9
:<9@3./
09<
38.?=><3+6
./@/69:7/8>
90
>2/
=3>/
+=
-98>/7:6+>/.
,C
>2/
'>9-5>98

/8/<+6
$6+8



'>9-5>98

/8/<+6
$6+8
$963-C
)

/8-9?<+1/=
6+<1/=-+6/

./@/69:7/8>
:<9:9=+6=
38
+::<9:<3+>/
69-+>398=
>2+>
38-6?./
=318303-+8>
8?7,/<=
90
2312/<A+1/
49,=
+8.
69-+6
</@/8?/
1/8/<+>398


• (9
>+5/
+.@+8>+1/
90
/B3=>381
./@/69:7/8></+.C
380<+=><?->?</
+8.
:<9@3./
09<
:<94/->
./=318
06/B3,363>C
38
>2/
+669A+,6/
8?7,/<
+8.
=3D/
90
:+<-/6=
+8.
38.?=><3+6
=><?->?</=
>2/</,C
7+B373D381
>2/
38.?=><3+6
./@/69:7/8>
:9>/8>3+6
90
>2/
=3>/
• (9
-97:6C
A3>2
>2/
8+>?<+6
</=9?<-/
7+8+1/7/8>
9,4/->3@/=
90
>2/
'>9-5>98

/8/<+6
$6+8



,C
:6+-381
8/A
38.?=><3+6
./@/69:7/8>
38
+8
+</+
A2/</
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1088

















:9>/8>3+6
37:+->=
>9
=/8=3>3@/
8+>?<+6
</=9?<-/=
+</
9<
-+8
,/
</.?-/.
9<
+@93./.
>2<9?12
=3>/
./=318
./@/69:7/8>
:2+=381
+8.
6+8.=-+:381
?<381
+8.
+0>/<
>2/
-?<</8>
/8@3<987/8>+6
</@3/A
:<9-/==
09<
>2/
:<94/->
3>
3=
+8>3-3:+>/.
>2+>
:9>/8>3+6
>/8+8>=
+8.
>/8+8>=:/-303-
=3>/
./@/69:7/8>
:6+8=
09<
>2/
=3>/
9<
:9<>398=
90
>2/
=3>/
A366
,/
1/8/<+>/.
+8.
=?,73>>/.
>9
>2/
3>C
90
'>9-5>98
09<
=3>/
:6+8
+8.
./=318
</@3/A
+::<9@+6
(2/
=?,=/;?/8>
+::63-+>398=
A366
</;?3</
-98=3./<+>398
?8./<
>2/
+6309<83+
8@3<987/8>+6
%?+63>C
->
%
38-6?.381
A2/>2/<
9<
89>
>2/
:9>/8>3+6
/8@3<987/8>+6
/00/->=
90
>2/
>/8+8>=G
:<94/->=
+</
+./;?+>/6C
+..</==/.
,C
>23=
38+6
 &














(23=

&
2+=
,//8
:</:+</.
38
+--9<.+8-/
A3>2
>2/
</;?3</7/8>=
90
%
+8.
>2/
'>+>/
%

?3./638/=
(2/
3>C
90
'>9-5>98
3=
>2/
E6/+.
+1/8-CF
09<
>2/
:<9:9=/.
:<94/->
(2/
3>C
./>/<738/.
>2+>
+8

&
A9?6.
,/
</;?3</.
09<
>2/
:<94/->
+8.
</6/+=/.
+
"9>3-/
90
$</:+<+>398
"#$
98
/-/7,/<



09<
+1/8-C
+8.
:?,63-
</@3/A
(2/
'>+>/

6/+<38129?=/
=?,=/;?/8>6C
><+8=73>>/.
>2/
"#$
>9
'>+>/
+1/8-3/=
98
/-/7,/<


(2/
3>CG=
"#$
-977/8>
:/<39.
-69=/.
98
+8?+<C




+8.
>2/
'>+>/
6/+<38129?=/

</@3/A
:/<39.
-69=/.
98
+8?+<C






-9:C
90
>2/
"#$
+8.
+>>+-27/8>
+</
38-6?./.

38
::/8.3B

90
>2/
<+0>

&

(2/
3>C
:</:+</.
+
<+0>

&
>2/
$?,63-
&/@3/A
<+0>

&
.+>/.
?1?=>




>2+>

3./8>303/.
>2/
:9>/8>3+6
/8@3<987/8>+6
/00/->=
90
>2/
:<94/->
(2/
<+0>
 &
A+=
.3=><3,?>/.

69-+66C
+8.
>2<9?12
>2/
'>+>/
6/+<38129?=/
'





09<
+1/8-C
+8.
:?,63-

-977/8>
,/>A//8
?1?=>



>2<9?12
#->9,/<



(2/
<+0>

&
.3=><3,?>398

63=>
6/1+6
89>3-/=
+8.
9>2/<
3809<7+>398
</6+>/.
>9
>2/
:?,63-
</@3/A
:/<39.
09<
>2/
<+0>

&
+</
=29A8
38
::/8.3B

90
>23=
.9-?7/8>
$?,63-
+8.
+1/8-C
-977/8>=
</-/3@/.
,C
>2/
3>C
.?<381
>2/
:?,63-
</@3/A
:/<39.
>91/>2/<
A3>2
>2/
3>CG=
</=:98=/=
>9
>2/=/
-977/8>=
+</
=29A8
38
2+:>/<



90
>23=
.9-?7/8>

-977/8>
6/>>/<
0<97
>2/

+6309<83+
3<
&/=9?<-/=
98><96
9+<.
</-/3@/.
+0>/<
>2/
-69=/
90
>2/
</@3/A
:/<39.
3=
+..</==/.
38
>2/
=+7/
A+C

(23=
38+6

&
2+=
,//8
:</:+</.
:?<=?+8>
>9
>2/
</;?3</7/8>=
90
%
+8.
>2/
%

?3./638/=

%

?3./638/=
'/->398



=:/-303/=
>2/
-98>/8>
90
+
38+6

&
+=



• (2/
<+0>

&
9<
+
</@3=398
90
>2/
.<+0>

• 977/8>=
+8.
</-977/8.+>398=
</-/3@/.
98
>2/
<+0>

&
/3>2/<
@/<,+>37
9<
38

=?77+<C

• 
63=>
90
:/<=98=
9<1+83D+>398=
+8.
>2/
:?,63-
+1/8-3/=
-977/8>381
98
>2/
<+0>

&

• (2/
</=:98=/=
90
>2/
/+.
1/8-C
>9
=318303-+8>
/8@3<987/8>+6
:938>=
<+3=/.
38
>2/
</@3/A
+8.
-98=?6>+>398
:<9-/==
+8.

• 8C
9>2/<
3809<7+>398
+../.
,C
>2/
/+.
1/8-C
(23=
38-6?./=
+..3>398+6
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1089

















>/-283-+6
3809<7+>398
9<
-6+<303-+>398
>9
>2/
<+0>

&
=?,73>>/.
,C
3>C
=>+00



(2/
38+6

&
:<9@3./=
>2/
3809<7+>398
</;?3</.
,C
>2/
%

?3./638/=
(23=
'/->398



./=-<3,/=
>2/
:?<:9=/
+8.
09<7+>
90
>2/
38+6

&

'/->398



=?77+<3D/=
>2/
$?,63-

&/@3/A
<+0>

&
+=
79.303/.
38
</=:98=/
>9
-977/8>=
98
>2/
<+0>

&
'/->398



63=>=

>2/
-977/8>=
</1+<.381
>2/
$?,63-
&/@3/A
<+0>

&
+=
</-/3@/.
,C
>2/
3>C
'/->398




=29A=
>2/
/8>3</
>/B>
90
/+-2
-977/8>
+8.
:<9@3./=
>2/
3>CG=
</=:98=/
>9
/+-2
90
>2/
=?,=>+8>3@/
/8@3<987/8>+6
-98-/<8=
3./8>303/.
38
>2/
-977/8>=
'/->398

<<+>+

./=-<3,/=
+8C
</;?3</.
-9<</->398=
+8.
-2+81/=
>9
>2/
$?,63-
&/@3/A
<+0>
 &
38-6?.381

-2+81/=
38
</=:98=/
>9
:?,63-
+8.
+1/8-C
-977/8>=
+8.
+8C
9>2/<
</@3=398=
9<3138+>381
A3>2
3>C
=>+00

::/8.3B

.3=:6+C=
-9:3/=
90
>2/
"9>3-/
90
@+36+,363>C
90
>2/
$?,63-
&/@3/A
<+0>

&
>2/
.3=><3,?>398
63=>
09<
>2/

&
:?,63-
89>3-/
>2/
"9>3-/
90
97:6/>398

+8.
9>2/<
7+>/<3+6
</6+>/.
>9
>2/
:?,63-
</@3/A
90
>2/
 &


(2/
$?,63-
&/@3/A
<+0>

&
-3>/.
,/69A
3=
2/</,C
38-9<:9<+>/.
,C
</0/</8-/

9:3/=
90
>2/
<+0>

&
+</
+@+36+,6/
09<
</@3/A
+>
>2/
3>C
90
'>9-5>98
977?83>C
/@/69:7/8>
/:+<>7/8>


"
6
9<+.9
'><//>
'>9-5>98







$?,63-
&/@3/A
<+0>
8@3<987/8>+6

7:+->
&/:9<>
09<
>2/
!+<3:9=+

8.?=><3+6
$+<5

$<94/->
'>9-5>98

?1?=>




$</:+</.
09<
3>C
90
'>9-5>98
/:+<>7/8>

90
977?83>C
/@/69:7/8>


"
6
9<+.9
'><//>
'>9-5>98





$</:+</.
,C
+=/+7:
8@3<987/8>+6

8-


*/=>
9.3
@/8?/
9.3






'>+>/
6/+<38129?=/
"?7,/<














'/->398=




>2<9?12




90
>2/
%

?3./638/=
9?>638/
:<9-/.?</=
09<
./-3=398
7+5381
,C
>2/
/+.
1/8-C
>2/
3>C
90
'>9-5>98
A2/8
+8
 &
2+=
,//8
:</:+</.
/09</

>+5381
+->398
98
>2/
:<94/->
>2/
3>C
7?=>
03<=>
-/<>30C
>2+>
>2/
 &
3=
+./;?+>/
?8./<

%
(2/8
38
-984?8->398
A3>2
3>=
./-3=398
98
>2/
:<94/->
>2/
3>C
7?=>
7+5/
=:/-303-
038.381=
A3>2
</=:/->
>9
/+-2
90
>2/
=318303-+8>
/8@3<987/8>+6
/00/->=
3./8>303/.
38
>2/
 &

?3./638/=
09<
>2/
-/<>303-+>398
90
+8

&
%

?3./638/=
'/->398




</;?3</
>2+>

>2/
/+.
1/8-C
-/<>30C
>2+>


>2/
38+6

&
2+=
,//8
-97:6/>/.
38
-97:63+8-/
A3>2

%


>2+>
>2/
38+6

&
A+=
:</=/8>/.
>9
>2/
./-3=3987+5381
,9.C
90
>2/
/+.
1/8-C
+8.
>2/
./-3=3987+5381
,9.C
</@3/A/.
+8.
-98=3./</.
>2/
3809<7+>398
-98>+38/.
38
>2/
38+6

&
:<39<
>9
+
./-3=398
98
>2/
:<94/->
+8.


>2+>
>2/
38+6

&
</06/->=
>2/

/+.
1/8-CG=
38./:/8./8>
4?.17/8>
+8.
+8+6C=3=


(2/

&
3=
38>/8./.
,C
%
>9
,/
+8
3809<7+>398+6
.9-?7/8>
%
?3./638/=
'/->398




/-3=3987+5381
98
>2/
:<94/->
38
</6+>398
>9
3>=
/8@3<987/8>+6
37:+->=
3=
</=/<@/.
>9
>2/
/+.
1/8-C
+8.
+8C
&/=:98=3,6/
1/8-3/=
98=/;?/8>6C
3809<7+>398
38
>2/
 &

.9/=
89>
6373>
>2/
/+.
1/8-C=
?6>37+>/
.3=-</>398
98
>2/
:<94/->
,?>
+=
89>/.
>2/
/+.
1/8-C
7?=>
+..</==
/+-2
=318303-+8>
/00/->
3./8>303/.
38
>2/
 &
38
A<3>>/8
038.381=
,/09</

>2/C
+::<9@/
>2/
:<94/->
9<
:9<>398=
90
>2/
:<94/->
%
?3./638/=
'/->398





(2/=/
038.381=
+</
-98>+38/.
38
+
=/:+<+>/
.9-?7/8>
>2+>
+--97:+83/=
>23=
38+6
 &
(2/

:9==3,6/
038.381=
+</

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1090


















2+81/=
9<
+6>/<+>398=
2+@/
,//8
</;?3</.
38
9<
38-9<:9<+>/.
38>9
>2/
:<94/->
A23-2
+@93.
9<
=?,=>+8>3+66C
6/==/8
>2/
=318303-+8>
/8@3<987/8>+6
/00/->
+=
3./8>303/.
38
>2/
38+6

&
3/
>2/
37:+->
2+=
,//8
E73>31+>/.F
(23=
038.381
A366
,/
A3./6C
+::63-+,6/
38
>2/
:<94/->
038.381=
+=
79=>
90
>2/
=318303-+8>
/00/->=
90
>2/
:<94/->
A9?6.
,/
</.?-/.
>9
6/==
>2+8
=318303-+8>
A3>2
73>31+>398
7/+=?</=


