City Council and Concurrent Authorities
December 12, 2023

EXHIBIT B
284
either the named insured or City of Stockton. The CGL and any policies, including Excess liability policies, may not be subject to a self-insured retention (SIR) or deductible that exceeds $25,000 unless approved in writing by City of Stockton. Any and all deductibles and SIRs shall be the sole responsibility of Contractor or subcontractor who procured such insurance and shall not apply to the Indemnified Additional Insured Parties. City of Stockton may deduct from any amounts otherwise due Contractor to fund the SIR/deductible. Policies shall NOT contain any self-insured retention (SIR) provision that limits the satisfaction of the SIR to the Named Insured.

The policy must also provide that Defense costs, including the Allocated Loss Adjustment Expenses, will satisfy the SIR or deductible. City of Stockton reserves the right to obtain a copy of any policies and endorsements for verification.

Other I
nsurance Provisions
The i
nsurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The Cit
y of Stockton, its offic ers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor.

General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Additional insured Name of Organization shall read “City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers.” Policy shall cover City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for all locations work is done under this contract.

2. Fo
r
any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary and non-contributory insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. This requirement shall also apply to any Excess or Umbrella liability policies. The City of Stockton does not accept endorsements limiting the Contractor’s insurance coverage to the sole negligence of the Named Insured.

3. Ea
ch insurance policy required by this clause shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City of Stockton.

Claims Made Policies (Professional & Pollution only)
EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT B
285
If any coverage required is written on a claims-made coverage form:

1. T
he retroactive date must be shown, and this date must be before the execution date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of contract work.

3. If
coverage is cancelled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective, or start of work date, the Contractor must purchase extended reporting period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.

4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City of Stockton for review.

5. If the services involve lead-based paint or asbestos identification/remediation, the Contractors Pollution Liability policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the services involve mold identification/remediation, the Contractors Pollution Liability policy shall not contain a mold exclusion, and the definition of Pollution shall include microbial matter, including mold.

Umbrella or Excess Policies
The Contractor may use Umbrella or Excess Policies to provide the liability limits as required in this agreement. This form of insurance will be acceptable provided that all of the Primary and Umbrella or Excess Policies shall provide all of the insurance coverages herein required, including, but not limited to, primary and non-contributory, additional insured, Self-Insured Retentions (SIRs), indemnity, and defense requirements. The Umbrella or Excess policies shall be provided on a true “following form” or broader coverage basis, with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying Commercial General Liability insurance. No insurance policies maintained by the Additional Insureds, whether primary or excess, and which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until the Contractor’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Stockton.

Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss.

Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT B
286
waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Stockton for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City of Stockton with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsements Pages of the CGL and any Excess policies listing all policy endorsements. All certificates and endorsements and copies of the Declarations & Endorsements pages are to be received and approved by the City of Stockton before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City of Stockton reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. City of Stockton reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City of Stockton is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage, subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as CG 20 38 04 13.

Duration of Coverage
CGL & Excess liability policies for any construction related work, including, but not limited to, maintenance, service, or repair work, shall continue coverage for a minimum of 5 years for Completed Operations liability coverage. Such Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work .

Surety Bonds
Contractor shall provide the following Surety Bonds:

1. Bid Bond

2. Performance Bond

3. Payment Bond

4. Maintenance Bond

The Payment Bond and the Performance Bond shall be in a sum equal to the contract price. If the Performance Bond provides for a one-year warranty a separate EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT B
287
Maintenance Bond is not necessary. If the warranty period specified in the contract is for longer than one year a Maintenance Bond equal to 10% of the contract price is required. Bonds shall be duly executed by a responsible corporate surety, authorized to issue such bonds in the State of California and secured through an authorized agent with an office in California.

Special Risks or Circumstances
City of Stockton reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other circumstances.

Cert
ificate Holder Address
Th
e address for mailing certificates, endorsements and notices shall be:

Ci
ty of Stockton
Its Officers, Officials, Employees and Volunteers
400 E Main Street, 3rd Floor – HR
Stockton, CA 95202
EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT B
288
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 1 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From:

HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to reaffirm the City's commitment to demonstrating respect for all individuals by strictly prohibiting discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment in the workplace. This policy defines prohibited behavior and conduct, and sets forth a procedure for reporting, investigating and resolving complaints of discrimination, harassment, in the workplace, including retaliation and hostile work environment.

II. POLICY
A. The City of Stockton prohibits any form of discrimination and/or harassment of any person based on race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, military and veterans status, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic characteristics or information, denial of family and medical care leave, marital status, sexual orientation, sex (including gender, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding), political affiliation, age (40 and older), concerted labor activity, or any other category or attribute consistent with state or federal law.

All such discrimination and harassment is unlawful and shall not be tolerated. In addition, under the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), the City of Stockton prohibits discrimination and/or harassment, or retaliation against an employee who obtains coverage, receives a tax credit or subsidy through the Health Care "Market Place" or "Exchange."
B. It is an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against or to harass an unpaid intern or volunteer on the basis of any legally protected classification unless an exception applies, such as a bona fide occupational qualification.

C. The City will neither tolerate nor condone discrimination and/or harassment of employees by managers, supervisors, co-workers, or non-employees with whom City employees have a business service, or professional relationship.

D. All City employees and non-employees share a responsibility to assist in EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
289
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 2 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From: HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09 5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 maintaining an employment environment free of discrimination and harassment. This policy applies to all aspects of City employment, including, but not limited to, hiring, reassignment, placement, promotion, employment action, disciplinary action, layoff, reemployment, transfer, leave of absence, compensation and benefits, training; or other terms of treatment of that person in an unpaid internship, or another limited duration program to provide unpaid work experience for that person, or the harassment of an unpaid intern or volunteer.

E. All allegations of discrimination and/or harassment shall be investigated immediately by the City, in accordance with this policy. If it is determined that any prohibited activity has occurred, remedial action shall be taken. Such action may include discipline up to and including discharge. In addition, under applicable law, individual supervisors and employees may be subject to personal liability and/or punitive damages in any litigation arising as a result of such conduct.

F. All new hires shall attend harassment awareness training, and supervisors and managers shall attend harassment awareness and prevention training for supervisors every two years.

G. The City of Stockton prohibits retaliation against any employee or non­ employee by another employee, non-employee, supervisor, or manager for reporting, filing, testifying, assisting or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted by the employer or a federal or state enforcement agency.

H. This policy applies to all officials, employees, volunteers, unpaid interns, agents, or contractors of the City.

I. This policy shall be administered by the Director of Human Resources.

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
290
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 3 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From:

HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment m the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 Ill. DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES OF DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT A. "Discrimination," as used in this policy, is any action, behavior, practice, or process that is intended to deny, or results in the denial of, employment rights, privileges, or benefits because of a person's race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, military and veterans status, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic characteristics or information, denial of family and medical care leave, marital status, sexual orientation, sex (including gender, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding), political affiliation, age (40 and older), concerted labor activity, or any other prohibition identified under state and federal law. The following are examples of conduct that may constitute discrimination:

1. Soliciting applications from a source where all or most of potential workers are of the same race or color.

2. Considering a person's gender as the basis for differences in pay, work assignments, performance evaluations, training, discipline, or any other area of employment; and

3. Questioning a job applicant about the existence, nature and severity of a disability.

B. "Harassment," as used in this policy, consists of any conduct affecting another person because of his or her race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, military and veterans status, physical or mental disability, medical condition, genetic characteristics or information, denial of family and medical care leave, marital status, sexual orientation, sex (including gender, gender identity, gender expression, transgender, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding), political affiliation, age (40 and older), concerted labor activity, or any other category or attribute identified under state and federal law when such conduct has the purpose or the effect of: (1) creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; (2) unreasonably interfering with the employee's or non-employee's work performance; or (3) EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
291
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 4 of 14

DISCRIMINATION AND

HARASSMENT POLICY
Effective Date: Revised From:
7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 otherwise adversely affecting an employee's or non-employee's employment opportunities.

Harassment may take many forms, including, but not limited to, the following examples:

1. Verbal Harassment: Epithets, derogatory and offensive comments or slurs based on race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital status, pregnancy, medical condition, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, age, or any other category or attribute identified under state and federal law.

2. Physical Harassment: Assault, impeding or blocking movement that results in the physical interference with normal work or movement on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital status, pregnancy, medical condition, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, age, or any other category or attribute identified under state and federal law.

3. Visual Harassment: The displaying of posters, photography, notices, bulletins, e-mails, cartoons or drawings with derogatory and offensive content based on race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital status, pregnancy, medical condition, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, age, or any other category or attribute identified under state and federal law.

C. "Sexual harassment," as used in this policy, is a subcategory of harassment, and is specifically defined by law as unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

1. Submission to such conduct is made a term or condition of employment; or

2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting the individual; or
EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
292
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 5 of 14

DISCRIMINATION AND

HARASSMENT POLICY
Effective Date: Revised From:
7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93

3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee's or non-employee's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment because of the persistent, severe or pervasive nature of the conduct.