'?-2
-2+81/=
9<
+6>/<+>398=
+</
A3>238
>2/
</=:98=3,363>C
+8.
4?<3=.3->398
90
+89>2/<
:?,63-
+1/8-C
+8.
89>
>2/
+1/8-C
7+5381
>2/
038.381

'?-2
-2+81/=
2+@/
,//8
+.9:>/.
,C
=?-2
9>2/<
+1/8-C
9<
-+8
+8.
=29?6.
,/
+.9:>/.
,C
=?-2
9>2/<
+1/8-C
3/
73>31+>398
3=
>2/
</=:98=3,363>C
90
+8
+1/8-C
9>2/<
>2+8
>2/
3>C
90
'>9-5>98

(23=
038.381
3=
89>
+::63/.
>9
+8C
90
>2/
=318303-+8>
/00/->=
90
>2/
:<94/->


':/-303-
/-98973-
6/1+6
=9-3+6
>/-2896913-+6
9<
9>2/<
-98=3./<+>398=
38-6?.381
:<9@3=398
90
/7:69C7/8>
9::9<>?83>3/=
09<
23126C
><+38/.
A9<5/<=
7+5/
380/+=3,6/
>2/
73>31+>398
7/+=?</=
9<
:<94/->
+6>/<8+>3@/=
3./8>303/.
38
>2/
38+6
 &
3/
>2/

37:+->
3=
+--/:>+,6/
,/-+?=/
>2/
:<94/->G=
,/8/03>=
9?>A/312
3>
8
>23=
-+=/
>2/

:<94/->
38@96@/=
98/
9<
79</
=318303-+8>
/00/->=
>2+>
-+889>
,/
</.?-/.
>9
+
6/==
>2+8
=318303-+8>
6/@/6
+8.
+
'>+>/7/8>
90
#@/<<3.381
98=3./<+>398=
A366
,/
8/-/==+<C

8
>2/
/@/8>
>2+>
>2/
3>C
A3=2/=
>9
+::<9@/
+
:<94/->
A3>29?>
:<[email protected]
=?,=>+8>3+6
73>31+>398
09<
+66
3>=
=318303-+8>
37:+->=
90
>2/
:<94/->
3/
30
>2/
=/-98.
9<
>23<.
038.381
9:>398=
+</
?>363D/.
>2/8
%

?3./638/=
'/->398




+669A=
>2/
./-3=3987+5/<=
>9

,+6+8-/
>2/
:<94/->G=
,/8/03>=
+1+38=>
3>=
?8+@93.+,6/
/8@3<987/8>+6
<3=5=
(23=
./-3=398
7?=>
,/
.9-?7/8>/.
38
+
'>+>/7/8>
90
#@/<<3.381
98=3./<+>398=
+8.
+.9:>/.
,C
>2/
:<94/->
./-3=3987+5/<=
(2/
%
038.381=
09<
>2/
:<94/->
+=
89>/.
+,9@/
38-6?./
+
'>+>/7/8>
90
#@/<<3.381
98=3./<+>398



=
+
:+<>
90
>2/
:<94/->
-98=3./<+>398
+8.
+::<9@+6
:<9-/==
./=-<3,/.
+,9@/
>2/
3>C
7?=>
+6=9
+.9:>
+
73>31+>398
7983>9<381
+8. 9<
</:9<>381
:<91<+7
%
?3./638/=
'/->398



(2/
73>31+>398
7983>9<381 </:9<>381
:<91<+7
3=
</;?3</.
>9
/8=?</
>2+>
>2/
73>31+>398
7/+=?</=
+8.
:<94/->
</@3=398=
3./8>303/.
38
>2/
 &
+</
37:6/7/8>/.
(2/

7/+=?</=
+8.
</@3=398=
./=-<3,/.
38
>2/

&
+</
0?66C
/809<-/+,6/
>2<9?12
:/<73>

-98.3>398=
+1<//7/8>=
9<
9>2/<
7/+=?</=
(2/
73>31+>398
7983>9<381 </:9<>381
:<91<+7
09<
>23=
:<94/->
3=
-98>+38/.
38
+
=/:+<+>/
.9-?7/8>
>2+>
+--97:+83/=
>23=
38+6
 &






Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1091
BaseCamp
Figure 1-1
BaseCamp Environmental REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Humboldt
S Bb
Kern San Luis
Obispo
Inyo
Tulare
Kings Monterey
Fresno
San
Benito
Mono
Madera
Mariposa
Tuolumne
Calaveras
Amador
El Dorado
Sacramento
Alpine
Santa
Clara
San
Joaquin
Contra
Costa
Merced
Marin
Napa
Yolo
Solano
Sutter
Placer
Nevada
Sierra
Plumas
Glenn Butte
Lake
Mendocino
Shasta Lassen
Tehama
Trinity
Colusa Yuba
Sonoma
Stanislaus Alameda
Santa Cruz
San Mateo
San Francisco
Ke San Luis
Obispo
Inyo
Tulare
Kings y

PROJECT LOCATION
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1092
Figure 1-2
USGS MAP BaseCamp Environmental
SOURCE: USGS Quadrangle Map, Stockton East, 2018. The project site is located in Township 1 N, Range 7 East and Sections 59 and 69 of the USGS Map.

PROJECT SITE
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1093
BaseCamp
Figure 1-3
BaseCamp Environmental AERIAL PHOTO
BaseCamp
SOURCE: Google Maps

PROJECT SITE
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1094
Figure 1-4
PROJECT AREA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BaseCamp Environmental LEGEND
Existing Industrial
Approved Industrial
Institutional

PROJECT SITE
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1095

























'12<
,1*9=.;
8/
=1.
27*5

%
+.0277270
@2=1
&.,=287



+.58@
2<
*
?.;+*=26

;.9;8->,=287
8/
1*9=.;


8/
=1.
;*/=

%

'12<
,1*9=.;
,87=*27<
*
<>66*;B
8/
=1.

9;83.,=
-.<,;29=287
=1.
98=.7=2*5
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
*7-
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
*<<8,2*=.-
@2=1
=1.
9;83.,=
*7-
=1.
*5=.;7*=2?.<
,87<2-.;.-
27
=1.
;*/=
 %



'1.
;*/=

%
1*<
+..7
<>+3.,=
=8
6278;
;.?2<287<
27
,873>7,=287
@2=1
=1.
2=BF<
,87<2-.;*=287
8/
*7-
;.<987<.
=8
=1.
,866.7=<
;.,.2?.-
/;86
*0.7,2.<
*7-
=1.
9>+52,
87
=1.
;*/=

%

'1.<.
;.?2<287<
*;.
-.=*25.-
27
1*9=.;


8/
=12<
27*5

%
*7B
8/
=18<.

;.?2<287<
=1*=
27?85?.
,1*70.<
=8
=1.
<2072/2,*7=
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
62=20*=287

6.*<>;.<
8;
*5=.;7*=2?.<
*<
=1.B
@.;.
-.<,;2+.-
27
=1.
&>66*;B
8/
=1.
;*/=
 %

1*9=.;

 
*;.
<18@7
27
'*+5.



5*=.;
27
=12<
,1*9=.;
27
>7-.;527.
*7-8;
<=;24.8>=
*<
*99;89;2*=.








'1.
*;298<*

7-><=;2*5
#*;4
9;83.,=
9;898<.<
=8
-.?.589
*
<2=.
,87<2<=270
8/
727.
9*;,.5<
=8=*5270



*,;.<
/8;
5201=
27-><=;2*5
5*7-
><.<
*<
,87,.9=>*55B
-./27.-
=1.
5*7-
><.<
@8>5-
,87<2<=
8/
D1201,>+.E
@*;.18><.<

D1201,>+.
@*;.18><.E
=B92,*55B
1*<
*=
5.*<=


0;8<<
<:>*;.
/..=
8/
/588;
*;.*
*7-
1*<
*
,.25270
1.201=
8/
*99;8A26*=.5B

/..=

8;
68;.
=1.
@*;.18><.<
*;.
><.-
9;26*;25B
/8;
=1.
<=8;*0.
*7-8;
,87<852-*=287
8/
6*7>/*,=>;.-
088-<
*7-
27
<86.
,*<.<
;*@
6*=.;2*5<
9;28;
=8
=1.2;
-2<=;2+>=287
=8
;.=*25
58,*=287<
8;
8=1.;
@*;.18><.<
'1.
,87,.9=>*5
<2=.
95*7
/8;
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
9;898<.<
=1.
,87<=;>,=287
8/
<.?.7
+>25-270<
@2=1
*
6*A26>6
1.201=
8/

/..=
*7-
/588;
*;.*
=8=*5270



<:>*;.
/..=
8/
68<=5B
@*;.18><.
<9*,.
@2=1
<86.
*7,255*;B
8//2,.
<9*,.
*<.-
87
,87,.9=>*5
95*7<
*7
.<=26*=.-
=8=*5
8/



9*;4270
<=*55<
@8>5-
+.
9;8?2-.-

=1;8>018>=
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
8/
@12,1



<=*55<
@8>5-
+.
/8;
*>=868+25.<
*7-




<=*55<
@8>5-
+.
/8;
=;>,4<
*7-
=;*25.;<


'1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
6*B
*5<8
*,,8668-*=.
><.<
=1*=
;./5.,=
8708270
-.?.5896.7=<
27
=1.
@*;.18><270
*7-
-2<=;2+>=287
27-><=;B
*7-
=1*=
?*;B
/;86
=1.
,87,.9=>*55B
-./27.-
9;83.,=
<18@7
87
20>;.



5=18>01
=1.
7*=>;.
*7-
,87/20>;*=287
8/
<>,1
9;898<.-
><.<
6*B
+.
-2//.;.7=
=1.
8?.;*55
<2C.
+>25-270
<:>*;.
/88=*0.
*7-
=;*//2,
0.7.;*=287
,*7
+.
.A9.,=.-
=8
/*55
@2=127
=1.
;*70.
8/
=18<.
-./27.-
/8;
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=

#8=.7=2*5
-2//.;.7,.<
27
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=
[email protected]
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
*7-
?*;2*=287<
87
=1.
9;83.,=
*;.
2-.7=2/2.-
*7-
-2<,><<.-
27
=1.
*//.,=.-
,1*9=.;<
8/
=1.
 %


,,.<<
=8
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
@8>5-
+.
/;86
=@8
-;2?.@*B<
8//
*;298<*
%8*-
27
=1.
78;=1.*<=.;7
98;=287
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
'1.
<8>=1.;768<=
8/
=1.
=@8
-;2?.@*B<
@8>5-
9;8?2-.
=1.
6*27
*,,.<<
=8
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
5.*-270
=8
68<=
8/
=1.
9;898<.-
+>25-270<
'1.
78;=1.;768<=
-;2?.@*B
@8>5-
9;8?2-.
*,,.<<
=8
=1.
=@8
78;=1.;768<=
+>25-270<
9;898<.-
87
=1.
<2=.
'1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
27,5>-.
;.<=;29270
=1.
*;298<*
%8*-
/;87=*0.
=8
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1096















*,,8668-*=.
=>;7
98,4.=<
*7-
*,,.5.;*=287-.,.5.;*=287
5*7.<
(=252=B
<.;?2,.
/8;
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
27,5>-270
<.@.;
*7-
@*=.;
@8>5-
+.
9;8?2-.-
+B
=1.
2=B
8/
&=8,4=87
/;86
.A2<=270
=;>74
527.<
*-3*,.7=
=8
=1.
<2=.
'1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
1*?.
*7
87<2=.
<=8;6
-;*27*0.
<B<=.6
27,5>-270
,855.,=287
527.<
*7-
*
-.=.7=287
+*<27
27
=1.
<8>=1.;768<=
98;=287
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
%>78//
,855.,=.-
27
=1.
-.=.7=287
+*<27
@8>5-
+.
6.=.;.-
27=8
!8;=1
2==5.3817<
;..4
@1.7
,*9*,2=B
2<
*?*25*+5.
27
=1.
,;..4
%.0>5*=.-
.5.,=;2,*5
0*<
*7-
,866>72,*=287
>=252=2.<
@8>5-
+.
.A=.7-.-
=8
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
/;86
.A2<=270
/*,252=2.<
27
=1.
*;.*

'1.
9;83.,=
9;898<.<
*
;.8;0*72C*=287
=1*=
@8>5-
27,5>-.
*77.A*=287
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
27=8
=1.
2=B
8/
&=8,4=87
*7-
-.=*,16.7=
8/
=1.
<2=.
/;86
=1.
87=.C>6*
2;.
2<=;2,=
8;
=1.
9;898<.-
*77.A*=287
=1.
2=B
@8>5-
9;.C87.
=1.
.7=2;.
9;83.,=
<2=.
7-><=;2*5

262=.-


'1.
9;898<.-
9;.C87270
2<
,87<2<=.7=
@2=1
=1.
,>;;.7=
7-><=;2*5

-.<207*=287
8/
=1.
9*;,.5<
27
=1.
&=8,4=87
.7.;*5
#5*7
7
*--2=287
=8
*77.A*=287
*7-

9;.C87270
=1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
;.:>2;.
2=B
*99;8?*5
8/
*
=.7=*=2?.
<>+-2?2<287
6*9
*<
@.55
*<
<2=.
95*7
*7-
-.<207
;.?2.@
'1.
&*7

8*:>27
8
@8>5-
+.
=1.
*0.7,B
@2=1

*99;8?*5
*>=18;2=B
/8;
=1.
9;898<.-
*77.A*=287















'1.
98=.7=2*55B
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
*;.
<>66*;2C.-
27
'*+5.


*=
=1.

.7-
8/
=12<
,1*9=.;
*5870
@2=1
/.*<2+5.
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
9;898<.-
=8
627262C.
=1.<.
.//.,=<
'*+5.



9;8?2-.<
*7
27-2,*=287
8/
=1.
<2072/2,*7,.
8/
269*,=<
+8=1
+./8;.
*7-
*/=.;
*9952,*=287
8/
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
'1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
,87=;2+>=.
=8
<.?.;*5
8/
=1.
<2072/2,*7=
*7-
>7*?82-*+5.
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
2-.7=2/2.-
27
=1.
27*5
# %
*7-

*,,.9=.-
27
=1.
2=BF<
&=*=.6.7=
8/
"?.;;2-270
87<2-.;*=287<
<
-8,>6.7=.-
1.;.27
@2=1
2695.6.7=*=287
8/
=1.
9;898<.-
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
7.*;5B
*55
=1.
8=1.;
98=.7=2*5
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
+.
;.->,.-
=8
*
5.?.5
=1*=
2<
5.<<
=1*7
<2072/2,*7=
'1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
27?85?.
*7B
7.@
<2072/2,*7=
*7-
>7*?82-*+5.
.7?2;876.7=*5
269*,=<
=1*=
2<
269*,=<
78=
*-.:>*=.5B
*--;.<<.-
27
=1.
,.;=2/2.-
# %

)125.
9;83.,=
*?82-*7,.
*7-
627262C*=287
6.*<>;.<
@8>5-
+.
2695.6.7=.-
/8;
=1.
2-.7=2/2.-
<2072/2,*7=
*7-
>7*?82-*+5.
269*,=<
2=
2<
>7478@7
2/
=1.<.
6.*<>;.<
@8>5-
;.->,.
=1.
9;83.,=F<
269*,=<
=8
*
5.?.5
=1*=
@8>5-
+.
5.<<
=1*7
<2072/2,*7=









$
>2-.527.<
&.,=287



+

<=*=.<
=1*=
*7

%
<>66*;B
<1*55
2-.7=2/B
*;.*<
8/

,87=;8?.;<B
478@7
=8
=1.
.*-
0.7,B
27,5>-270
2<<>.<
;*2<.-
+B
*0.7,2.<
*7-
=1.
9>+52,
'1.
68<=
,86687
6.=18-
8/
2-.7=2/B270
98=.7=2*5
*;.*<
8/
,87=;8?.;<B
2<
=1;8>01
=1.
2<<>*7,.
8/
*
!"#
*<
=1.
9>;98<.
8/
=1.
!"#
2<
=8
<852,2=
0>2-*7,.
*<
=8
=1.
<,89.
*7-
,87=.7=
8/
=1.
.7?2;876.7=*5
27/8;6*=287
=8
+.
27,5>-.-
27
=1.
 %

!"#
/8;
=12<


%
@*<
2<<>.-
@2=1
*
;.:>.<=
/8;
,866.7=
/;86
*0.7,2.<
*7-
=1.
9>+52,
'*+5.


52<=<

=1.
<.?.7
,866.7=
5.==.;<
;.,.2?.-
27
;.<987<.
=8
=1.
!"#
<<>.<
+;8>01=
>9
27
=1.

,866.7=
5.==.;<
27,5>-.-
=1.
/8558@270

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1097
















• 


,87<>5=*=287
9;8,.->;.<
@2=1
=;2+.<

• #;83.,=
269*,=<
87
*,,.<<
=8
8=1.;
9;89.;=2.<
27
?2,272=B
• ';*//2,
87
*;/*;08*
%8*-

• #;83.,=
,87<=;>,=287
*7-
89.;*=287*5
.62<<287<
*7-
=1.2;
98=.7=2*5
1.*5=1
269*,=<
• 0;2,>5=>;*5
5*7-
,87?.;<287

• 9952,*+252=B
8/
58,*5
1*+2=*=
,87<.;?*=287
95*7

• #8=.7=2*5
0;8>7-@*=.;
,87=*627*=287

• #;2?*,B
,87,.;7<











1*9=.;

 
5=.;7*=2?.<
2-.7=2/2.<
*7-
-2<,><<.<
*
;*70.
8/
;.*<87*+5.
*5=.;7*=2?.<
=8
=1.
9;83.,=
27,5>-270
=1.
78
9;83.,=
*5=.;7*=2?.
'1.
*5=.;7*=2?.<
*--;.<<.-
27
-.=*25
27,5>-.

• !8
#;83.,=


• 5=.;7*=2?.
201=

7-><=;2*5
.?.5896.7=

• %.->,.-
.?.5896.7=

'1.
!8
#;83.,=
*5=.;7*=2?.
2<
-./27.-
*<
=1.
,87=27>*=287
8/
.A2<=270
,87-2=287<
87
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
@12,1
6.*7<
=1.
<2=.
@8>5-
78=
+.
*77.A.-
=8
=1.
2=B
*7-
@8>5-
;.6*27
>7-.?.589.-
'12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
27?85?.
78
*,=287
87
=1.
9*;=
8/
=1.
2=B
8/
&=8,4=87
8
8;
8=1.;
*0.7,2.<
'1.
<2=.
@8>5-
;.6*27
27
=1.
>727,8;98;*=.-
*;.*
*7-
/>=>;.
5*7-
><.
@8>5-
+.
,87=;855.-
+B
=1.
.A2<=270
8>7=B
C87270
/8;
0;2,>5=>;.
&.5.,=287
8/
=12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
.52627*=.
*55
=1.
<2072/2,*7=
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=

8@.?.;
=1.
,87=27>*=287
8/
=1.
>7-.?.589.-
<=*=.
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
-8.<
78=
/>5/255
*7B
8/
=1.
+*<2,
8+3.,=2?.<
8/
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
*7-
2=
@8>5-
+.
27,87<2<=.7=
@2=1
=1.
5*7-
><.
-.<207*=287<
8/
=1.
2=B
8/
&=8,4=87
*7-
&*7

8*:>27
8>7=B
.7.;*5
#5*7<
+8=1
8/

@12,1
*7=2,29*=.
>;+*7
-.?.5896.7=
5<8
=12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
6*B
1*?.
98=.7=2*55B
<2072/2,*7=
269*,=<
;.<>5=270
/;86
><.
8/
*0;2,>5=>;*5
,1.62,*5<
*0;2,>5=>;*5
@*<=.
-2<98<*5
*7-
-><=
/;86
*0;2,>5=>;*5
89.;*=287<

'1.
5=.;7*=2?.

7-><=;2*5
.?.5896.7=
*5=.;7*=2?.
9;898<.<
-.?.5896.7=
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
@2=1
*7
27-><=;2*5
><.
8=1.;
=1*7
=1.
1201,>+.
@*;.18><270
9;898<.-
+B
=1.
9;83.,=
8;
=12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
2=
2<
*<<>6.-
=1*=
=1.
2=B
@8>5-
*77.A
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
*7-
9;.C87.
2=
*<


.?.5896.7=
>7-.;
=12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
0.7.;*55B
1*?.
<2625*;
269*,=<
=8
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=

8@.?.;
=12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
78=
6..=
=1.
8+3.,=2?.<
8/
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
;.5*=.-
=8
@*;.18><.
-.?.5896.7=
.9.7-270
87
=1.
=B9.
8/
27-><=;2*5
*,=2?2=B
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1098
















=12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
6*B
1*?.
7.@
8;
68;.
<.?.;.
269*,=<
=1*7
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
87
2<<>.<
<>,1
*<
1*C*;-8><
6*=.;2*5<
*7-
*.<=1.=2,<

'1.
%.->,.-
.?.5896.7=
*5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
1*?.
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
*77.A.-
=8
=1.
2=B
8/
&=8,4=87
*7-
9;.C87.-
*<
>7-.;
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
#;898<.-
-.?.5896.7=
@8>5-
+.
524.
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
18@.?.;
9;898<.-
-.?.5896.7=
@8>5-
+.
;.->,.-
=8
=@8
+>25-270<
'12<
*5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
+.
9*;=2*55B
,87<2<=.7=
@2=1
=1.
8+3.,=2?.<
8/
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
@125.
;.->,270
2=<
<2072/2,*7=
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
87
=;*//2,
*2;
:>*52=B
*7-
782<.
*6870
8=1.;<
88=9;27=
.//.,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
87
+285802,*5
,>5=>;*5
<825
*7-
@*=.;
;.<8>;,.<
6*B
8;
6*B
78=
+.
;.->,.-
//.,=<
87
8=1.;
2<<>.<
@8>5-
+.
=1.
<*6.
*<
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
*7-
@8>5-
524.5B
;.:>2;.
62=20*=287
=8
;.->,.
269*,=<

&27,.
=1.
!8
#;83.,=
5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
.52627*=.
8;
*?82-
*55
98=.7=2*5
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
*<<8,2*=.-
@2=1
=1.
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
2=
@8>5-
+.
,87<2-.;.-
=1.
.7?2;876.7=*55B
<>9.;28;
*5=.;7*=2?.
$
>2-.527.<
&.,=287



.

;.:>2;.<
=1*=
2/
*
!8

#;83.,=
5=.;7*=2?.
2<
2-.7=2/2.-
*<
=1.
.7?2;876.7=*55B
<>9.;28;
*5=.;7*=2?.
=1.7
*7
 %

<1*55
2-.7=2/B
*7
.7?2;876.7=*55B
<>9.;28;
*5=.;7*=2?.
/;86
=1.
8=1.;
*5=.;7*=2?.<
7

*,,8;-*7,.
@2=1
=12<
<.,=287
=1.
%.->,.-
.?.5896.7=
5=.;7*=2?.
@8>5-
+.
,87<2-.;.-
=1.
.7?2;876.7=*55B
<>9.;28;
*5=.;7*=2?.
*/=.;
=1.
!8
#;83.,=
5=.;7*=2?.
















$
>2-.527.<
&.,=287




+
<=*=.<
=1*=
*7

%
<1*55
-2<,><<
<2072/2,*7=

.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
=1*=
,*778=
+.
*?82-.-
2/
*
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
2<
2695.6.7=.-
'12<
27,5>-.<
<2072/2,*7=
269*,=<
=1*=
,*7
+.
62=20*=.-
+>=
78=
;.->,.
=8
*
5.?.5
8/
27<2072/2,*7,.
)1.;.
=1.;.
*;.
269*,=<
=1*=
,*778=
+.
*55.?2*=.-
@2=18>=
2698<270
*7
*5=.;7*=2?.
-.<207
=1.
26952,*=287<
8/
=1.<.
269*,=<
*7-
=1.
;.*<87<
@1B
=1.
9;83.,=
2<
+.270
9;898<.-
78=@2=1<=*7-270
=1.2;
.//.,=<
<18>5-
+.
-.<,;2+.-

'*+5.



8/
=12<

%
2-.7=2/2.<
*55
=1.
98=.7=2*55B
<2072/2,*7=
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
*7-
=1.
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
7..-.-
=8
*--;.<<
=1.<.
.//.,=<
8;
68<=
8/
=1.<.
.//.,=<
=1.
9;898<.-
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
@8>5-
+.
.//.,=2?.
27
;.->,270
=1.
98=.7=2*55B
<2072/2,*7=
.7?2;876.7=*5
269*,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
=8
5.?.5<
=1*=
@8>5-
+.
5.<<
=1*7
<2072/2,*7=
'1.
87.
.A,.9=287
2<
*2;
:>*52=B
269*,=<
/;86
9;83.,=
89.;*=287<
@12,1
@.;.
-.=.;627.-
=8
.A,..-
=1;.<185-<
/8;
87.
9855>=*7=
!"A
.<=*+52<1.-
=8
-.=.;627.
2/
9;83.,=
.62<<287<
@8>5-
+.
*
98=.7=2*55B
<2072/2,*7=
269*,=
?82-*7,.
*7-
627262C*=287

6.*<>;.<
=8
;.->,.
9855>=*7=
.62<<287<
*;.
9;898<.-
*<
9*;=
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
8@.?.;
2=
2<

78=
478@7
2/
=1.<.
6.*<>;.<
@8>5-
;.->,.
!"A
.62<<287<
/;86
9;83.,=
89.;*=287<
+.58@
=1.
<2072/2,*7,.
=1;.<185-
=1.;.+B
6*4270
269*,=<
5.<<
=1*7
<2072/2,*7=






 




$
>2-.527.<
&.,=287




+
<=*=.<
=1*=
*7

%
<1*55
-2<,><<
<2072/2,*7=

.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
=1*=
,*778=
+.
*?82-.-
2/
*
9;898<.-
9;83.,=
2<
2695.6.7=.-
'12<
27,5>-.<
<2072/2,*7=
269*,=<
=1*=
,*7
+.
62=20*=.-
+>=
78=
;.->,.
=8
*
5.?.5
8/
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1099
















27<2072/2,*7,.
'*+5.