Examples of Sexual Harassment include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Unwelcome sexual overtures or propositions.
b. Offering employment benefits or status in exchange for sexual favors.
c. Making or threatening retaliation after a negative response to sexual advances.
d. Visual conduct such as leering, making sexual gestures, displaying sexually suggestive objects or pictures, cartoons, calendars or posters.
e. Verbal conduct such as using epithets or slurs, telling sexually explicit jokes, or making derogatory or suggestive comments about a person's body or dress.
f. Written communications of a sexual nature distributed in hard copy, soft copy or via a computer network.
g. Verbal abuse of a sexual nature, graphic verbal commentary about an individual's body, sexually degrading words to describe an individual, suggestive or obscene letters, notes or invitations.
h. Physical conduct such as touching, assaulting, impeding or blocking movements.

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
293
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 6 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date:

HARASSMENT POLICY
Revised From:
7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95. 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 i. Retaliation for making harassment reports or threatening to report harassment.

D. Affordable Care Act (ACA) Anti-Retaliation
Pursuant to section §1558 of the Affordable Care Act, the City prohibits discrimination or retaliation towards any employee who:

1. Receives a health insurance tax credit or subsidy through the Health Care "Marketplace" or "Exchange", by which can trigger a penalty payable by the employer;

2. Reports potential violations of protections afforded under Title I of the Act, which provides guaranteed availability protections among other things;

3. Testifies in a proceeding concerning such violation;

4. Assists or participates in a proceeding concerning a violation; or

5. Objects to, or refuses to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the employee reasonably believes to be in violation of any provision of the Title I of the Act.

An employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of section §1558 of the Affordable Care Act may seek relief in accordance with the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies, and statutes of limitation set forth in section 2087(b) of title 15, United States Code.

IV. REPORTING AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
A. Immediate Action Required
The City's reporting and complaint procedures provide for an immediate, thorough and objective investigation of discrimination or harassment claims, appropriate disciplinary action taken against any person found to have engaged in prohibited behavior, and appropriate alternative remedies to any EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
294
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 7 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From:

HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 employee or non-employee subject to discrimination or harassment. To accomplish this, such incidents must be reported immediately to a supervisor or manager.

1. Employee's and Non-Employee's Responsibilities when Subjected to Discrimination and/or Harassment
a. Employees or non-employees who believe they have been subjected to discrimination or harassment, or are aware of discrimination or harassment against others, shall report the situation immediately to his/her supervisor or manager, except as specified in subsection (b), below. Employees and non­ employees shall report any such incidents occurring in the workplace, whether committed by coworkers, supervisors or managers, or third persons doing business with the City, such as customers or vendors, or other non-employees. If
comfortable doing so, an employee or non-employee who has a complaint of discrimination or harassment is encouraged to directly inform the person(s) engaging in the behavior that such conduct is offensive and insist the behavior to stop.
b. Employees and non-employees must immediately contact a supervisor or manager to register a complaint of discrimination or harassment, unless that supervisor or manager is the individual engaging in the unwanted behavior. In that case, the employee or non-employee may contact someone at the next supervisory level. If the employee or non-employee feels uncomfortable dealing directly with his or her immediate supervisor or manager, he or she may contact the department head, or the Director of Human Resources (or either of their designees) to register a complaint of discrimination or harassment.
c. Employees and non-employees may file a formal complaint of harassment or discrimination with their department head or EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
295
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 8 of 14

DISCRIMINATION AND

HARASSMENT POLICY
Effective Date: Revised From:
7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment In the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 with Human Resources. To assist the City in conducting a thorough investigation, complaints shall be submitted in writing and shall include specific details of the incident(s), the names of the individuals involved, the names of any witnesses, and any documentary evidence (notes, pictures, cartoons, etc.) that will corroborate the allegations.
d. Employees and non-employees shall immediately report any retaliation to a supervisor, manager, department head or Director of Human Resources (or designee). All retaliation complaints shall be immediately, objectively and thoroughly investigated in accordance with the investigation procedures.

If a report of retaliation is substantiated, appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including discharge shall be taken.

2. Supervisor's or Manager's Responsibilities to Eliminate Discrimination and/or Harassment
a. A supervisor or manager is responsible for enforcing the City's discrimination and harassment policy. Supervisors or
managers must ensure that all employees and non-employees are aware of the City's policy through open discussion of the policy at staff meetings and by posting the policy in a conspicuous location accessible to all staff members.
b. A supervisor or manager shall be cognizant of employees' and non-employees' behavior and shall not permit any employee or non-employee under their supervision to be subjected to or engage in any conduct prohibited by this policy.
c. A supervisor or manager who observes conduct prohibited by this policy shall immediately direct the employee or non­ employee to cease the conduct.

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
296
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 9 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Revised From:

HARASSMENT POLICY
Effective Date:
7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 d. A supervisor or manager who receives a complaint of
prohibited conduct is required to take the complaint seriously, and report the matter immediately to the department head; be supportive of the complainant; ensure there is no retaliation against the complainant; conduct an internal fact-finding review into the allegations; obtain as much detailed information as possible; thoroughly document the findings; communicate in written form to the parties the resolution of the complaint; and report to and consult with the Human Resources Department promptly, without delay.

B. Confidentiality. The City will make every effort to protect the privacy and confidentiality of all parties involved, as well as any information and/or documentation obtained, to the extent possible consistent with a thorough investigation.

C. Penalty for Non-Compliance. The City shall take disciplinary action, up to and including discharge, against any supervisor or manager who fails in his/her responsibility to take immediate action in response to an employee's or non-employee's complaint of discrimination or harassment. Further, such disciplinary action shall be taken against a supervisor or manager who fails to stop discriminatory or harassing conduct committed in his/her presence or to stop such conduct about which the supervisor or manager has knowledge.

V. INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES
A. Determination of Responsibility for Investigation
If a formal complaint is filed with the department head or the Director of Human Resources (or either of their designees), the department head and the Director of Human Resources shall consult with one another to determine whether the department or Human Resources shall conduct the fact-finding investigation into the allegations. Either the department head or the Director of Human Resources (or either of their designees), depending on who is EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
297
Subject:

B.

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No.10 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From:

HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment In the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 responsible for the investigation, shall issue written notification to the complainant and alleged harasser(s). The notification shall specify the nature of the complaint, and inform the parties that an investigation into the allegations of discrimination and/or harassment shall be conducted.

Investigative Guidelines
The investigation shall include the following steps taken in the order best suited to the circumstances:

1. Identify and preserve the evidence.

2. Confirm the name and position of the complainant. Interview the complainant.

3. Allow the complainant the opportunity to place the complaint in writing.

4. Obtain the identity of the alleged harasser(s).

5. Obtain as many details as possible regarding the incident(s) that prompted the complaint, including the number of occurrences, dates, times, locations, and witnesses (if applicable).

6. Ascertain how the complainant felt about the alleged incident when it occurred; complainant's response(s) to the alleged behavior; and witness statements (if applicable).

7. Ascertain if any threats or promises were made in connection with the alleged harassment.

8. Ascertain if the complainant knows of or suspects that there are other victims of harassment by the same person(s).

9. Ascertain whether the complainant has spoken to anyone, especially EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
298
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 11 of 14

DISCRIMINATION AND

HARASSMENT POLICY
Effective Date: Revised From:
7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment m the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 supervisors, about the harassment.

10. Ascertain what resolution would be acceptable to the complainant.

11. Interview the alleged harasser to get his or her side of the story, including any possible motivation for a false allegation.

12. Interview witnesses who were identified by the complainant regarding the alleged harasser or other persons identified during the investigation.

13. Interview witnesses who were identified by the alleged harasser or other persons identified during the investigation.

14. Advise all participants that the investigation is "confidential" and not to engage in any retaliatory conduct, as such conduct is subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. Confidentiality will be maintained to the extent possible. An individual who is interviewed during the course of an investigation is prohibited from discussing the substance of the interview, except as otherwise directed by a supervisor or the Director of Human Resources. Any individual who discusses the content of an investigatory interview will be subject to discipline or other appropriate sanction.

15. Conduct follow-up interviews, if warranted.

16. Prepare report of findings and discuss with management and designated legal staff.

VI. RESPONDING TO THE COMPLAINT
A. Following the completion of the fact-finding investigation, either the department head or the Director of Human Resources (or either of their designees), depending on who is responsible for the investigation, shall EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
299
Subject:

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Directive No. HR-15 Page No.12 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From: HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09 5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 make a report of findings, along with a recommendation regarding the appropriate remedial action to be taken, if warranted. The recommendation shall be made after reviewing the findings of the investigation, giving consideration to all factual information, the nature of the alleged conduct, and the totality of the circumstances. If the investigation was conducted by the Director of Human Resources, or designee, the Director, or designee, shall confer with the affected department head and both shall concur on the remedial action to be taken, if any. If the investigation was conducted by the department head, the department head shall confer with the Director of Human Resources prior to making the report of findings and both shall concur on the remedial action to be taken, if any.

B. If either the department head or the Director of Human Resources does not concur with the findings and recommendation of the other, the City Attorney (or designee) shall review and resolve the matter in dispute.

C. Report of findings and recommendation shall be treated as a confidential document and no other distribution shall be made without first consulting with the City Attorney's Office. A completed investigation report will not be disclosed, except as it is deemed necessary to support a disciplinary action, to take remedial action, to defend the City in adversarial proceedings, or to comply with the law or court order.