8/
=12<

%
2-.7=2/2.<
*55
=1.
98=.7=2*55B
<2072/2,*7=

.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
*7-
=1.
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
;.,866.7-.-
=8
*--;.<<
=1.<.
.//.,=<

7
*55
+>=
87.
,*<.
=1.
9;898<.-
62=20*=287
6.*<>;.<
@8>5-
+.
.//.,=2?.
27
;.->,270
98=.7=2*5
.7?2;876.7=*5
.//.,=<
=8
5.?.5<
=1*=
@8>5-
+.
5.<<
=1*7
<2072/2,*7=

;;.?.;<2+5.
.7?2;876.7=*5
,8662=6.7=<
27,5>-.
.7.;0B
,87<>69=287
/8;
9;83.,=
,87<=;>,=287
*7-
89.;*=287<
*7-
=1.
><.
8/
787;.7.@*+5.
+>25-270
6*=.;2*5<
/8;
,87<=;>,=287
8/
+>25-270<
9*;4270
<9*,.<
*7-
<>998;=270
27/;*<=;>,=>;.
5<8
=1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
27?85?.
*7
.<<.7=2*55B
2;;.?.;<2+5.
58<<
8/
89.7
<9*,.
*7-
=1.
+285802,*5
;.<8>;,.
?*5>.<
*<<8,2*=.-
@2=1
2=


'1.

%
*7*5BC.-
=1.
98=.7=2*5
0;8@=127->,270
269*,=<
8/
=1.
9;83.,=
#;83.,=
269*,=<
87
989>5*=287
*7-
18><270
@8>5-
+.
5.<<
=1*7
<2072/2,*7=
*<
=1.
9;83.,=
2<
>7524.5B
=8
27->,.
989>5*=287
0;8@=1
>795*77.-
/8;
27
=1.
&=8,4=87
.7.;*5
#5*7
.6958B..<
@8>5-
524.5B
+.
-;*@7
/;86
=1.
.A2<=270
&=8,4=87
6.=;89852=*7
*;.*
989>5*=287
7/;*<=;>,=>;.

*5;.*-B
.A2<=<
27
=1.
?2,272=B
=8
@12,1
/>=>;.
-.?.5896.7=
87
=1.
9;83.,=
<2=.
,*7
,877.,=
78
6*38;
>=252=B
527.<
@8>5-
+.
.A=.7-.-
=1*=
6*B
27->,.
0;8@=1
87
7.*;+B
5*7-<
.,*><.
8/
=12<
=1.
9;83.,=
@8>5-
78=
1*?.
*
78=*+5.
0;8@=127->,270
269*,=
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1100
BaseCamp
Figure 2-1
BaseCamp Environmental PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND PREZONING BaseCamp

PROPOSED ANNEXATION

AND PREZONING BOUNDARY
PROPOSED PREZONING: AG-40
(COUNTY) TO IL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL

EXISTING

CITY LIMITS
EXISTING ZONING: IL - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1101
BaseCamp
Figure 2-2
BaseCamp Environmental CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
BaseCamp
SOURCE: Ware Malcomb
Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1102














 



























 
























" !






0(4
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'















<?02C
'

'24=82
*8BC0B
*84FB
>5
B24=82
E8BC0B
0;A403H

;8<8C43
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
BD1BC0=C80;;H
8=C4A54A4
F8C7
E84FB
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
'

'24=82
&4B>DA24B
(74A4
0A4
=>
B86=85820=C

B24=82
A4B>DA24B
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
$>C4=C80;
A8?0A80=
0A40
0;>=6
">AC7
8CC;49>7=B
A44:
F>D;3
>=;H
14
<8=8<0;;H

05542C43
">
>C74A
B24=82
A4B>DA24B
>A
B24=82
7867F0HB
0A4
8=
C74
0A40


'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
'

*8BD0;
70A02C4A
0=3
%D0;8CH
)A10=
34E4;>?<4=C
F>D;3
A4?;024
4G8BC8=6
>?4=
B?024
0A40B
"4F
BCAD2CDA4B
B8C4
8<?A>E4<4=CB
0=3
;0=3B20?8=6
F>D;3
14
34B86=43
0=3
2>=BCAD2C43
C>
<44C
C74
04BC74C82
BC0=30A3B
>5
C74
8CH
>5
'C>2:C>=
><?;80=24
F8C7
C74B4
BC0=30A3B
F>D;3
<8=8<8I4
?A>942C
8<?02CB
>=
?D1;82
E84FB
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
'
867C
0=3

;0A4
867C8=6
F>D;3
14
8=BC0;;43
>=
?A>?4AC84B
C70C
2DAA4=C;H
70E4
=>=4
><?;80=24
F8C7
'C>2:C>=
!D=828?0;
>34
'42C8>=B




0=3






F>D;3
<8=8<8I4
;867C
0=3
6;0A4
8<?02CB

'
">=4
A4@D8A43












<?02C



>=E4AB8>=
>5
0A<;0=3
(74
B>DC74A=
?>AC8>=
>5
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
8B
2;0BB85843
0B
0A<;0=3
>5
>20;
<?>AC0=24
F7827
8B
=>C
0A<;0=3
0B
3458=43
1H
C74
%
D834;8=4B

>F4E4A
C74
=>AC74A=
?>AC8>=
8B
2;0BB85843
0B
0A<;0=3
>5
'C0C4F834
<?>AC0=24
F7827
8B
0A<;0=3
(74
8CHMB
6A82D;CDA0;
0=3B
!8C860C8>=
$A>6A0<
0=3
?0AC828?0C8>=
8=
'!'$
F>D;3
2><?4=B0C4
5>A
8<?02CB
>=
0A<;0=3
1DC
=>C
0E>83
2>=E4AB8>=
.(78B
8BBD4
F0B
0=0;HI43
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=




&
0=3
F0B
34C4A<8=43
C>

14
B86=85820=C
0=3
D=0E>8301;4
4E4=
F8C7
<8C860C8=6

4=4A0;
$;0=
?>;8284B/

'
">=4
540B81;4
')

<?02C



6A82D;CDA0;
->=8=6
0=3
+8;;80<B>=
2C (74

?A>942C
B8C4
8B
I>=43




4=4A0;
6A82D;CDA4
F7827

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1103














 



























 
























" !






0(5
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

7>;3B
;0=3
5>A
5DCDA4
DA10=
34E4;>?<4=C
">=4
>5
C74
?0A24;B
F8C78=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
0A4
D=34A
0
+8;;80<B>=
2C
2>=CA02C
<?02C




=38A42C
>=E4AB8>=
>5
6A82D;CDA0;
0=3B
(74
?A>942C
8B
8=
0=
0A40
34B86=0C43
5>A
DA10=
34E4;>?<4=C
0=3
BD27
34E4;>?<4=C
70B
>22DAA43
=40A1H
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
8=E>;E4
0=H
02C8E8CH
C70C
F>D;3
8=38A42C;H
2>=E4AC
>C74A
06A82D;CDA0;
;0=3
C>
=>=06A82D;CDA0;
DB4B
14H>=3
;0=3
34B86=0C43
=3DBCA80;
1H
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=

'
">=4
A4@D8A43






"
<?02C

&

8A
%D0;8CH
$;0=B
0=3
'C0=30A3B
J
>=BCAD2C8>=
<8BB8>=B
$A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
4<8BB8>=B
F>D;3
=>C
4G2443
'*$
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3B
C74A41H
148=6
2>=B8BC4=C
F8C7
03>?C43
08A
@D0;8CH
?;0=B
DBC
4<8BB8>=B
F>D;3
14
A43D243
C7A>D67
C74
A4@D8A43
8<?;4<4=C0C8>=
>5
'*$
&46D;0C8>=
*

0=3
C74

=38A42C
'>DA24
&D;4

'
">=4
A4@D8A43

(74
'*$
7>F4E4A
A42><<4=3B
C74
8=2;DB8>=
>5
C74

5>;;>F8=6
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4
8=C>
C74
?A>942C

(>
A43D24
8<?02CB
5A><
2>=BCAD2C8>=A4;0C43
384B4;
4G70DBC
4<8BB8>=B
C74
$A>942C
B7>D;3
DC8;8I4
C74
2;40=4BC
0E08;01;4
>55A>03
2>=BCAD2C8>=
4@D8?<4=C
8=2;D38=6
C74
;0C4BC
C84A
4@D8?<4=C


<?02C

&

8A
%D0;8CH
$;0=B
0=3
'C0=30A3B
J
#?4A0C8>=0;
<8BB8>=B
$A>942C
>?4A0C8>=0;
4<8BB8>=B
F>D;3
=>C
4G2443
'*$
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3B
4G24?C
5>A
"#

><?;80=24
F8C7
'*$
&D;4


0=3
338C8>=0;
8A

%D0;8CH

<?A>E4<4=C
!40BDA4B
??4=38G

F>D;3
A43D24
"#
4<8BB8>=
8<?02CB
>F4E4A
8C
20==>C
14
34C4A<8=43
85

A43D2C8>=
C7A>D67
C74B4
<40BDA4B
F>D;3
<0:4
?A>942C
8<?02CB
;4BB
C70=
B86=85820=C
.(78B
8BBD4
F0B
0=0;HI43
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=




&
0=3
F0B
34C4A<8=43
C>
14
B86=85820=C
0=3
D=0E>8301;4
4E4=
F8C7
<8C860C8=6
4=4A0;
$;0=
?>;8284B
0=3

&
<40BDA4B/

'
">=4
540B81;4
')

<?02C

&

G?>BDA4
>5
'4=B8C8E4
&424?C>AB
C>
A8C4A80
$>;;DC0=CB
&DA0;
A4B834=24B
0A4
D=;8:4;H
C>
14
4G?>B43
C>
7867?>;;DC0=C
2>=24=CA0C8>=B
#
2>=24=CA0C8>=B
0C
>=4
BCA44C
8=C4AB42C8>=
20=
14
A43D243
C7A>D67
<8C860C8>=
"#
'

&

(74
?A>942C
0??;820=C
C>
A43D24
20A1>=
<>=>G834

2>=24=CA0C8>=B
C>
0=
0224?C01;4
;4E4;
B70;;
2>=CA81DC4
508AB70A4
2>BCB
C>
0=
8<?A>E4<4=C
>=
C74
!0A8?>B0
&>03
0=3
0A?4=C4A
&>038=C4AB42C8>=
C70C
F>D;3
F834=
C74
=>AC740BC1>D=3
0A?4=C4A
&>03
')

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1104














 



























 
























" !






0(6
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

4<8BB8>=B
F8C78=
0=
0A40
34B86=0C43
0
38B03E0=C0643
2><<D=8CH
F>D;3
14
A43D243
1H
'*$
AD;4B
0=3
338C8>=0;
8A
%D0;8CH

<?A>E4<4=C
!40BDA4B
??4=38G


>F4E4A
8C
20==>C
14
34C4A<8=43
85
C78B
A43D2C8>=
F>D;3
70E4
0=
8<?02C
>=
C74
38B03E0=C0643
2><<D=8CH
C70C
8B
;4BB
C70=
B86=85820=C
.(78B
8BBD4
F0B
0=0;HI43
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=
4=4A0;
$;0=




&
0=3
F0B
34C4A<8=43
C>
14
B86=85820=C
0=3
D=0E>8301;4
4E4=
F8C7
<8C860C8=6
4=4A0;
$;0=
?>;8284B
0=3

&
<40BDA4B/

0??A>027
C>
8=2;D34
0=
4G2;DB8E4
=>AC740BC1>D=3C>
=>AC7F4BC 1>D=3
;45CCDA=
;0=4
0=3
0
2><18=43
C7A>D67 A867CCDA=
;0=4

<?02C

&
G?>BDA4
>5
'4=B8C8E4
&424?C>AB
C>
(>G82
8A

>=C0<8=0=CB
84B4;
$!
64=4A0C43
1H
?A>942C
>?4A0C8>=B

40;C7
&8B:
BB4BB<4=C
2>=3D2C43
5>A
?A>942C
8=3820C4B
384B4;
$!
4<8BB8>=B
F>D;3
=>C
03E4AB4;H
05542C
=40A1H
A4B834=24B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

&
#3>AB
0=3
#C74A
<8BB8>=B
!08=
>3>A
B>DA24
F>D;3
14
E4782;4
4<8BB8>=B
F7827
F>D;3
14
;>20;8I43
0=3
F>D;3
38BB8?0C4
A0?83;H

'
">=4
A4@D8A43









<?02C

#

'?4280;'C0CDB
'?4284B
0=3

018C0CB
$A>942C

34E4;>?<4=C
F>D;3
8=E>;E4
C74
?>C4=C80;
5>A
8<?02CB
>=
5>A068=6
7018C0C
5>A
'F08=B>=MB
70F:
0=3
1DAA>F8=6
>F;
0=3
B><4
?>C4=C80;
5>A
=4BC8=6
8<?02CB
'40B>=0;
F4C;0=3B
<0H
BD??>AC
E4A=0;
?>>;
508AH
B7A8<?