D. Either the department head or the Director of Human Resources (or either of their designees), depending on who is responsible for the investigation shall provide a written response to the complainant and the person alleged to have committed the misconduct, discrimination and/or harassment. The response shall include a copy of the City's discrimination and harassment policy and a memorandum indicating the City's determination as to whether the complaint is:

1. Unsustained: The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation(s).

2. Unfounded: The investigation proved that the act(s) or omission(s) EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
300

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Subject: Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 13 of 14
DISCRIMINATION AND Effective Date: Revised From:

HARASSMENT POLICY 7/27/09

3. 5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 complained of did not occur. The finding also applies when the individual employee(s) named in the complaint were not involved in the act(s) or omission(s) alleged.

Sustained: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation(s) made in the complaint; appropriate action will be taken.

E. Details regarding any specific fact-findings or disciplinary action to be taken will not be communicated to the complainant. The City Attorney shall review the response for legal sufficiency before dissemination.

F. The City shall close and retain the investigation file, in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and City policy regarding retention of City records.

VII. DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary action imposed as a result of any investigation conducted pursuant to this policy shall be commensurate with the severity of the offense, up to and including discharge, even for a first offense.

VIII. ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
If upon exhausting all internal remedies to file, investigate, and respond to a charges of discrimination/harassment, pursuant to title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C §§ 2000e et seq.), any person has a right to file a charge of discrimination/harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In addition, pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §§ 12900 - 12996.) a person may also file a complaint of discrimination/harassment with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH"). Employees or non-employees who believe that they have been subjected to discrimination/harassment may file a complaint with either of these EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
301

CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

CITY MANAGER ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE
Subject: Directive No. HR-15 Page No. 14 of 14

DISCRIMINATION AND

HARASSMENT POLICY
Effective Date: Revised From:
7/27/09
5/1/2015 4/6/09
3/1/2010
(see below)
PER-015 (Sexual Harassment in the Workplace) revised from 10/21/94, 5/1/95, 1/1/98 PER-037 (Sexual Harassment Investigative Procedures) revised from 2/15/93 agencies. Both the EEOC and DFEH serve as neutral fact-finders and attempt to assist parties in resolving disputes voluntarily.

IX. COMMUNICATION OF POLICY
This policy shall be provided to all managers, supervisors, employees, volunteers, unpaid interns, agents or contractors of the City and shall be posted in the appropriate places. All employees shall participate in City approved harassment awareness training as directed by management or Human Resources; and all supervisors, as required by law, shall participate in City approved interactive harassment awareness training and education sessions at least once every two years, or as otherwise specified by law.

APPROVED:
c:r��SON

CITY MANAGER
::ODMA\GRPWISE\COS.PER.PER_Library:96180.1
EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT C
302

BOND FO

R FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
KNOW
ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That we, ARROW FENCE COMPANY , a STA TE OF CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, as Principal and , a
corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Stockton, a municipal corporation, duly created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, as obligee, in the just and full sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($230,720.00), in lawful money of the United States of America (being 100% of the contract price) for the payment whereof well and truly to be made to the said CITY, the said Principal and Surety bind themselves, their successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that the above bounded Principal has si
multaneously entered into a contract with the CITY, to do and perform the following work, to wit:

SWE

NSON PARK GOLF COURSE FENCE REPLACEMENT
(PROJECT NO. WB24033)
NOW
, THEREFORE, if the above bounded Principal, CONTRACTOR, Company or
Corporation or its subcontractor, shall well and truly perform the work contracted to be done under said contract, then this obligation to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.

No prepayment or delay in payment and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of said contract, or in said plans or specifications agreed to between the said CONTRACTOR and the said CITY, and no forbearance on the part of the said CITY shall operate to relieve any Surety or Sureties from liability on this bond, and consent by said Surety is hereby given, and the said Surety hereby waives the EXHIBIT 2

303
provi
sions of Sections 2819 and 2845 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

SIGNED AND SEALED on

APPROVED
AS TO SURETY: By:

PRINCI PAL

SURET Y
APPROVED AS TO FORM & CONTENT:

LORI M. ASUNCION

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By:

ATT ORNEY-IN-FACT
By:

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT 2

304

BOND FOR LABOR AND MATERIAL
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

That w e, ARROW F ENCE CO MPANY, a STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CORPO
RATION, as Principal and , corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of and duly authorized to transact business under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Stockton, a municipal corporation, duly created and existing under and by virtue of the law s of the State of California, and unto any and all m aterial su ppliers, per sons, c ompanies, or co rporations f urnishing materials, provisions, provender or other supplies used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contemplated t o be executed or p erformed under the co ntract hereinafter mentioned, a nd al l persons, co mpanies, o r co rporations r enting or hiri ng teams, or implements of machinery, for or c ontributing to said work a nd all p ersons who perform work or labor upon the same, and all persons who supply both work and m aterials, and whose claims have not been paid by t he contractor, company or corporation in the just and full sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY AND 00/
100 DOLLARS ($230,720.00), in lawful money of the United States of America (being 100% of the contract price) for the payment whereof well and truly to be made to said CITY and t o said per sons jointly and s everally, the said principal an d Surety bind themselves, their successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

The condition of the foregoing obligations is such that the above bounden Principal has simultaneously entered into a contract of even date herewith, with the CITY, to do and perform the following work, to-wit:

SWENSON PARK GOLF COURSE FENCE REPLACEMENT
(PROJECT NO. WB24033)
NOW, THEREFORE, if the above bounden Principal, CONTRACTOR, Company or Corporation or its subcontractor, fail to pay for all materials, provisions, provender, or other supplies, or teams, used in, upon, for or about the performance of the work contracted to be done, or for any work or labor done thereon of any kind, the Surety on EXHIBIT 2

305
this
bond will pay the same, in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, provided that any and all claims hereunder shall be filed and proceedings had in connection therewith as required by the provisions of Division 3, Part 4, Title 15, Chapter 5, Article 1 of the Civil Code of California, provided that in case suit is brought upon this bond, a reasonable attorney's fee shall be awarded by the Court to the prevailing party in said suit; said attorney's fee to be fixed as costs in said suit, and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.

No prepayment or delay in payment and no change, extension, addition or alteration of any provision of said contract or in said plans or specifications agreed to between the said CONTRACTOR and the said CITY and no forbearance on the part of the said CITY shall operate to relieve any surety or sureties from liability on this bond, and consent to make such alterations without further notice to or consent by any such surety is hereby given, and the said sureties hereby waive the provisions of Sections 2819 and 2845 of the Civil Code of the State of California.

SIGNED AND SEALED on .

APPROVED
AS TO SURETY: By:

PRINCI PAL

SURET Y
APPROVED AS TO FORM & CONTENT:

LORI M. ASUNCION

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By:

ATT ORNEY-IN-FACT
By:

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT 2

306
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-1144, Version: 1

STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC SAFETY UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational item only. No action to be taken.

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
307

STOCKTON
POLICE

TRAFFIC SAFETY
UPDATE
DECEMBER 12, 2023
ITEM 15.1
308

CURRENT

TRAFFIC UNIT

STAFFING
1 SQUAD
• 2 MOTOR SERGEANTS
• 1 ASSIGNED ONLY TO TOW HEARINGS
• 6 MOTOR OFFICERS
309

CURRENT

TRAFFIC DEPLOYMENT CAPABILITY
TOP 6 PRIMARY

COLLISION FACTOR

LOCATIONS (PCF)

ICAP FOCUS AREAS

TRAFFIC

COMPLAINT LOG

PROACTIVE

ENFORCEMENT BY

DISTRICT
310

FULLY STAFFED

TRAFFIC UNIT
• SQUAD 1
• 1 MOTOR SERGEANT
• 7 MOTOR OFFICERS
• SQUAD 2
• 1 MOTOR SERGEANT
• 7 MOTOR OFFICERS
311

FULLY STAFFED

TRAFFIC DEPLOYMENT CAPABILITY
TOP 6 PRIMARY

COLLISION FACTOR

LOCATIONS (PCF)

ICAP FOCUS AREAS

TRAFFIC

COMPLAINT LOG

PROACTIVE

ENFORCEMENT BY

DISTRICT
312

TRAFFIC CAPABILITIES

WITH ADDED STAFFING
TOP 6 PRIMARY

COLLISION FACTOR

LOCATIONS (PCF)
As identified by
Crime Analysis
Crash Data
reports

TRAFFIC

COMPLAINT LOG
In the order they
are received and
of exigent
circumstances

PROACTIVE

ENFORCEMENT
As Needed and
Order of
Importance
313
QUESTIONS?
314
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0890, Version: 1

ADOPT RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE

CALIFORNIA STREET ROAD DIET PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to:

1. Transfer funds totaling $846,305 from various projects to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194). a. $20,800 from the High Friction Surface Treatment, Project No. WT16022. b. $125,005 from the Bicycle Master Plan Program, Project No. WT17003. c. $260,000 from the Rule 20A Street Lighting Program, Project No. WT15021. d. $244,500 from the Traffic Signal Modification Program, Project No. WT15029. e. $196,000 from the California and Vine Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Improvements, Project No. WT21018.