$'

#

(74
34E4;>?4A
B70;;
0??;H
C>
C74
'0=
>0@D8=
>D=28;
>5

>E4A=<4=CB
'#

5>A
2>E4A064
D=34A
C74
'0=
>0@D8=
>D=CH

!D;C8'?4284B
#?4=
'?024
0=3

018C0C
>=B4AE0C8>=
$;0=
'!'$
(74
?A>942C
B8C4
B70;;
14
8=B?42C43
1H
C74
'!'$
18>;>68BC
F7>
F8;;
A42><<4=3
F7827

=2834=C0;
(0:4
!8=8<8I0C8>=
!40BDA4B

(!!B
B4C
5>AC7
8=
C74
'!'$
B7>D;3
14

8<?;4<4=C43
(74
?A>942C
0??;820=C
B70;;
?0H
C74
A4@D8A43
'!'$
544
85
0=H
0=3
14
A4B?>=B81;4
5>A
C74
8<?;4<4=C0C8>=
>5
C74
B?4285843
(!!B

'

<?02C

#

&8?0A80=
0=3
#C74A
'4=B8C8E4

018C0CB

&8?0A80=
2>AA83>A
0;>=6
">AC7
8CC;49>7=B
A44:
F>D;3
14
<8=8<0;;H
05542C43
1H
8=BC0;;0C8>=
>5
0=
>DC50;;
">
>C74A
B4=B8C8E4
7018C0CB
F>D;3
14
05542C43


'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

#

'C0C4
0=3
434A0;;H
$A>C42C43
+4C;0=3B
">AC7

8CC;49>7=B
A44:
0
38C27
0=3
58E4
B40B>=0;
F4C;0=3B
70E4
144=
834=C85843
0B
?>C4=C80;
+0C4AB
>5
C74
)'
>A
'C0C4
$'

#


$A8>A
C>
C74
BC0AC
>5
2>=BCAD2C8>=
F>A:
8=
C74
0A40
F74A4
B40B>=0;
F4C;0=3B
70E4
144=
834=C85843
C74
?A>942C
34E4;>?4A
B70;;
2>=3D2C
0
F4C;0=3
34;8=40C8>=
834=C85H8=6
9DA8B382C8>=0;
+0C4AB
>5
C74
)'
0=3
F4C;0=3B
(74
34;8=40C8>=
B70;;
14
E4A85843
1H
C74
)'
'

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1105














 



























 
























" !






0(7
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

F4C;0=3B
A<H
>A?B
>5
=68=44AB
>A?B
(74
34;8=40C8>=
B70;;
14
DB43
C>
34C4A<8=4
85
0=H
?A>942C
F>A:
F8;;
4=2A>027
D?>=
0=H
9DA8B382C8>=0;
F0C4A
C74A41H
=424BB8C0C8=6
0=
0??A>?A80C4
?4A<8C
>A
0=H
34E4;>?<4=C
F>A:
C70C
<0H
05542C
0
34;8=40C43
9DA8B382C8>=0;
+0C4A
C74
?A>942C
34E4;>?4A
B70;;
>1C08=
0=H
=424BB0AH
?4A<8CB
5A><
C74
)'
A<H
>A?B
>5
=68=44AB
?A8>A
C>
C74
BC0AC
>5
34E4;>?<4=C
F>A:
F8C78=
C74B4
;>20C8>=B
4?4=38=6
>=
C74
>A?B
?4A<8C
8BBD43
C74
?A>942C
0??;820=C
B70;;
0;B>
0??;H
5>A
0
'42C8>=


+0C4A

%D0;8CH
4AC85820C8>=
5A><
C74
4=CA0;
*0;;4H
&468>=0;
+0C4A
%D0;8CH
>=CA>;
>0A3
5
C74
B40B>=0;
F4C;0=3B
0A4
0E>8343

>A
85

?70B43
34E4;>?<4=C
>22DAB
8=
0A40B
F74A4
=>
F4C;0=3B
70E4
144=
834=C85843
C74=
C78B
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4
3>4B
=>C
0??;H
 #

$A8>A
C>
C74
BC0AC
>5
2>=BCAD2C8>=
F>A:
8=
">AC7
8CC;49>7=B
A44:
C74
?A>942C
34E4;>?4A
B70;;
>1C08=
0=H
=424BB0AH
?4A<8CB
5A><
C74
0;85>A=80
4?0AC<4=C
>5
8B7
0=3
+8;3;854
0=3
C74
4=CA0;
*0;;4H
;>>3
$A>C42C8>=
>0A3
(74
?A>942C
34E4;>?4A
B70;;
2><?;H
F8C7
0;;
2>=38C8>=B
0CC02743
C>
0=H
A4@D8A43
?4A<8C
 #
$A8>A
C>
C74
BC0AC
>5
2>=BCAD2C8>=
F>A:
8=
C74
0A40
F74A4
B40B>=0;
F4C;0=3B
70E4
144=
834=C85843
C74
?A>942C
34E4;>?4A
B70;;
>1C08=
0=H
=424BB0AH
+0BC4
8B270A64
&4@D8A4<4=CB
5A><
C74
4=CA0;
*0;;4H
&468>=0;
+0C4A
%D0;8CH
>=CA>;
>0A3
$DABD0=C
C>
C74
'0=
>0@D8=
>D=CH
!D;C8'?4284B

018C0C
>=B4AE0C8>=
0=3

#?4=
'?024
$;0=
C74
58;;8=6
>5
B40B>=0;
F4C;0=3B
2>=C08=8=6
E4A=0;
?>>;
8=E4AC41A0C4B
B70;;
14
34;0H43
D=C8;
C74
F4C;0=3B
0A4
3AH
0=3
'#

18>;>68BCB
20=
2>;;42C
C74
BDA5024
B>8;B
5A><
C74
F4C;0=3B
C>
BC>A4
C74<
5>A
5DCDA4
DB4
>=
>55B8C4
B40B>=0;
F4C;0=3
2A40C8>=
>=
'#

?A4B4AE4
;0=3B
5
C74
B40B>=0;
F4C;0=3B
0A4
0E>8343
C74=

C78B
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4
3>4B
=>C
0??;H

<?02C

#
!86A0C>AH
8B7
0=3
+8;3;854

018C0CB
'4E4A0;
CA44B
8=
C74
?A>942C
E828=8CH
C70C
0A4
BD8C01;4
5>A
=4BC8=6
A0?C>AB
0=3
>C74A
?A>C42C43
18A3
B?4284B
8=2;D38=6
<86A0C>AH
B?4284B
$'

<?;4<4=C0C8>=
>5
!8C860C8>=
!40BDA4

#

'

<?02C

#
>20;
8>;>6820;
&4@D8A4<4=CB
*0;;4H
>0:
0
B?4284B
?A>C42C43
1H
8CHMB
4A8C064
(A44
#A38=0=24
F0B

834=C85843
0;>=6
">AC7
8CC;49>7=B
A44:


$'

#

5
A4<>E0;
>5
0=H
>0:
CA44
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
8B
A4@D8A43
0
24AC85843
0A1>A8BC
B70;;
BDAE4H
C74
>0:
CA44B
?A>?>B43
5>A
A4<>E0;
C>
34C4A<8=4
85
C74H
0A4
4A8C064
(A44B
0B
3458=43
8=
'C>2:C>=

!D=828?0;
>34
70?C4A




(74
0A1>A8BC
A4?>AC
F8C7
8CB

58=38=6B
B70;;
14
BD1<8CC43
C>
C74
8CHMB
><<D=8CH
4E4;>?<4=C '

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1106














 



























 
























" !






0(/.
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

4?0AC<4=C

5

4A8C064
(A44B
0A4
34C4A<8=43
C>
4G8BC
>=
C74

?A>?4ACH
A4<>E0;
>5
0=H
BD27
CA44
B70;;
A4@D8A4
0
?4A<8C
C>
14 8BBD43
1H
C74
8CH
8=
022>A30=24
F8C7
'C>2:C>=
!D=828?0;
>34
70?C4A



(74
?4A<8CC44
B70;;
2><?;H
F8C7
0;;
?4A<8C2>=38C8>=B
8=2;D38=6
CA44
A4?;024<4=C
0C
B?4285843
A0C8>B

<?02C

#

018C0C
>=B4AE0C8>=
$;0=B
$A>942C
F>D;3

?0AC828?0C4
8=
C74
'0=
>0@D8=
>D=CH
!D;C8'?4284B
#?4=
'?024
0=3
018C0C
>=B4AE0C8>=
$;0=

$'

<?;4<4=C
!8C860C8>=
!40BDA4

#

'





















<?02C
) (


8BC>A820;
&4B>DA24B
">
78BC>A820;

A4B>DA24B
70E4
144=
A42>A343
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4


"

">=4
A4@D8A43



<?02C
) (

A2704>;>6820;
0=3
(A810;
D;CDA0;
&4B>DA24B
">
0A2704>;>6820;
>A
CA810;
2D;CDA0;
A4B>DA24B
F4A4
834=C85843
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4

>F4E4A
0
'02A43
0=3
70B

144=
A42>A343
=40A1H
0=3
8C
8B
?>BB81;4
C70C
D=:=>F=
2D;CDA0;
A4B>DA24B
<0H
14
D=2>E4A43
3DA8=6
?A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
$'
) (


5
0=H
BD1BDA5024
0A2704>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
8=2;D38=6

7D<0=
1DA80;B
0=3
0BB>280C43
5D=4A0AH
>1942CB
0A4
4=2>D=C4A43
3DA8=6
2>=BCAD2C8>=
0;;
2>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B
F8C78=
0
 5>>C

A038DB
>5
C74
4=2>D=C4A
B70;;
14
8<<4380C4;H
70;C43
D=C8;
0
@D0;85843
0A2704>;>68BC
20=
4G0<8=4
C74B4
<0C4A80;B
0=3
4E0;D0C4
C748A
B86=85820=24
(74
8CH
B70;;
14
8<<4380C4;H
=>C85843
8=
C74
4E4=C
>5
0
38B2>E4AH

5
1DA80;
A4B>DA24B
>A
CA810;
2D;CDA0;
A4B>DA24B
0A438B2>E4A43
C74
8CH
B70;;
=>C85H
C74
0??A>?A80C4
CA810;
A4?A4B4=C0C8E4
F7>
<0H
4G0<8=4
C74
<0C4A80;B
F8C7
C74
0A2704>;>68BC
0=3
03E8B4
C74
8CH
0B
C>
C748A
B86=85820=24

(74
0A2704>;>68BC
8=
2>=BD;C0C8>=
F8C7
C74
CA810;
A4?A4B4=C0C8E4
85
2>=C02C43
B70;;
A42><<4=3
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
=44343
C>
A43D24?>C4=C80;
2D;CDA0;
A4B>DA24
45542CB
C>
0
;4E4;
C70C
8B
;4BB
C70=
B86=85820=C
8=
0
FA8CC4=
A4?>AC
C>
C74
8CH
F8C7
0
2>?H
C>
C74
CA810;
A4?A4B4=C0C8E4
(74
8CH
B70;;
14
A4B?>=B81;4
5>A
8<?;4<4=C8=6
C74
A4?>AC
A42><<4=30C8>=B
E>830=24
8B
C74
?A454AA43
<40=B
>5
38B?>B8C8>=
>5
CA810;
2D;CDA0;
A4B>DA24B
(74
2>=CA02C>A
B70;;
14
A4B?>=B81;4
5>A
A4C08=8=6
@D0;85843
?A>54BB8>=0;B
8<?;4<4=C8=6A42><<4=343
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
0=3
3>2D<4=C8=6
<8C860C8>=
455>ACB
8=
FA8CC4=
A4?>ACB
C>
C74
8CH

'

<?02C
) (


D<0=
DA80;B
(74
,>:DCB
A4?A4B4=C0C8E4

8=3820C43
C70C
"0C8E4
<4A820=
1DA80;B
70E4
>22DAA43
8=
C74
?A>942C
E828=8CH
%

D834;8=4B
'42C8>=


4
0=3
C74

$'
) (


5
?A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
4=2>D=C4AB
4E834=24
>5
7D<0=
1DA80;
>A
B20CC4A43
7D<0=
A4<08=B
C74
2>=CA02C>A
B70;;
8<<4380C4;H
=>C85H
C74
>D=CH
>A>=4A
0=3
C74
8CH
F7827
B70;;
8=
CDA=
=>C85H
'

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1107














 



























 
























" !