2. Appropriate funds in the amount of $549,695 from the Public Facility Fee Air Quality Fund Balance to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No.

ATPSB1L-5008(194).

It is also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.

Summary
On June 13, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-06-13-1212, Council awarded a Construction Contract, in the amount of $9,446,626, to George Reed, Inc. of Modesto, CA, to complete the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194).

The project will implement lane reductions and install approximately four miles of bicycle facilities along California Street from Alpine Avenue to Eighth Street, and Eighth Street from California Street to El Dorado Street (Attachment A - Vicinity Map). The improvements will transform California Street into a complete street that will accommodate all modes of travel as envisioned in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan (BMP). The project was included in the 2018-23 and 2019-24 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIP).

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
315
File #: 23-0890, Version: 1
The project will be using approximately $11.2M in funding from the Active Transportation Program (ATP); Measure K sources; and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC).

AHSC is connected with an affordable housing development project entitled Hunter House, which has multiple funding sources including tax credits. State approval of AHSC funding is expected once tax credits are received for the project. AHSC funding was not used to fund the Construction Contract with George Reed, Inc. because this funding source is not anticipated to be available until spring of 2024 when tax credits for the Hunter House project are received. Therefore, staff has assembled alternative funding until the AHSC becomes available to fully fund construction management, materials testing, construction contingency, and staff time.

Staff has identified unencumbered Measure K funds in several project accounts that are sufficient to cover the shortfall left by the outstanding AHSC funds. Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing the transfer of funds, in the total amount of $1,396,000, to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194).

DISCUSSION
Background
On December 5, 2017, by Resolution No. 2017-12-05-1501, Council approved a new BMP for the City. The BMP was completed with input from stakeholders in the community with the goal of improving access to bicycle facilities for residents of the City. The California Street corridor is a key corridor and is part of the north-south backbone bicycle network of the BMP.

The California Street Road Diet project will implement lane reductions and install approximately four miles of Class II and IV bicycle facilities along California Street from Alpine Avenue to Eighth Street, and a Class III bicycle route along Eighth Street from California Street to El Dorado Street (Attachment A - Vicinity Map). The improvements will transform California Street into a complete street that will accommodate all modes of travel as envisioned in the City’s BMP. The project will also upgrade/repair existing curb ramps, sidewalks, and complete signal modifications within the project limits.

The project will be using approximately $11.2M in funding from the ATP ($4.39M); the Measure K Smart Growth Incentive Program ($4.21M); Measure K Bicycle, Pedestrian and Safe Routes to School Program ($1.38 M); and AHSC Program ($1.2M) for design and construction of the project.

The Measure K funds were identified in the 2018-23 and 2021-26 Five-Year CIPs. The ATP funds were identified in the 2019-24 Five-Year CIP. AHSC funds will be appropriated pending approval received from the State. AHSC is connected with an affordable housing development project entitled Hunter House, which has multiple funding sources including tax credits. State approval of AHSC funding is expected once tax credits are received for the project. Design of the project was completed, and the project was subsequently advertised for construction.

Present Situation
On June 13, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-06-13-1212, Council awarded a Construction Contract, in the amount of $9,446,626, to George Reed, Inc. of Modesto, CA, to complete the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194). AHSC funding was not City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
316
File #: 23-0890, Version: 1
used to fund the Construction Contract as this funding source is not expected to be available until spring of 2024 when tax credits for the Hunter House project are received. Consequently, this leaves the California Street Road Diet project with insufficient funds for construction management, material testing, contingency, and staff time in the initial stages of construction. Staff has assembled alternative funding until the AHSC becomes available.

Staff has identified unencumbered Measure K funds in several project accounts that are sufficient to cover the shortfall left by the outstanding AHSC funds. Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing the transfer of funds, in the total amount of $1,396,000, to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194). When AHSC funding becomes available during construction, remaining funds can be returned to the fund balance upon project completion or redirected to additional curb, gutter, and sidewalk repair improvements for the project.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The resolution includes the following actions to provide sufficient funding to fund all construction related costs to complete the project:

1. Transfer funds totaling $846,305 from various projects to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194), Account No. 4510-000- 800007-300-000-30-45-000-000.
a. $20,800 from the High Friction Surface Treatment, Project No. WT16022, Account No. 4570-000-800007-300-000-30-45-000-000.
b. $125,005 from the Bicycle Master Plan Program, Project No. WT17003, Account No. 4570-000-800007-300-000-30-45-000-000.
c. $260,000 from the Rule 20A Street Lighting Program, Project No. WT15021, Account No. 4570-000-800007-300-000-30-45-000-000.
d. $244,500 from the Traffic Signal Modification Program, Project No. WT15029, Account No. 4510-000-800007-300-000-30-45-000-000.
e. $196,000 from the California and Vine Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Improvements, Project No. WT21018, Account No. 4570-714-800007-250-252-30-45- 000-000.

2. Appropriate funds in the amount of $549,695 from Public Facility Fee Air Quality Fund Balance to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008 (194), Account No. 4510-000-800007-300-000-30-45-000-000.

There is no impact to the City’s General Fund or any other unrestricted fund as a result of taking the recommended actions.

Attachment A - Vicinity Map
City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
317

VICINITY MAP

NOTTO SCALE
LEGEND

PROJECT LIMITS

CALIFORNIA STREET ROAD DIET
PROJECT NO. WT18005

CITY OF STOCKTON

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

ATTACHMENT A
318
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CALIFORNIA STREET ROAD DIET, PROJECT NO. WT18005/FEDERAL PROJECT NO. ATPSB1L-5008(194)

On June 13, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-06-13-1212, Council awarded a Construction Contract, in the amount of $9,446,626, to George Reed, Inc. of Modesto, CA, to complete the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194); and

Transfer and appropriation of funds is needed to fully fund all other construction related costs to complete the project; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council approves the transfer of funds totaling $846,305 from various projects to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194):

a. $20,800 from the High Friction Surface Treatment, Project No.

WT16022.

b. $125,005 from the Bi cycle Master Plan Program, Project No.

WT17003.

c. $260,000 from the Rule 20A Street Lighting Program, Project No.

WT15021.

d. $244,500 from the Traffic Signal Modification Program , Project No.

WT15029.

e. $196,000 from the California and Vin e Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Improvements, Project No. WT21018.

2. The City Council approves the appropriation of funds in the amount of $549,695 from the Public Facility Fee Air Quality Fund Balance to the California Street Road Diet, Project No. WT18005/Federal Project No. ATPSB1L-5008(194). //
//
319

3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED December 12, 2023 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
ATTEST: Mayor of the City of Stockton

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
320
California Street Road Diet
Public Works Department
December 12, 2023
Item No. 15.2
321
Project Location
Project is split into two phases:
• Phase I:
• From Alpine Avenue to Miner Avenue
• Phase II:
• Miner Avenue to Eighth Street
• Eighth Street from California Street
to El Dorado Street
Phase I Phase II
322
Visual Renderings
323
Project Information
 Improvements:
 Install 1.2 miles of Class IV and 3.8 miles of Class II bicycle lanes with vehicle lane reduction from four lanes to two lanes
 Install signal upgrades, upgrade sidewalk, and upgrade curb ramps to current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards
 Parking Impacts:
 Along California Street there will be a potential loss of 35 parking spots  Some locations losing parking include the re-establishment of red curb for fire hydrants/line of sight
324
Project Schedule
 2020-2021 – Design (Siegfried Engineering, Inc.)
 March 2023 – Advertise for Construction
 June 2023 - Award Construction Contract (George Reed, Inc.)  October 2023 - Begin Construction
 Fall 2024 - Complete Construction (weather permitting) 325
Project Budget
 Project received $9,973,143 in grant funds for completion of design and construction  $4,390,000 in Active Transportation Program
 $4,206,000 in Measure K Smart Growth Incentive
 $1,377,143 in Measure K Renewal Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Safe Routes to School  City received commitment for an additional $1,200,000 as part of the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program Grant  AHSC funds are anticipated to be secured by Spring 2024 and accepted by City Council soon after.
 To expedite construction of the California and Vine Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons Improvements project, construction funds for this project in the amount of $196,000 will be transferred to the California Street Road Diet project. 326

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to:
 Transfer funds to the California Street Road Diet in the total amount of $1,396,000  $20,800 of Measure K funds from High Friction Surface Treatment, WT16022  $125,005 of Measure K funds from Bicycle Master Plan Program, WT17003  $260,000 of Measure K funds from Rule 20A Street Lighting Program, WT15021  $244,500 of Measure K funds from Traffic Signal Modification Program, WT15029  $196,000 of Measure K funds from California and Vine Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Improvements, WT21018
 $549,695 of Measure K funds from the Public Facility Fee Air Quality Fund Balance  It is also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution. 327
QUESTIONS?
328
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-1106, Version: 1

APPROVE MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 7, EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2, AND AUTHORIZE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 7

FOR THE NEW CITY HALL RENOVATIONS AND RELOCATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a motion to:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 7 in the amount of $820,000 with Indigo | Hammond + Playle Architects, LLP, for design support during construction for the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Contract with Griffin Structures, Inc., in the amount of $288,464, for construction management services for the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015.

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute Contract Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $93,261.41 with Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. for construction of the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015.

It is also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this motion.