0(//
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

'C>2:C>=
!D=828?0;
>34
34B2A814
?A>243DA4B
C>
14
5>;;>F43
F74=
7D<0=
A4<08=B
0A4
D=2>E4A43
8=
0
;>20C8>=
>DCB834
0
343820C43
24<4C4AH 338C8>=0;
<8C860C8>=
8B
?A4B2A8143
5>A
CA40C<4=C
>5
"0C8E4
<4A820=
A4<08=B

C74
0??A>?A80C4
CA810;
A4?A4B4=C0C8E4
(74
8CH
B70;;
=>C85H
>C74A
5434A0;
0=3
'C0C4
064=284B
0B
A4@D8A43
(74
8CH
F8;;
14
A4B?>=B81;4
5>A
2><?;80=24
F8C7
C74
A4@D8A4<4=CB
>5
0;85>A=80

40;C7
0=3
'054CH
>34
'42C8>=



0=3
F8C7
0=H
38A42C8>=
?A>E8343
1H
C74

>D=CH
>A>=4A


5
C74
7D<0=
A4<08=B
0A4
34C4A<8=43
C>
14
"0C8E4
<4A820=
C74
>D=CH
>A>=4A
B70;;
=>C85H
C74
"0C8E4
<4A820=

4A8C064

><<8BB8>=
F7827
F8;;
=>C85H
0=3
0??>8=C
0
!>BC
8:4;H
4B24=30=C
(74
!>BC
8:4;H
4B24=30=C
F8;;
F>A:
F8C7
C74
0A2704>;>68BC
C>
342834
C74
?A>?4A
CA40C<4=C
>5
C74
7D<0=
A4<08=B
0=3
0=H
0BB>280C43
5D=4A0AH
>1942CB
8=
022>A30=24
F8C7
0;85>A=80
$D1;82
&4B>DA24B
>34
'42C8>=B


0=3



E>830=24
8B
C74
?A454AA43
<40=B
>5
38B?>B8C8>=
>5
C74
1DA80;
A4B>DA24B


"












<?02C

#

0D;C8=6
0=3
'48B<828CH
(74A4
0A4
=>
02C8E4
>A
?>C4=C80;;H
02C8E4
50D;CB
F8C78=
>A
=40A
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
(74
?A>942C
B8C4
F>D;3
14
4G?>B43
C>
B48B<82
B70:8=6
1DC
2><?;80=24
F8C7
C74
03>?C43
0;85>A=80
D8;38=6
>34
F>D;3
<8=8<8I4
B48B<82
70I0A3B


'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

#

#C74A

4>;>682

0I0A3B
(74
?A>942C
B8C4
8B

=>C
?A>=4
C>
;0=3B;834
70I0A3B
>A
BD1B834=24
8@D4502C8>=
0=3
>C74A
B>8;
8=BC018;8CH
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
0A4
2>=B834A43
D=;8:4;H
1DC
=>
8=5>A<0C8>=
B?428582
C>
C74
B8C4
8B
0E08;01;4 '
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

#

'>8;
A>B8>=
$A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B

F>D;3
;>>B4=
C74
B>8;
;40E8=6
8C
4G?>B43
C>
?>C4=C80;
F0C4A
0=3
F8=3
4A>B8>=
$A>942C
F>D;3
14
A4@D8A43
C>
>1C08=
0
>=BCAD2C8>=

4=4A0;
$4A<8C
F7827
70B
2>=38C8>=B
C70C
F>D;3
A43D24
B>8;
4A>B8>=
8<?02C
0B
F>D;3
C74
8CHMB
'C>A<
+0C4A
!0=064<4=C
$A>6A0<
C74
'C>2:C>=
!D=828?0;
>34
0=3

'*$
&46D;0C8>=
*




'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

#
G?0=B8E4
'>8;B
$A>942C
B8C4
B>8;B
70E4
7867
B7A8=:BF4;;
?>C4=C80;
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1108














 



























 
























" !






0(/0
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

<?02C

#
$0;4>=C>;>6820;
&4B>DA24B
0=3
)=8@D4

4>;>6820;
40CDA4B (74
?A>942C
B8C4
3>4B
=>C
2>=C08= D=8@D4
64>;>6820;
540CDA4B
>A
0=H
:=>F=
?0;4>=C>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
7>F4E4A
?A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
2>D;3
D=40AC7
?A4E8>DB;H
D=:=>F=
?0;4>=C>;>6820;
<0C4A80;B
>5
B86=85820=24
$'

#


5
0=H
BD1BDA5024
?0;4>=C>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
0A4
4=2>D=C4A43
3DA8=6
2>=BCAD2C8>=
0;;
2>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B
F8C78=
0
 5>>C
A038DB
>5
C74
4=2>D=C4A
B70;;
14
8<<4380C4;H
70;C43
D=C8;
0
@D0;85843
?0;4>=C>;>68BC
20=
4G0<8=4
C74B4
<0C4A80;B
8=8C80;;H
4E0;D0C4
C748A
B86=85820=24
0=3
85
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
A42><<4=3
<40BDA4B
>=
C74
38B?>B8C8>=
>5
C74
A4B>DA24
(74
8CH
B70;;
14
8<<4380C4;H
=>C85843
8=
C74
4E4=C
>5
0
38B2>E4AH
(74
2>=CA02C>A
B70;;
14
A4B?>=B81;4
5>A
A4C08=8=6
@D0;85843
?A>54BB8>=0;B
8<?;4<4=C8=6 A42><<4=343
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
0=3
3>2D<4=C8=6
<8C860C8>=
455>ACB
8=
FA8CC4=
A4?>ACB
C>
C74
8CH

'

<?02C

#
224BB
C>
!8=4A0;
&4B>DA24B
(74A4
0A4
=>
834=C85843
<8=4A0;
A4B>DA24
0A40B
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
"

">=4
A4@D8A43












<?02C



$A>942C

>=BCAD2C8>=
<8BB8>=B
0=3

>=B8BC4=2H
F8C7
??;8201;4
$;0=B
0=3
$>;8284B
)=<8C860C43
2>=BCAD2C8>=

4<8BB8>=B
F>D;3
14
A43D243
1H
338C8>=0;

8A
%D0;8CH

<?A>E4<4=C
!40BDA4B
??4=38G

2><?;80=24
F8C7
0??;8201;4
'C0C4
0=3
'*$
AD;4B
0=3
A46D;0C8>=B
0=3
0338C8>=0;
<8C860C8>=
>F4E4A
B8=24
C74B4

<40BDA4B
20==>C
14
?A428B4;H
@D0=C85843
0=3
=>
@D0=C85843
C7A4B7>;3B
0??;8201;4
C>

2>=BCAD2C8>=
4<8BB8>=B
0A4

0E08;01;4
8C
20==>C
14
BC0C43
F8C7
24AC08=CH
C70C

4<8BB8>=B
F>D;3
14
A43D243
C>
0
;4E4;
C70C
8B
2>=B834A43
;4BB
C70=
B86=85820=C
.

2>=BCAD2C8>=
4<8BB8>=B
F4A4
=>C

B?4285820;;H
0=0;HI43
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=




&/

$'



(74
?A>942C
B70;;
8<?;4<4=C
C74
#55&>03
*4782;4B
4BC
!0=064<4=C
$A02C824B
B?4285843
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=
;8<0C4
2C8>=
$;0=
C
;40BC
C7A44
 
?4A24=C
>5
C74
2>=BCAD2C8>=
E4782;4
0=3
4@D8?<4=C
5;44C
B70;;
14
?>F4A43
1H
4;42CA828CH
>=BCAD2C8>=
4@D8?<4=C
0=3
E4782;4B
B70;;
=>C
83;4
C748A
4=68=4B
5>A
;>=64A
C70=
C7A44
 
<8=DC4B

')

<?02C



$A>942C

#?4A0C8>=0;
<8BB8>=B
0=3

>=B8BC4=2H
F8C7
??;8201;4
$;0=B
0=3
$>;8284B
)=<8C860C43
>?4A0C8>=0;

4<8BB8>=B
F>D;3
14
A43D243
1H
?A>942C

540CDA4B
2><?;80=24
F8C7
A46D;0C8>=B
2>=B8BC4=C
F8C7

'C>2:C>=
;8<0C4
2C8>=
$;0=
0=3
F8C7
'C0C4
0=3
'*$
?;0=B
0=3
338C8>=0;
8A
%D0;8CH
<?A>E4<4=C
!40BDA4B
??4=38G


'
">=4
A4@D8A43


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1109














 



























 
























" !






0(/1
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'


#



#







<?02C

-


0I0A3>DB
!0C4A80;
(A0=B?>AC0C8>=
0=3
'C>A064
$A>?>B43
F0A47>DB4B
<0H
BC>A4
58=8B743
6>>3B
>A
A0F
<0C4A80;B
2>=B834A43
70I0A3>DB ><?;80=24
F8C7

0??;8201;4
;>20;
BC0C4
0=3
5434A0;
A46D;0C8>=B
F>D;3
<8=8<8I4
8<?02CB
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

-


0I0A3>DB
!0C4A80;
&4;40B4B
$A>942C

2>=BCAD2C8>=
0=3
>?4A0C8>=B
2A40C4
0
?>C4=C80;
5>A
70I0A3>DB
<0C4A80;
A4;40B4B
(74
A4@D8A43
'+$$$
0=3
>C74A
CH?820;
2>=CA02C>A
?A02C824B
B70;;
<8=8<8I4
2>=BCAD2C8>=
8<?02CB
><?;80=24
F8C7
0??;8201;4
;>20;
BC0C4
0=3
5434A0;
A46D;0C8>=B
F>D;3
<8=8<8I4
>?4A0C8>=0;
8<?02CB
">
B27>>;B
0A4
;>20C43
F8C78=
>=4@D0AC4A
<8;4
>5
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

-


0I0A3>DB
!0C4A80;
'8C4B
">
02C8E4

70I0A3>DB
<0C4A80;
B8C4B
F4A4
834=C85843
>=
>A
039024=C
C>
?A>942C
B8C4
'>8;
B0<?;8=6
0B
?0AC
>5
0
$70B4

=E8A>=<4=C0;
'8C4
BB4BB<4=C
383
=>C
8=3820C4
B>8;
2>=C0<8=0C8>=
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

-
8A?>AC

0I0A3B
(74
?A>942C
B8C4
8B
F8C78=

><?0C818;8CH
->=4
1
0B
4BC01;8B743
1H
C74
'C>2:C>=

!4CA>?>;8C0=
8A?>AC
 )$
$A>?>B43
34E4;>?<4=C
F>D;3
14
2>=B8BC4=C
F8C7
0;;>F01;4
;0=3
DB4B
8=
C78B
I>=4

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

-

=C4A54A4=24
F8C7
<4A64=2H
*4782;4
224BB

0=3
E02D0C8>=B
"48C74A
?A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
=>A
>?4A0C8>=B
F>D;3
A4@D8A4
2;>BDA4
>A
0=H
<09>A
A4BCA82C8>=
>=
DB4
>5
039024=C
A>03B #=24
2>=BCAD2C8>=
F>A:
8B
2><?;4C43
?A>942C
34E4;>?<4=C
F>D;3
=>C
>1BCAD2C
0=H
A>03B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

-
+8;358A4

0I0A3B
$A>942C
8B
8=
0=
DA10=8I8=6

0A40
0=3
70B
=>C
144=
34B86=0C43
0
58A4
70I0A3
0A40
1H
0;
8A4
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1110














 



























 
























" !






0(/2
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'


"
"

!



"
<?02C

,&#

'DA5024
+0C4A
&4B>DA24B
0=3
%D0;8CH

>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B
2>D;3
;>>B4=
B>8;B
C70C
2>D;3

4E4=CD0;;H
4=C4A
=40A1H
BDA5024
F0C4AB
0B
F4;;
0B
341A8B
0=3
34?>B8CB
5A><
?A>942C
>?4A0C8>=B
><?;80=24
F8C7
0??;8201;4
F0C4A
@D0;8CH
?;0=B
?4A<8CB
0=3
A46D;0C8>=B
F>D;3
<8=8<8I4
8<?02CB $A>942C
34E4;>?<4=C
F8;;
14
A4@D8A43
C>
BD1<8C
BC>A<
F0C4A
<0=064<4=C
?;0=B
5>A
C74
?A>942C
C70C
B70;;
8=2;D34
2>=BCAD2C8>=
4A>B8>=
0=3
B438<4=C0C8>=
2>=CA>;B
0B
F4;;
0B
?>BC2>=BCAD2C8>=
4BC
!0=064<4=C
$A02C824B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

,&#


A>D=3F0C4A
&4B>DA24B
0=3
%D0;8CH
$A>942C
F>D;3
14
B4AE43
1H
C74
8CHMB
F0C4A
BHBC4<
F7827
A4;84B
8=
?0AC
>=
6A>D=3F0C4A
$A>942C
20=
14
022><<>30C43
5A><
8CHMB
4G8BC8=6
BD??;84B
F8C7>DC
A4@D8A8=6
0338C8>=0;
6A>D=3F0C4A
$A>942C
F>D;3
14
BD1942C
C>

A>D=3F0C4A

'DBC08=018;8CH
$;0=
5>A
10B8=
F7827
8=2;D34
38A42C
0=3
8=;84D A4270A64
?A>942CB

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

,&#

A08=064
$0CC4A=B
0=3
&D=>55
$A>942C

F>D;3
0;C4A
4G8BC8=6
3A08=064
?0CC4A=B
0=3
AD=>55
E>;D<4B
1DC
?A>942C
540CDA4B
F>D;3
A43D24
8<?02CB

BBD4B
0BB>280C43
F8C7

F0C4A
@D0;8CH
>5
AD=>55
F>D;3
14
<8C860C43

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

,&# &4;40B4
>5
$>;;DC0=CB
8=
;>>3
(BD=0<8

0=3
'48274
->=4B
#=;H
0
B<0;;
?>AC8>=
>5
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
8B
F8C78=
0
!34B86=0C43

H40A
5;>>3?;08=
0=3
=>

1D8;38=6B
DB8=6
>A
BC>A8=6
70I0A3>DB
<0C4A80;B
F>D;3
14
;>20C43
C74A4
(74
?A>942C
B8C4
F>D;3
=>C
14
BD1942C
C>
5;>>38=6
5A><
30<
>A
;4E44
508;DA4
>A
5A><
B48274B
>A

CBD=0<8B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C

,&#
>=B8BC4=2H
F8C7
+0C4A
%D0;8CH
0=3

A>D=3F0C4A
!0=064<4=C
$;0=B
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
2><?;H

F8C7
0??;8201;4
F0C4A
@D0;8CH
?;0=B
0=3
14
2>=B8BC4=C
F8C7
C74

A>D=3F0C4A
'DBC08=018;8CH
$;0=
5>A
C74
0BC4A=
'0=
>0@D8=
'D110B8=
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1111














 



























 
























" !






0(/3
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'










<?02C
)$

8E8B8>=
>5
><<D=8C84B
(74
0A40

BDAA>D=38=6
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
8B
0
2><18=0C8>=
>5
E020=C
?0A24;B
06A82D;CDA0;
DB4B
0=3
ADA0;
A4B834=C80;
0=3
2><<4A280;
34E4;>?<4=C
(78B
3>4B
=>C
2>=BC8CDC4
0

2><<D=8CH
C70C
2>D;3
14
38E8343
1H
C74
?A>942C


"

">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)$

>=5;82C
F8C7
??;8201;4
$;0=B
$>;8284B
0=3

&46D;0C8>=B
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
14
2>=B8BC4=C
F8C7
C74
?>;8284B
>5
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=
$A>942C
<0H
2>=5;82C
F8C7
>
?>;8284B
?A4B4AE8=6
06A82D;CDA0;
;0=3
1DC
?A>942C
F>D;3
14
BD1942C
C>
C74
8CHMB
6A82D;CDA0;
0=3B
!8C860C8>=
$A>6A0<
$A>942C
B8C4
8B
2>=B8BC4=C
F8C7
34E4;>?<4=C
BC0=30A3B
5>A
><?0C818;8CH
->=4
1
>5
C74
'C>2:C>=
!4CA>?>;8C0=
8A?>AC
 )$

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)$


=3D24<4=C
>5
$>?D;0C8>=

A>FC7
+78;4
C74
F0A47>DB4
34E4;>?<4=C
F>D;3
?A>E834
4<?;>H<4=C
>??>ACD=8C84B
C74B4
>??>ACD=8C84B
0A4
4G?42C43
C>
14
58;;43
<08=;H
1H
4G8BC8=6
A4B834=CB
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
8=3D24
?>?D;0C8>=
6A>FC7
14H>=3
C70C
0=C828?0C43
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)$
8B?;024<4=C
>5

>DB8=6
0=3
$4>?;4
(74
?A>942C
B8C4
70B
B8=6;450<8;H
A4B834=24B
C70C
F>D;3
14
34<>;8B743

>F4E4A
C74A4
8B
0E08;01;4
7>DB8=6
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=
0A40
C>
022><<>30C4
0=H
38B?;0243
?4AB>=B
'
">=4
A4@D8A43





<?02C
"#
'


=2A40B4
8=
">8B4
4E4;B
8=
G24BB
>5

'C0=30A3B(A05582
(A05582
64=4A0C43
D=34A
G8BC8=6
$;DB
??A>E43
$A>942CB
$;DB
$A>942C
2>=38C8>=B
F>D;3
8=2A40B4
CA05582
=>8B4
;4E4;B
0;>=6
B46<4=CB
>5
!0A8?>B0
&>03
C70C
F>D;3
4G2443
8CH
">8B4
;4<4=C
BC0=30A3B
.(78B
8BBD4
F0B
0=0;HI43
8=
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=




&
0=3
F0B

34C4A<8=43
C>
14
B86=85820=C
0=3
D=0E>8301;4/

$'
">=4
0E08;01;4
')

Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1112














 



























 
























" !






0(/4
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

<?02C
"#
'


=2A40B4
8=
">8B4
4E4;B
8=
G24BB
>5

'C0=30A3B#C74A
$A>942C
">8B4
">8B4
5A><
CA08;4A
?0A:8=6
0=3
CAD2:
;>038=6 D=;>038=6
2>D;3
05542C
=40A1H
B4=B8C8E4
;0=3
DB4B
<08=;H
A4B834=24B

$'
"#
'

'>D=3
F0;;B
0=3 >A
14A<B

544C
8=
74867C
B70;;
14
A4@D8A43
F74A4
4G8BC8=6
A4B834=C80;
DB4B
>A
A4B834=C80;;H
I>=43
0A40B
0A4
;>20C43
039024=C
C>
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
86DA4

>5
C74
?A>942C
=>8B4
BCD3H
86DA4



>5
C78B

&
C74

&
B7>FB
C74
;>20C8>=B
>5
C74
A42><<4=343
B>D=3
F0;;B
10B43
>=
C74
?A>?>B43
2>=24?CD0;
?;0=
'8C4
?;0=
<>385820C8>=B
0=3 >A
0338C8>=0;
=>8B4
0=0;HB8B
1H
0
@D0;85843
02>DBC820;
2>=BD;C0=C
<0H
F0AA0=C
270=64B
C>
C74B4
A4@D8A4<4=CB
0BBD<8=6
C70C
2><?;80=24
F8C7
8CH
=>8B4
BC0=30A3B
8B
<08=C08=43
'

<?02C
"#
'


=2A40B4
8=
">8B4
4E4;B
8=
G24BB
>5

'C0=30A3B>=BCAD2C8>=
>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B
<0H

?>C4=C80;;H
8=2A40B4
0<184=C
=>8B4
01>E4
8CH
BC0=30A3B
0C
=40A1H
A4B834=24B

$'
"#
'

>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B
0BB>280C43
F8C7
C74
?A>942C
B70;;
0374A4
C>
C74
A4@D8A4<4=CB
>5
C74
8CH
>5
'C>2:C>=
!D=828?0;
>34
F8C7
A4B?42C
C>
7>DAB
>5
>?4A0C8>=
(74
0??;820=C
B70;;
>A38=0A8;H
;8<8C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B
C>
C74
7>DAB
>5


0<
C>


?<
!>=30H
C7A>D67
'0CDA30H
">
2>=BCAD2C8>=
B70;;
>22DA
>=
'D=30HB >A
=0C8>=0;
7>;830HB
F8C7>DC
0
FA8CC4=
?4A<8C
5A><
C74
8CH
;;
2>=BCAD2C8>=
4@D8?<4=C
B70;;
14
8=
6>>3
F>A:8=6
>A34A
0=3
B70;;
14
58CC43
F8C7
502C>AH4@D8??43
<D55;4AB
'

<?02C
"#
'

A>D=31>A=4
*81A0C8>=B
0AC7<>E8=6

4@D8?<4=C
<0H
64=4A0C4
B><4
6A>D=31>A=4
E81A0C8>=B
1DC
=>C
0C
;4E4;B
38BC8=2C;H
?4A24?C81;4
1H
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>AB
>A
C7A40C4=8=6
C>
BCAD2CDA4B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
"#
'
8A?>AC
0=3
8ABCA8?
">8B4
(74
?A>942C
B8C4

8B
>DCB834
=>8B4
2>=C>DAB
4BC01;8B743
1H
C74
'C>2:C>=
!4CA>?>;8C0=
8A?>AC
 )$
">
?A8E0C4
08ABCA8?B
0A4
8=
C74
E828=8CH

"

">=4
A4@D8A43


 










<?02C
$'&

8A4
$A>C42C8>=
'4AE824 "4F
>A
4G?0=343

5028;8C84B
<0H
14
A4@D8A43
8=
C74
5DCDA4
1DC
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C CA8664A
C78B
A4@D8A4<4=C
$D1;82
028;8CH
44B
F8;;
14
?083
0=3
5DCDA4
5028;8C84B
F>D;3
14
BD1942C
C>
%
A4E84F
&42><<4=343
8A4
'4AE824
$A>C42C8>=
<?A>E4<4=C
!40BDA4B
38B2DBB43
8=
C74

&
8=2;D34 0A;H
'D??A4BB8>=

0BC
&4B?>=B4
B?A8=:;4A
BHBC4<B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43



Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1113














 



























 
























" !






0(/5
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

<?02C
$'&

$>;824
$A>C42C8>=
'4AE824B
"4F
>A
4G?0=343

5028;8C84B
<0H
14
A4@D8A43
8=
C74
5DCDA4
1DC
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C CA8664A
C78B
A4@D8A4<4=C
$D1;82
028;8CH
44B
F8;;
14
?083
0=3
5DCDA4
5028;8C84B
F>D;3
14
BD1942C
C>
%
A4E84F

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
$'&

'27>>;B
(74
?A>942C
8=E>;E4B
8=3DBCA80;

34E4;>?<4=C
F7827
3>4B
=>C
38A42C;H
64=4A0C4
=4F
BCD34=C
;>03
"4F
8=3DBCA80;
34E4;>?<4=C
F>D;3
14
A4B?>=B81;4
5>A
C74
?0H<4=C
>5
B27>>;
8<?02C
544B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
$'&
$0A:B
0=3
&42A40C8>=0;
'4AE824B
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
8=E>;E4
0=H
38A42C
45542CB
>=
?0A:B
>A
A42A40C8>=0;
5028;8C84B
=>A
F>D;3
8C
64=4A0C4
0
34<0=3
5>A
=4F
>A

4G?0=343
A42A40C8>=0;
5028;8C84B
>A
B4AE824B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
$'&
#C74A
$D1;82
028;8C84B
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
64=4A0C4
0338C8>=0;
34<0=3
5>A
;81A0AH
7>B?8C0;
0=3
2>DAC7>DB4
B4AE824B
0=3
C74A45>A4
F>D;3
=>C
A4@D8A4
=4F
>A
4G?0=343
5028;8C84B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43










<?02C
(&"'

!>C>A
*4782;4
(A0=B?>AC0C8>=
$;0=B
=C4AB42C8>=B
)=34A
G8BC8=6
$;DB
??A>E43
$A>942CB
$;DB
$A>942C
2>=38C8>=B
>=;H
5>DA
8=C4AB42C8>=B
05542C43
1H
C74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
>?4A0C4
0C
#'
01>E4
<8=8<0;;H
0224?C01;4
8CH
>5
'C>2:C>=
BC0=30A3B
&42><<4=343
=C4AB42C8>=

<?A>E4<4=C
!40BDA4B
F>D;3
8<?A>E4
#'
0C
CF>

8=C4AB42C8>=B
F78;4
>C74A
CF>
8=C4AB42C8>=B
F>D;3
=>C
A4@D8A4
8<?A>E4<4=CB
#'
8B
=>C
0
<40BDA4
>5
%
8<?02CB

'

&42><<4=343

<?A>E4<4=C
(&"'

(74
?A>942C
0??;820=C

B7>D;3
2>=CA81DC4
508AB70A4
2>BCB
C>
0=
8<?A>E4<4=C
>=
C74
!0A8?>B0
&>03
0=3

'CA44C 0A<8=6C>=
&>03
8=C4AB42C8>=
C70C
F>D;3
B?;8C
C74
=>AC740BC1>D=3
2><18=43
C7A>D67 A867CCDA=
;0=4
8=C>
0=
4G2;DB8E4
=>AC740BC1>D=3
C7A>D67
;0=4
0=3
0
K5A44L
=>AC740BC1>D=3C>B>DC740BC1>D=3
A867CCDA=
;0=4

&42><<4=343

<?A>E4<4=C
(&"'

(74
?A>942C
0??;820=C

B7>D;3
2>=CA81DC4
508AB70A4
2>BCB
C>
0=
8<?A>E4<4=C
>=
C74
!0A8?>B0
&>03
0=3
0A?4=C4A
&>03
8=C4AB42C8>=
C70C
F>D;3
F834=
C74
=>AC740BC1>D=3
0A?4=C4A
&>03
0??A>027
C>
8=2;D34
0=
4G2;DB8E4
=>AC740BC1>D=3C>
=>AC7F4BC1>D=3
;45CCDA=
;0=4
0=3
0
2><18=43
C7A>D67 A867CCDA=
;0=4



<?02C
(&"'

!>C>A
*4782;4
(A0=B?>AC0C8>=
$;0=B&>03F0H
'46<4=CB
)=34A
G8BC8=6
$;DB
??A>E43
$A>942CB
$;DB
$A>942C
2>=38C8>=B
>=;H
CF>
A>03F0H
B46<4=CB
05542C43
1H
C74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
>?4A0C4
0C
#'
01>E4
<8=8<0;;H
'

&42><<4=343

<?A>E4<4=C
(&"'

(74
?A>942C
0??;820=C

B7>D;3
2>=CA81DC4
508AB70A4
2>BCB
C>
0=
8<?A>E4<4=C
>=
C74
B46<4=C
>5
!0A8?>B0
&>03
5A><
'&

C>

'CA44C 0A<8=6C>=
&>03
C70C
F>D;3
F834=
C74
?>AC8>=B
>5
C78B
A>03F0H
B46<4=C
C70C
0A4
2DAA4=C;H


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1114














 



























 
























" !






0(/6
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

0224?C01;4
8CH
>5
'C>2:C>=
BC0=30A3B
&42><<4=343

&>03F0H
'46<4=C

<?A>E4<4=C
!40BDA4
F>D;3
8<?A>E4

#'
0C
>=4
B46<4=C
F78;4
>C74A
B46<4=C
F>D;3
=>C
A4@D8A4
8<?A>E4<4=CB
#'
8B
=>C
0
<40BDA4
>5
%
8<?02CB

>=4
;0=4
8=
4027
38A42C8>=
C>
CF>
;0=4B
8=
4027
38A42C8>=

<?02C
(&"'

!>C>A
*4782;4
(A0=B?>AC0C8>=
$;0=B&0<?