Summary
This project is renovating two five-story buildings (one building includes a basement) including on- and off-site improvements. Upon completion, the majority of City departments will be relocated into the buildings. This project is approximately 60 percent complete and was included in the 2018-23, 2019-24, 2020-25, and 2021-26 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs).

On December 17, 2019, by Motion No. 2019-12-17-1108, Council awarded a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $1,392,900 to Indigo | Hammond + Playle Architects, LLP (Indigo), of Davis, CA, for architectural design and engineering/construction drawings for Tenant Improvements to the Waterfront Towers for the Relocation of City Hall project.

On November 16, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-11-16-1205, Council awarded a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $722,000 to Griffin Structures, Inc. (Griffin) of Santa Clara, CA, for construction management services for the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No.

E016015.

On May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-05-03-0902, Council awarded a Construction Contract in City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
329
File #: 23-1106, Version: 1
the amount of $42,348,123 to Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. (Roebbelen) of El Dorado Hills, CA, for construction of the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015.

Building remodel type projects of this size and complexity often experience unforeseen conditions that require a team approach to resolve. The contractor, architect, and construction management staff all play key roles. While these issues are expected to decrease as the project progresses, the volume of changes require adjustments to contracts to ensure that adequate supervision and guidance are provided to project completion.

It is recommended that Council approve Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 7 in the amount of $820,000 with Indigo so that they can continue to respond to inquiries from the contractor, provide design alterations to work around field conditions, and provide design changes initiated by the City. To date, six Professional Services Contract Amendments totaling $1,803,233 have been approved with Indigo. Upon approval of Amendment No. 7, the revised total contract amount will be $4,016,133.

It is also recommended that Council approve Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $288,464 with Griffin to provide additional funds to continue to monitor daily construction activities for compliance to plans and specifications. Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $169,832 with Griffin was approved for additional enhanced scheduling and construction management services required on the project. Upon approval of Amendment No. 2, the revised total contract amount will be $1,180,296.

It is further recommended that Council approve Contract Change Order (CCO) No. 7 in the amount of $93,261.41 with Roebbelen to provide waterproofing to the basement walls. To date, six CCOs totaling $4,300,017.59 have been approved with Roebbelen. Upon approval of CCO No. 7, the revised total contract amount will be $46,741,402.

Council approval is required, as each of these contract changes or amendments exceed the administrative authority for change orders or amendments. Upon Council approval of the recommended contract changes or amendments, the administrative authority will be reset, providing the City Manager with authority to approve future contract changes or amendments up to the new calculated limits. The recommended actions do not increase project budget.

DISCUSSION
Background
The Tenant Improvements to the Waterfront Towers for the Relocation of City Hall project site is located at 501 and 509 West Weber Avenue, at the northwest corner of Weber Avenue and Lincoln Street (Attachment A - Vicinity Map). The project is in the process of renovating two five-story buildings (one building includes a basement) including on- and off-site improvements. Upon completion, the majority of City departments will be relocated into the buildings. The project was included in the 2018-23, 2019-24, 2020-25, and 2021-26 Five-Year CIPs and funded by multiple funding sources.

On December 17, 2019, by Motion No. 2019-12-17-1108, Council awarded a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $1,392,900 to Indigo of Davis, CA, for architectural design and City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
330
File #: 23-1106, Version: 1
engineering/construction drawings for Tenant Improvements to the Waterfront Towers for the Relocation of City Hall project.

Amendment Nos. 1 through 6 with Indigo were previously approved for various changes needed during the design and construction phases. In the construction phase, the architect plays an integral role in providing design support. Building remodel type projects of this size and complexity often experience unforeseen conditions that require a team approach to resolve. The contractor, architect, and construction management staff all collaborate to resolve construction issues. The architect must be available to respond to requests for information from the contractor. Construction issues often require input from the architect, or modification to the original design to address field conditions.

While these issues are expected to decrease as the project progresses, the volume of changes on a project of this size require constant attention. The project is nearing completion. However, guidance of resolving field issues and completing project close out work will be required from the project architect. Indigo has submitted Amendment No. 7 for the needed extra services.

On November 16, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-11-16-1205, Council awarded a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $722,000 to Griffin of Santa Clara, CA, for construction management services for the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015.

Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $169,832 with Griffin was approved for additional enhanced scheduling and construction management services required on the project. Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $288,464 provides additional construction management services to complete the project.

Significant field changes, material supply chain issues, utilities coordination, and other project issues have delayed the New City Hall project. This can be expected for a project of this size. Due to these delays, the contract with Griffin will need to be extended to account for the additional time needed to manage the project through completion and close out of the project. Griffin has submitted Amendment No. 2 for the needed extra services.

On May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-05-03-0902, Council awarded a Construction Contract in the amount of $42,348,123 to Roebbelen of El Dorado Hills, CA, for construction of the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015.

To date, six CCOs have been approved with Robbelen for multiple changes and additions including:
additional demolition; more heating, ventilation, and air conditioning upgrades; elevator upgrades; concrete structural repairs; additional exterior insulation finish system work; fire prevention additions; expedited electrical metering switchboard, floor plan changes, and other miscellaneous building additions. CCO No. 7 provides waterproofing to the basement walls to prevent water intrusion.

Present Situation
Many unforeseen conditions arise with a building remodel project of this size and complexity. In addition, new work is often added to the project that requires new architectural details or plan sheets.

Therefore, heavy involvement is needed throughout construction by the architect as well as the construction manager.

It is recommended that Council approve Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 7 in the amount of $820,000 with Indigo for design support during construction for the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015. The revised total contract amount will be $4,016,133 (Attachment B).

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
331
File #: 23-1106, Version: 1
It is also recommended that Council approve Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $288,464 with Griffin for construction management services for the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015. The revised total contract amount will be $1,180,296 (Attachment C).

It is further recommended that Council approve CCO No. 7 in the amount of $93,261.41 with Robbelen for construction of the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015.

The revised total contract amount will be $46,741,402 (Attachment D).

Council approval is required as each of these respective contract changes or amendments exceed the administrative authority for change orders or amendments. Upon Council approval of the recommended contract changes or amendments, the administrative authority will be reset, providing the City Manager with authority to approve future contract changes or amendments up to the new calculated limits. The recommended actions do not increase project budget.These contract changes are needed to provide the necessary funding and authority to make further changes administratively to successfully complete this critical project. The project construction is approximately 60 percent complete and is expected to be completed in summer of 2024.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
There is sufficient funding in the Tenant Improvements to the Waterfront Towers for the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015 (formerly PW1615), Account No. 4510-418- 800007-300-000-30-45-000-000, to approve Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 7 with Indigo in the amount of $820,000. With approval of Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 7, the revised total contract amount with Indigo is increased to $4,016,133. It is anticipated that Professional Service Contract Amendment No. 7 will provide adequate funding for architectural services into the spring of 2024, at which time their remaining scope of work will be re-evaluated.

There is sufficient funding in the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015 (formerly PW1615), Account No. 4510-418-800007-300-000-30-45-000-000, to approve Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 2 with Griffin in the amount of $288,464. With approval of Professional Services Contract Amendment No. 2, the revised total contract amount with Griffin is increased to $1,180,296.

There is sufficient funding in the New City Hall Renovations and Relocation, Project No. E016015 (formerly PW1615), Account No. 4510-418-800007-300-000-30-45-000-000, to approve CCO No. 7 with Roebbelen in the amount of $93,261.41. With approval of CCO No. 7, the revised total contract amount with Roebbelen is increased to $46,741,402.

There is no impact to the City’s General Fund or any other unrestricted fund as a result of taking the recommended actions.

Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Amendment No. 7 with Indigo
Attachment C - Amendment No. 2 with Griffin
Attachment D - CCO No. 7 with Roebbelen
City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
332

HARDING WAY

PACIFIC AVENUE

WILSON WAY

AIRPORT WAY

CALIFORNIA STREET

STOCKTON DEEP WATER CHANNEL

WEST LANE

EIGHTH STREET

NAVY DRIVE

CENTER STREET

FREMONT STREET WEBER AVE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR./CHARTER
WAY

PERSHING AVENUE
7(1$17,03529(0(176727+(:$7(5)521772:(56)25
7+(5(/2&$7,212)&,7<+$//352-(&712(

CITY OF STOCKTON

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

PROJECT LOCATION

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND

PROJECT LOCATION

CITY LIMIT

COUNTY LIMIT
N

ATTACHMENT A
333

ATTACHMENT B
334
, 2023
John Chang, P.E., Project Manager
City of Stockton
Public Works Dept.
22 E. Weber Ave, Room 301
Stockton, CA 95202
R
e: Amendment #7 – AddConstructionAdministrationPhaseservices, TenantImprovement to the Waterfront TowersfortheRelocationofCity Hall, Stockton, CA, PUR 18-016 Dear John,
This amendment is for a City-requested change in the scope of work for the project since execution of the original Phase II contract dated 12/17/19 and through Amendment #6, dated 3/29/23. All terms and conditions of the original agreement and all prior amendments remain in full force and effect. This amendment letter has been simplified at the request of the City.

Change to Scope:

This mendment No. 7 in the amount of $ ,000 provides funding for additional design construction support services. These services were not part of the original scope of the project but became necessary to complete the design and for construction of the project. Additional design Additional review time for Traffic Management Center on the 3rd floor of Building 2.