D=2C8>=B
)=34A
G8BC8=6
$;DB
??A>E43
$A>942CB
$;DB

$A>942C
2>=38C8>=B
C7A44
A0<?
9D=2C8>=B
05542C43
1H
C74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
>?4A0C4
0C
#'
01>E4
<8=8<0;;H
0224?C01;4
8CH
>5
'C>2:C>=
BC0=30A3B
>F4E4A
C74B4
5028;8C84B
F>D;3

>?4A0C4
F8C78=
BC0=30A3B
>5
C74
8CHMB
(A0=B?>AC0C8>=

<?02C

D834;8=4B
#'
8B
=>C
0
<40BDA4
>5
%
8<?02CB

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
(&"'
!>C>A
*4782;4
(A0=B?>AC0C8>=
$;0=B(AD2:
&>DC4B
$A>942C
?A>?>B4B
'(
CAD2:
A>DC4B
7>F4E4A
C78B
F>D;3
=>C
2>=5;82C
B86=85820=C;H
F8C7
<>C>A
E4782;4
CA0=B?>AC0C8>=
?;0=B
0??;8201;4
C>
CAD2:B

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
(&"'
>=5;82CB
F8C7
">=!>C>A
*4782;4
(A0=B?>AC0C8>=
$;0=B
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
2>=5;82C
F8C7
=>=<>C>A
E4782;4
CA0=B?>AC0C8>=
?;0=B
>A
C748A

8<?;4<4=C0C8>=

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
(&"'
>=B8BC4=2H
F8C7
%

D834;8=4B

'42C8>=



1
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
64=4A0C4
8=2A40B4B
8=

*!(
!8C860C8>=
8B
4G?42C43
C>
A43D24
C74
0<>D=C
>5
*!(
64=4A0C43
1DC
8C
F>D;3
=>C
14
A43D243
1H
0
;4E4;
8=3820C43
1H
'C>2:C>=
4=4A0;
$;0=
BC0=30A3
.(78B
8BBD4
F0B
=>C
0=0;HI43

8=
C74
'C>2:C>=

4=4A0;
$;0=




&/

'
(&"'

(74
?A>942C
B70;;
?A>E834
4=3>5CA8?
5028;8C84B
5>A
182H2;4
A834AB
C>
4=2>DA064
C74
DB4
>5
182H2;8=6
0B
0
E801;4
5>A<
>5
CA0E4;
C>
34BC8=0C8>=B
4B?4280;;H
C>
F>A:
=3>5CA8?
5028;8C84B
B70;;
8=2;D34
B7>F4AB
B42DA4
182H2;4
;>2:4AB
0=3
270=68=6
B?024B
(&"'

(74
?A>942C
B70;;
8<?;4<4=C
0=
4<?;>H4AB?>=B>A43

E0=?>>;
>A
B7DCC;4

E0=?>>;
F8;;
DBD0;;H
B4AE824
4<?;>H44BM
2><<DC4
C>
F>A:
F78;4
0
B7DCC;4
F8;;
B4AE824
=40A1H
CA0=B8C
BC0C8>=B
0=3
BDAA>D=38=6
2><<4A280;
24=C4AB
<?;>H4AB?>=B>A43
E0=?>>;
?A>6A0<B
4=C08;
0=
4<?;>H4A
?DA270B8=6
>A
;40B8=6
E0=B
5>A
4<?;>H44
DB4
0=3
>5C4=
BD1B838I8=6
C74
2>BC
>5
0C
;40BC
?A>6A0<
03<8=8BCA0C8>=
'2743D;8=6
8B
F8C78=
C74
4<?;>H4AMB
?DAE84F
0=3
A834A
270A64B
B70;;
14
B4C
>=
C74
10B8B
>5
E4782;4
0=3
>?4A0C8=6
2>BC
')

<?02C
(&"'
'054CH

0I0A3B
(74
CA05582
8<?02C
BCD3H
383
=>C
834=C85H
0=H
CA05582
70I0A3B
C70C
F>D;3
A4BD;C
5A><
C74 ?A>942C $A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
F>D;3
8=E>;E4
A>DC8=4
1DC
?>C4=C80;
CA05582
70I0A3B
1DC
2>=CA02C>AB
F8;;
14
A4@D8A43
C>
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1115














 



























 
























" !






0(/7
"$
0.00

! &

8


!%


8

!
!$


!%

8

!



!%


8


!%

8


!



#

)

!
 


!

!
!







*

+

!
!!

 " %

!$

 "

!




#


!

!




"
 '

 
!




!



"



$'

?A>E834
CA05582
B054CH
2>=CA>;
0B
F0AA0=C43

<?02C
(&"'
<4A64=2H
224BB
34@D0C4
4<4A64=2H
0224BB
F>D;3
14
?A>E8343
C>
C74
?A>942C
B8C4
'
">=4
A4@D8A43










"
<?02C
)(


+0BC4F0C4A
'4AE824B
0=3
028;8C84B
8CH
70B

034@D0C4
20?028CH
0C
8CB
CA40C<4=C
?;0=C
C>
022><<>30C4
?A>942C
G8BC8=6
B4F4A
;8=4B
0A4
8=
E828=8CH

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)(


+0C4A
'4AE824B
0=3
028;8C84B
8CH
70B

034@D0C4
F0C4A
BD??;84B
5>A
?A>942C
G8BC8=6
F0C4A
;8=4B
0A4
8=
E828=8CH

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)(


'C>A<F0C4A
'4AE824B
0=3
028;8C84B
$A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
2>==42C
C>
8CHMB
3A08=064
BHBC4<
1DC
F>D;3
?A>E834
>F=
BHBC4<
C70C
F>D;3
2>;;42C
0=3
38B270A64
AD=>55
C>
">AC7
8CC;49>7=B
A44:
F8C7>DC
20DB8=6
3>F=BCA40<
5;>>38=6
>A
A43D243
F0C4A
@D0;8CH

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)(

'>;83
+0BC4
G8BC8=6
;0=358;;B
8=
C74
>D=CH

F>D;3
70E4
034@D0C4
20?028CH
C>
022><<>30C4
?A>942C
B>;83
F0BC4
(74
?A>942C
F>D;3
2><?;H
F8C7
0??;8201;4
5434A0;
BC0C4
0=3
;>20;
BC0CDC4B
0=3
A46D;0C8>=B
A4;0C43
C>
B>;83
F0BC4
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)(

=4A6H
0=3
(4;42><<D=820C8>=B
028;8C84B
G8BC8=6
4;42CA820;
=0CDA0;
60B
0=3
C4;4?7>=4
;8=4B
0A4
0E08;01;4
=40A
C74
?A>942C
B8C4

'
">=4
A4@D8A43


<?02C
)(

$A>942C
=4A6H
>=BD<?C8>=
(74
?A>942C

F>D;3
=>C
2>=BD<4
4=4A6H
8=
0
<0==4A
C70C
8B
F0BC45D;
8=4558284=C
>A
D==424BB0AH
'
">=4
A4@D8A43


Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1116









































+9:D
492AE6C
5:DA=2JD
E96
D:I
=6EE6CD
C646:G65
3J
E96
:EJ
E92E
AC@G:56
4@>>6?ED
@?
E96
C27E

)

)

+9C66
@7
E96
HC:EE6?
4@>>6?ED
H6C6
C646:G65
3J
E96
:EJ
5FC:?8
E96
AF3=:4
C6G:6H
A6C:@5
7@C
E96

)
2?5
E9C66
4@>>6?ED
H6C6
C646:G65
27E6C
E96
4=@D6
@7
E96
C6G:6H
A6C:@5

%@
@E96C
4@>>6?ED
H6C6
C646:G65

+96
#625
86?4JD
HC:EE6?

C6DA@?D6D
E@
E9@D6
4@>>6?ED
2C6
AC@G:565
7@==@H:?8
6249
4@>>6?E
=6EE6C
+96
:EJPD

C6DA@?D6D
E@
DF3DE2?E:G6
4@>>6?ED
H6C6
AC@G:565
E@
E96
4@>>6?E:?8
286?4:6D
2E
=62DE

52JD
367@C6
E96
A=2??65
46CE:7:42E:@?
@7
E9:D
5@4F>6?E



E@E2=
@7
D:I
HC:EE6?
4@>>F?:42E:@?D
2==
7C@>
AF3=:4
286?4:6D
H6C6
C646:G65
5FC:?8
E96
C6G:6H
A6C:@5



=:DE
@7
E96
286?4:6D
DF3>:EE:?8
HC:EE6?
4@>>6?ED
:D
D9@H?
36=@H


@>>6?ED
)646:G65
@?
E96
'F3=:4
)6G:6H
C27E

)

2=:7@C?:2
:C
)6D@FC46D
@2C5




*2?
!@2BF:?
-2==6J
:C
'@==FE:@?
@?EC@=
:DEC:4E





2=:7@C?:2
6A2CE>6?E
@7
!FDE:46




$@?E6KF>2

:C6
:DEC:4E



*2?
!@2BF:?
@F?EJ



*:6CC2
=F3


(

F:56=:?6D
*64E:@?



DE2E6D
E92E
E96
#625
86?4JPD
C6DA@?D6D
D92==
56D4C:36
E96
5:DA@D:E:@?
@7
D:8?:7:42?E
6?G:C@?>6?E2=
:DDF6D
C2:D65
:?
4@>>6?ED
@?
E96
C27E
)


?
A2CE:4F=2C
E96
>2;@C
6?G:C@?>6?E2=
:DDF6D
C2:D65
H96?
E96
#625
86?4JPD
A@D:E:@?
:D
2E
G2C:2?46
H:E9
C64@>>6?52E:@?D
2?5
@3;64E:@?D
C2:D65
:?
E96
4@>>6?ED
>FDE
36
255C6DD65
:?
56E2:=
8:G:?8
C62D@?D
H9J
DA64:7:4
4@>>6?ED
2?5
DF886DE:@?D
H6C6
?@E
2446AE65

+96C6
>FDE
36
8@@5 72:E9
C62D@?65
2?2=JD:D
:?
C6DA@?D6
E@
4@>>6?ED
4@?4=FD@CJ
DE2E6>6?ED
F?DFAA@CE65
3J
724EF2=
:?7@C>2E:@?
2C6
?@E
DF77:4:6?E



+96
HC:EE6?
4@>>6?ED
C646:G65
@?
E96
'F3=:4
)6G:6H
C27E
)
2C6
D9@H?
@?
E96

7@==@H:?8
A286D


249
4@>>6?E
=6EE6C
:D
7@==@H65
3J
E96
#625
86?4JPD
C6DA@?D6D

)6DA@?D6D
2C6
AC@G:565
E@
E96
:?5:G:5F2=
4@>>6?ED
FDF2==J
A2C28C2A9D
>256
:?
6249
4@>>6?E
=6EE6C
:?
D6BF6?46


249
4@>>6?E
=6EE6C
:D
2DD:8?65
2
?F>36C
4@56
D9@H?
23@G6
2?5
6249
DF3DE2?E:G6
4@>>6?E
H:E9:?
E96
?F>36C65
=6EE6C
:D
2DD:8?65
2?
2=A9236E:42=
4@56

+9FD
6249
4@>>6?E
92D
2
F?:BF6
4@56
>256
FA
@7
E96
=6EE6C
?F>36C
2?5
E96
4@>>6?E
4@56



@C
6I2>A=6
4@>>6?E
NO
:D
E96
7:CDE
4@>>6?E
>256
3J
E96
*2?
!@2BF:?
-2==6J
:C
'@==FE:@?
@?EC@=
:DEC:4E




Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1117








 











arb.ca.gov 1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815 • Sacramento, California 95812 (800) 242-4450 October 8, 2021
Nicole Moore
Senior Planner
City of Stockton Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado
Stockton, California 95202
[email protected]
Dear Nicole Moore:

Thank you for providing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with the opportunity to comment on the Mariposa Industrial Park Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2020120283. The Project is proposed within the City of Stockton (City), California, which is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes.

As part of the Project, the City plans to annex approximately 203 acres of land from the County of San Joaquin. Once annexed, the City will rezone the Project site from General Agriculture to Industrial Limited to construct and operate seven light industrial buildings totaling 3,616,870 square feet. Although the Project’s future occupant(s) are unknown, the City expects that the proposed light industrial buildings would be occupied by a high-cube warehouse operator(s). Anticipated uses of the proposed light industrial buildings may include transload, short-term storage, cold storage, fulfillment center, or parcel hub uses.

Once in operation, the Project is expected to generate 12,370 daily vehicle trips; the DEIR did not specify the number of daily truck trips out of the total daily vehicle trips that would serve the Project.

If approved, the Project will expose nearby communities to elevated levels of air pollution beyond the existing baseline emissions at the Project site. Residences are located north, east, and west of the Project, with the closest homes located within 50 feet of the Project’s western boundary. In addition to residences, Hamilton Elementary School, Monroe Elementary School, and Montezuma Elementary School are located within 2 miles of the Project. These residences are already exposed to toxic diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions generated by existing industrial buildings, vehicle traffic along State Route 99 (SR99), and rail traffic along existing rail lines.

The State of California has placed additional emphasis on protecting local communities from the harmful effects of air pollution through the passage of Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) (Garcia, Chapter 136, Statutes of 2017). AB 617 is a significant piece of air quality legislation that highlights the need for further emission reductions in communities with high exposure burdens, like those in which the Project is located. Diesel PM emissions generated during the construction and operation of the Project would negatively impact neighboring communities, which are already impacted by air pollution from existing industrial buildings, vehicle traffic along SR-99, and local rail traffic.



Exhibit 1 - Final Environmental Impact Report
1118








 











Nicole Moore
October 8, 2021