Staff Parking lot expanded scope: in progress schematic layout and early cost estimate.

Additional demolition requested by City.

Fire Admin design revisions: 2nd Floor, Building 1.

Extended construction phase duration by 6 months from original plan.

Major investigation of discovered conditions related to plumbing, fiber reinforced polymer FRP, and assessment of existing post-tensioned reinforced concrete suspended slabs to name a few.

Extensive work by structural engineer to assess condition of post-tensioned reinforced concrete suspended slabs and prescribe solutions based on non-destructive scanning, xray reports of Contractor.

Overall higher intensity of construction administration services than provided by the arbitrary amount included in Amendment #5.

Other changes to scope required during construction in order to achieve a successful project outcome on behalf of the City.

C
hanges to Contract Time:

No change this amendment.

EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT B
335
John Chang, P.E.
, 2023

Changes to Contract Cost:

Amendment No. 7 provides $820,000 for additional design construction support services required to complete the project. The work will continue to be billed on a time-and-material basis based on the updated rates provided by Amendment No. 6.

Contract Summary follows:
$1,392,900.
$105,743.
$527,147.
$14,900.
$175,443.
$600,000.
$380,000.
$820,000.

Contract Summary
Original Contract Total NTE amount
Added by Amendment #1, 6/30/20
Added by Amendment#2, 2/3/21
Added by this Amendment#3, 6/3/21
Added by this Amendment#4, 11/22/21
Added by this Amendment#5, 3/14/22
Added by this Amendment#6, 3/29/23
Added by this Amendment#7,
/ /23
Total Adjusted NTE amount $4,016,133.

The revised Task Price table is as follows, monthly invoicing to be adjusted accordingly.

Current
Authorized Task
Price
Change This
Amendment
Adjusted Task
Price
STEP #1 - KICK-OFF MEETING $13,400.00 $0.00 $13,400.00
STEP #2 - SCHEMATIC PLAN $110,100.00 $0.00 $110,100.00
STEP #3 - CONFIRM DIRECTION $38,293.00 $0.00 $38,293.00 STEP #4 - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, 30% PS&E $540,550.00 $0.00 $540,550.00 STEP #5 - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, 60% PS&E $592,516.15 $0.00 $592,516.15 STEP #6 - CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, 90% PS&E $554,116.15 $0.00 $554,116.15 STEP #7 - 100% PS&E AND PERMITTING $284,157.70 $0.00 $284,157.70 STEP #8 - BIDDING PHASE $83,000.00 $0.00 $83,000.00
STEP #9 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE $980,000.00 $820,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $3,196,133.00 $820,000.00 $4,016,133.00
Task Description

TOTAL PRICE, NTE FEE
Regards,
Bruce Playle, Architect, AIA
Licensed Architect C 15459
INDIGO/ Hammond & Playle Architects, LLP
attachments

EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT B
336
CITY OF STOCKTON Contract Amendment
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT AMENDMENT Number: Number:
422000450 2
This Amendment Number 2 to the above referenced Professional Services Contract, is entered into on __________ , between the City of Stockton ("City") and GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INC. ("Consultant") for CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FOR THE NEW CITY HALL RENOVATIONS AND RELOCATION, Project No. E016015.

RECITALS
Section 11, Contract Amendments, states that the Professional Services Contract may be amended only by written instrument signed by Consultant and City; and
The City needs to increase the Compensation, not to exceed amount in Section 2 of the Professional Services Contract and Exhibit B, by $288,464 to pay for the Consultant for additional services; and Now therefore, the City and the Consultant mutually agree as follows:

1. The maximum not to exceed amount to be paid to the Consultant, including if authorized, reimbursement of expenses, in Section 2 of the Professional Services Contract and Exhibit B, will now read as follows:
"The maximum not to exceed amount in Section 2 of the Professional Services Contract and Exhibit B, is amended to $1, 180,296."

2. City shall pay Consultant for additional changes in scope outlined in Exhibit A.

All other terms and conditions of the Professional Services Contract shall remain unchanged and remain in full force and effect unless modified by a written amendment signed by both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the authorized parties have executed this Contract.

CONSU LTANT
ividual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) Printed Name and Title of Person igning
1850 Warburton Ave., Suite 120, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Address
Harry Black, City Manager
ATTEST:

Eliza R. Garza CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Lori M. Asuncion, City Attorney
BY:
(Rev. 7.7.23)

CITY OF STOCKTON
Date

ATTACHMENT C
337

GRIFFIN STRUCTURES
AMENDMENT 02- ADDITIONAL TESTING & INSPECTIONS

NEW CITY HALL RENOVATION PROJECT

CITY OF STOCKTON
06/27/2023

EXHIBIT A
Griffin Structures' Fee Proposal is based on all reasonable costs necessary to perfom1 Additional Testing and Inspections senrices for the City of Stockton's New City Hall Renovation Project. For these requisite senrices, Griflin Structures proposes the following Time & Materials Not to Exceed Fee:

Testing and Inspections:

Additional Testing & Inspections Incidentals:

Mark Up and Overhead:

Total
$
$
$
$
162,240
100,000
26,224
288,464
All proposed hourly rates are fully burdened and include overhead profit, taxes, and benefit<;. The hours identified for each individual employee and task are estimates only and are not to be constrned as not to exceed hours for any individual task, phase, or time-period. We reseive the right to reallocate hours between staff members and tasks to accomplish the overall objectives and requirements of the project

SCOPE OF SERVICES
This Add Service reflects a change in conditions related to the special inspections and testing required for the prqject. As summa1ized below in the letter from BAGG dated Ap1il 3'\ 2023, field conditions of the concrete slab require a significant increase in observations and testing required to achieve the engineering perfonnance envisioned by the enginee1ing team. These unforeseen conditions are impacting the efforts required of the contractor, and by extension requi1ing significantly more inspections time.

Please see below for a brcakdm\11 of the anticipated additional funds required to provide tl1c necessary inspections and c01Tespondence ,\ith tl1c City related to anticipated work remaining. 1850 Warburton Avenue, Suite 120 I Santa Clara. CA 95050 I 408.955.0431 I griffinstructures.com

ATTACHMENT C
338
BAGGE�
Scope Of Services and Fee Estimate
Project: Stockton City Hall (Towers 1&2)
File No.: GRIFFS-22-02
Oient: Griffin Structures, Inc.

Additional Services
Item
Crack Repair Only
Crack Re.eair and FRP
Crack Re.ealr In Non-FRP Area
Hourly Rate--ACI Inspector
Mileage
$120.00
$40.00
Number ofTrips
30 80
20 Total Estimated Fee After BAGG Markup {PM, Mileage, Concrete Samples) 1 of 1 FMT 2022 Scope
2 hour minimum
per trip
Hours or Units Total time
8 240
8 640
8 160
Date:

Rate unit
�120.00 hr.
i120.oo hr.
i120.oo hr.

Subtotal of Special Inspections (1)

EXHIBIT A
6/8/2023
Fee
!28,800.00
p6,800.00
$19,200.00
$1�4,80().()()
$162,240.00
�§CQ

ATTACHMENT C
339
CITY OF STOCKTON Page 1 of 2
Contract Change Order#: ___ 7 __ _
Resolution No. 2022-05-03-0902
(If not required enter "NIA'?
Contract No 422000787
October 4, 2023
--------------
Contract#
NEW CITY HALL RENOVATIONS AND RELOCATION, CITY PROJECT NO. E016015 Project Number I Project Name I Activity
Original Contract Price $42,348,123.00
Prior Change Order Total $4,300,017.59
This Change Order $93,261.41
Revised Contract Price $46,741,402.00
TO Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. (Contractor). You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications of this contract.

Additional Work Performed for Above Referenced Pro·ect
See Page 2.
"The critical path schedule is currently being evaluated by the City as of the execution of this Change Order. Accordingly, the parties agree that any time extensions and time related costs associated with certain changes identified on the attached pages are excluded from this Change Order and, if later determined warranted, will be deferred to a future chan e order."
We, the undersigned contractor, have given careful consideration to the change proposed and hereby agree, if this proposal is approved that we will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may otherwise be noted above, and perform all services necessary for the work above specified, and will accept as full payment therefore the prices shown above.

By reason of this proposed change, Q days extension of time will be allowed.

Accepted Date I()/ /ff ';o'}-3
ROEBBELEN CONTRACTING, INC.
,(}
(Contractor)
By�r ��
Title Robert McLean, Executive Vice President
J
Note: This contract change order is not effective until approved by the Cit Mana er.

APPROVED AS TO FORM & CONTENT:

OFFICE OF THE CITY A HORNEY
BY __________ _
Date: _________ _
ATTEST:

ELIZA GARZA

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON
Fully Executed Form Routina: Original to City Clerk; Copy to Vendor Internal
Approval Recommended by:
lofr, f:z;)I I
Date: \0. \7, �
_______________ Date: ____ _ _
Jodi Almassy, Public Works Director
Change Order Approved By:
_ ______________ Date: _____ _
City Manager, Harry Black

ATTACHMENT D
340
CITY OF STOCKTON Page 2 of 2
October 4, 2023
Fully Executed Form Routing : Original to City Clerk; Copy to Vendor Contract Change Order #: 7
Resolution No. _2022-05-03-0902_____ Contract No. 422000787 (If not required enter “N/A”) Contract #
NEW CITY HALL RENOVATIONS AND RELOCATION, CITY PROJECT NO. E016015 TO Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. (Contractor). You are hereby directed to make the herein described changes from the plans and specifications or do the following described work not included in the plans and specifications of this contract.

EXTRA WORK AT AGREED LUMP SUM
In accordance with Section 4-1.05A of the City of Stockton Standard Specifications, the Contractor is directed to provide the following additional items of work:
1) APPLYING XYPEX FOR WATERPROOFING BASEMENT AT BLDG.2
Provide labor, material, and machinery associated with. • Prep CMU foundation wall, rout and patch all penetrations and other cracks with Patch and Plug. • Prep CMU wall-to-floor continuous intersection, and rout and fill with Patch and Plug. • Install waterproofing treatment behind concrete columns and caps and/or where they interface with CMU wall.
• Prep CMU wall per manufacture recommendations and install Concentrate. Prep the finishing coat surface so that it is paintable for performing the contract scope of work. • Prep CMU wall which has received the Concentrate and install Mega Mix I all around. • Conform to all preparation and installation recommendations of Xypex, the manufacturer, see product sheets attached. Caulking the conduits and gaps between the wall and columns. • Install the product to provide a complete waterproofing negative- side barrier at the CMU wall in its entirety.
• Provide standard 1-year warranty on product and labor and unlimited warranty against material defects.

The critical path schedule is currently being evaluated; any potential delays will be part of a future contract change order. (FOD#43)
Agreed Lump Sum Price: $ 93,261.41
TOTAL COST OF CHANGE ORDER WORK: $ 93,261.41
The additional compensation, if any, included in this change order constitutes full compensation, including all mark ups, profits, surcharges, taxes and overhead costs, for the change in work as specified.

ATTACHMENT D
341

NEW CITY HALL

RENOVATIONS AND RELOCATION PROJECT
Public Works Department
City Council Meeting
December 12, 2023
Agenda Item 15.3
342

PROJECT LOCATION
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
343

PROJECT INFORMATION
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
 Existing Site: 4.83-acres with two buildings
 501 W. Weber – 5-Story building (58,929 sf)
 509 W. Weber – 5-Story building over basement (70,690 sf)  Improvements: Tenant, onsite & parking lot across street  2018-2021 – Space planning, design, construction plans  Indigo Hammond + Playle Architects
 November 2021 – Approve Construction Management Contract  Griffin Structures
 May 2022 – Award Construction Contract
 Roebbelen Contracting, Inc.
344
 Consolidation of City Departments & Services
 Mayor & Council
 City Manager
 City Attorney
 City Clerk
 Administrative Services
 Community Development
 Economic Development
 Human Resources
 Information Technology
 Fire Administration
 Public Works

PROJECT GOAL
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
345
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS – 1st Floor, Building No. 2
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
Administrative Services Department – Revenue Counter
346

DESIGN ELEMENTS
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
Fire Prevention / Administrative Services Department - Counter 347

DESIGN ELEMENTS
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
City Council Chambers
348

DESIGN ELEMENTS
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
City Manager / Mayor / Council Office - Lobby
349
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS – 4th Floor, Building No. 2
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
Economic Development Department - Lobby
350
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS – 4th Floor, Building No. 2
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
Economic Development Department – North Side Corridor
351
 New City Hall Renovations: Contract is approximately 60% complete.
 New Parking Lot across from New City Hall: Looking to advertise in Summer 2024.
 New City Hall and Parking Lot Construction: Complete Spring 2025.
 Phased department relocations will occur between Fall 2024 - Summer 2025.

PROJECT STATUS & NEXT STEPS
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
352
 Contract modifications are needed to re-set the
administrative authority, providing the City Manager the ability to approve future contract changes or amendments.

The recommended actions do not increase project budget.  Contract Change Order No. 7 with Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. – basement waterproofing
 Amendment No. 7 with Indigo, Hammond + Playle Architects, LLP – continue to respond to contractor inquiries and other design changes
 Amendment No. 2 with Griffin Structures, Inc. for additional construction management services

PROJECT STATUS & NEXT STEPS
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
353
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to:
 Execute Contract Change Order No. 7 to the Construction Contract with Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $93,261.41
 Execute Amendment No. 7 to the Standard Agreement with Indigo, Hammond + Playle Architects, LLP in the amount of $820,000 for design construction support services
 Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Standard Agreement with Griffin Structures, Inc. in the amount of $288,464 for
construction management services

RECOMMENDATION
New City Hall Renovations and Relocation Project
354
Questions?
355
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-0659, Version: 1

ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN 2024 DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan 2024 development fee schedule.

It is further recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

Summary
On November 14, 2000, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc. (SJCOG, Inc) established the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (“Plan” or “SJMSCP”). The Plan provides a strategy for balancing the needs to accommodate new development while encouraging the preservation of open space and agricultural areas as well as protected species habitat in San Joaquin County. Participation in the Plan is voluntary and available to the development community as an option to simply pay a fee to mitigate habitat impacts because of their development projects. Developers can fulfill mitigation obligations more efficiently with Plan participation and avoid negotiating mitigation measures with various Federal and State environmental protection agencies for their individual projects. SJCOG, Inc. collects the fees which are used to purchase permanent habitat preservation areas. Developers who do not participate in the Plan must provide their own project level analysis during the entitlement or construction permit process for proposals that could negatively impact natural resources in the region. Fees are updated on a yearly basis and require adoption by City Council to be effective. On February 20, 2001, the City of Stockton adopted the Plan, while the City Council adopted the last fee update on December 6, 2022.

In August 2023, the SJCOG, Inc. Board of Directors approved the 2024 Plan fee schedule (Attachment A - SJMSCP Staff Report). SJCOG, Inc. proposes an approximate 7.4% overall decrease in the Agricultural and Natural habitat classifications for the Plan, which are the two most common areas impacted by development projects. As shown in Attachment A, the 2023 Fee for the Agricultural and Natural habitat classification was $19,255 and is now proposed to be $17,833. The decrease is primarily due to a decline in the land acquisition component (Category A).

The City Council is requested to approve the proposed fee schedule. Habitat Fee pay zones for Stockton are mostly located on the outer areas of the City where development may or may not be initiated (see Attachment B - Habitat Fee Areas).

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
356
File #: 23-0659, Version: 1

DISCUSSION
Background
The City became a participant in the Plan by joining the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in 2001. As a participant in the JPA, City Council approval of annual fee adjustments is required. This requirement similarly applies to all participating cities in San Joaquin County as well as the County agency.

Annual Plan fee rates are determined from a financial model that SJCOG, Inc. maintains and updates at 5-year increments to address land sales market conditions and inflation changes. In the past, delayed fee updates have resulted in lack of funding for the purchase and preservation of areas and resulted in significant fee increases for the development community. To accommodate changing market conditions and to provide clarity in fees, SJCOG has become more proactive in the Plan’s fee assessment. This year requires the 5-year financial model update to determine new fee rates for year 2024. The financial model consists of three main categories:
· Category A - Acquisition
· Category B - Enhancement
· Category C - Land Management/Administration
Over the last six months, SJCOG, Inc.’s Habitat Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) and Financial Subcommittee engaged in a review of land sales market data and analysis. The HTAC consists of planning staff from local county and city agencies (including Stockton), building industry associations, and State and Federal environmental protection agencies. In August 2023, the SJCOG, Inc. Board of Directors approved the proposed 2024 Development Fee increase based on the 2020 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) 5-year Financial Model Update. The Habitat Fee must be adopted by each local jurisdiction to take effect in that community.

The collected fees are used to purchase and preserve land throughout San Joaquin County.

Additional costs cover restoration of land, monitoring, reporting, and biological reviews of land subject to the overall Plan.

While there are no preserve areas located within the City of Stockton, the Jacques Family Preserve and the G Torlai Property Preserve are closest to Stockton. Both preserves are located west of Interstate 5, south of Highway 4. Enhancements will support species such as the Swainson’s Hawk, Burrowing Owl, and Valley Elderberry Longhorned Beetle. These lands are protected through land covenants (i.e., easements, restrictions) that prevent development and can also include possible improvements to restore or encourage new habitat. A map of the regional preserve areas is included in Attachment C - Regional Preserve Areas.

On February 20, 2001, the Stockton City Council adopted three Resolutions as follows:

1. Resolution No. 01-0099 -- Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS), adopting the related California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings and Mitigation Reporting/Monitoring Program, and adopting the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan; City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
357
File #: 23-0659, Version: 1

2. Resolution No. 01-0100 -- Adopting the Implementation Agreement of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan authorizing the filing of the related Federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit application with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and

3. Resolution No. 01-0101 -- Approving amendments to the JPA Agreement with SJCOG, Inc. authorizing SJCOG, Inc. to assume responsibilities specified in the San Joaquin County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan.

Applicants that participate in the Plan benefit from a pre-determined streamlined process. By participating in the Plan, the applicant may choose from a menu of options to mitigate impacts:

1. Pay the Plan Fee;

2. Redesign the project to avoid/minimize impacts;

3. Provide land in lieu of the Plan Fee; or

4. Any combination of the above options.

Alternatively, a project can choose not to participate in the Plan and fulfill mitigation requirements on its own with the respective permitting agencies. Based on City Staff’s experience, this option is very rarely chosen by developers.

Originally, the City collected Plan fees at the time of building permit issuance, like other development impact fees in the City’s Public Facilities Fee Program. Plan fees for individual projects (e.g., house on a single parcel) are adjusted to ensure that the per-acre fee as established by SJCOG, Inc. is collected for the entire (gross) project area. For example, a house built on a parcel within a large subdivision relies on additional land to support the residential use (e.g., road in front of the house).

The adjusted development fee includes this supporting land so that all the acreage is accounted for within a given project area, and the appropriate Plan fee is paid.

On December 15, 2009, City Council adopted Resolution Number 09-409, which authorized an amendment to the Public Facility Fee Program’s Administrative Guidelines to establish SJCOG, Inc. as the entity responsible for the collection of the Development Fee. This change was made to increase administrative efficiency in the calculation and collection of Plan fees.

Each year, SJCOG, Inc. uses comparable agricultural land sales within San Joaquin County that meet certain criteria adopted by the Board. Easement acquisition costs are a primary consideration, as are comparable land sale costs. As shown in Table 1 below, Plan fees can vary from year to year.

The rise and fall of Plan fees is primarily a result of the land acquisition category component of the fee calculation model.

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
358
File #: 23-0659, Version: 1
Table 1 - Plan Fees 2017-2023 (Rate per acre)
TYPE/ YEAR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Other Open
Space
$8,905 $9,701 $6,700 $6,412 $8,682 $9,781 $9,629 Natural/Ag $17,808 $19,400 $13,399 $12,822 $17,363 $19,561 $19,255 Vernal Pool
Grasslands
$66,437 $72,523 $54,576 $52,833 $71,544 $80,453 $75,320 Vernal Pool
Wetted
$109,737 $116,871 $101,033 $100,788 $161,286 $174,040 $176,878 Present Situation
In August 2023, the SJCOG, Inc. Board of Directors approved the proposed 2024 Development Fee increase based on the 2020 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) 5-year Financial Model Update. The fee model uses three main categories:

Category A - Acquisition; Category B - Assessment and Enhancement; and Category C - Management, Monitoring and Administration to calculate fee rates.

I. Category A (Acquisition) - Comparable:

This category is directly related to land valuation based on comparable land sales in San Joaquin County in specific zones of the plan area (Central Zone, Central Southwest Transition Zone, and Delta Zone) over an established two-year period meeting the established criteria (e.g. “sales not less than 40 acres” and “no parcels with vineyard or orchard (except SJCOG, Inc. transactions for special needs”) used for comparable land sales. Cost estimates for this category will continue to be evaluated on a yearly basis by taking all qualified fee title comparable sales in each zone to set a weighted cost per acre. The fee model analysis update results in a 13.5% decrease in the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category A (Acquisition) component to be $11,003. The reason for the decrease is the decline in overall comparable fee title land sale values from prior year values.

II. Category B (Assessment & Enhancement) - Refined Cost Factors/Redistribution of Habitat/ Consumer Price Index
The unit cost factors (per acre or per year for some items) are adjusted only by the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), (the California CPI calculation was an increase of 2.88%). But the total cost for Category B is also a function of the SJMSCP Annual Report data updated annually (acres remaining to be acquired and the number of years remaining in the permit term; the fee per acre is a function of those total calculated costs and the land conversion acres remaining). These factors all feed into the fee model. The fee model update results in a 4.7% increase in the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category B (Assessment and Enhancement) component to be $6,038.

III. Category C (Management, Monitoring and Administration) - Refined Cost Factors/Long Term Investment/Consumer Price Index
Annual cost updates will continue to use the California Consumer Price Index, as reported by the City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
359
File #: 23-0659, Version: 1
California Department of Finance, for the preceding 12-month fiscal year (e.g., July - June) to keep up with inflation annually. The fee model update results in a 2.88% increase in the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category C (Management, Monitoring and Administration) component from prior years to be $792.15.

Plan Mitigation Fee Formula = Proposed 2023 Plan Fees
The formula for fee calculation is categorized into three distinct components (discussed above) to calculate a supported fee per acre [FEE = Category A (acquisition) + Category B (assessment & enhancement) + Category C (management & administration)].

For comparison purposes, the 2023 SJMSCP Fees and calculations are shown in Table 2, and the proposed 2024 Plan Fees and calculations are shown in Table 3. Compared to 2023, the proposed 2024 Plan Fees reflect an overall decrease of 7.4% in the most impacted Agricultural and Natural habitat classification fees. Staff analysis of the financial model results concluded that the differences in fees are due primarily to land sale prices increasing in Category A land acquisition costs. It should be noted that the Vernal Pool area for Stockton is very small and located on peripheral properties that may never be developed.

Table 2 - 2023 SJMSCP Development Fees
Habitat Type Category A Category B Category C Total Fee Rounded Fee
Other Open
Space
$6,358.00 $2,885.00 $385.55 $9,628.55 $9,629
Natural/Ag $12,716.00 $5,769.00 $769.97 $19,254.97 $19,255 Vernal Pool
Grasslands
$58,927.00 $14,491.00 $1,901.76 $75,319.76 $75,320
Vernal Pool
Wetted
$57,912.00 $117,102.00 $1,864.45 $176,878.45 $176,878
Table 3 - Proposed 2024 SJMSCP Development Fees
Habitat Type Category A Category B Category C Total Fee Rounded Fee
Other Open
Space
$5,502.00 $3,019.00 $396.66 $8,917.66 $8,918
Natural/Ag $11,003.00 $6,038.00 $792.15 $17,833.15 $17,833 Vernal Pool
Grasslands
$52,545.00 $14,906.00 $1,956.753 $69,407.53 $69,408
Vernal Pool
Wetted
$52,748.00 $123,058.00 $1,918.14 $177,724.14 $177,724
Although the City adopted several public facility fee reduction programs and a fee deferral program City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
360
File #: 23-0659, Version: 1
for specified fees within the City’s control, fees such as this Countywide Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Fee are subject to a regional agreement that was promulgated by the Federal and State Endangered Species Act. The administration of this fee is detailed in the Countywide HCP, where SJCOG Inc. is the designated Administrator. Methodologies and fee analyses are overseen by SJCOG HTAC and Financial subcommittees. As a result, these “development fees” are not subject to reduction and deferral programs.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Public Notice of this hearing was published in the Record on November 30, 2023.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
There is no direct financial impact to the City of Stockton, as this Development Fee is collected directly by SJCOG, Inc.

Attachment A - SJMSCP 8/23 Staff Report
Attachment B - Habitat Fee Areas
Attachment C - Regional Preserve Areas
City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
361
8/2023
SJCOG, Inc.

STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT: 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Annual
Adjustment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve the 2024 SJMSCP
Development Fees as Adjusted Pursuant to
the Financial Analysis Model
SUMMARY:

Using the adopted five-year financial analysis model to the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) the SJCOG Inc. staff, HTAC Financial Subcommittee members (Table 1) and consultants undertook the annual analysis in summer 2023. The goal of the annual analysis is to establish the next year’s habitat plan fees paid by the development project . The fees are for impacts u nder the countywide SJMSCP permits as defined in the three fee model categories (Category A – Acquisition; Category B - Assessment and Enhancement; and Category C - Land Management and Administration).

Table 1 – HTAC Financial Subcommittee Members:

John Beckman, BIA Matt Diaz, Stockton Zachery Kearns, CDFW Dan Gifford, Conservation Alisa Goulart, SJ County
The proposed 20 24 SJMSCP development fees were adjusted using the recommended 2020 SJMSCP Five-Year Financial Model Update for the respective categories and are compared to the 2023 SJMSCP Development fees (Table 2) in the most common habitat categories under the plan. The change is an overall decrease of

7.4% in the most impacted categories of Agricultural and Natural habitat classifications from the prior year. Th e decrease is due primarily to a decline in the land acquisition component (Category A) for agricultural land price values of comparable sales even though there was a rise in the reported Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Categories B and C.

Table 2- Compared 2024 & 2023 SJMSCP Development Fees – Most Common Fee Habitat Types 2024 Fee -
Proposed
2023 Fee -
Adopted Difference
Percent
Change
Agricultural/Natural $17,833 $19,255 $1,422 7.4%
2024 SJMSCP
Fees
Cat C
Cat A Cat B

7.4%

ATTACHMENT A
362
Table 3 illustrates the history of the SJMSCP development fees over the years since the funding shortfall was noted by the permitting agencies in 2006. The fees can fluctuate primarily based on the Category A – acquisition component of the fee formula over time.

Table 3- History and Annual Percentage Change for SJMSCP Development Fees Projects participating under the SJMSCP benefit from a predetermined streamlined processing of the project rather than navigating through a potentially very long , cumbersome and expensive regulatory process outside the habitat plan. By opting for participation, the project proponent can choose any number of ways to provide mitigation for the impacts of the project through the plan and even control much of the mitigation costs if desired. The options are:

1. Pay a fee.

2. Redesign the project to avoid/minimize impacts.

3. Provide land in lieu of the SJMSCP fee , which the project proponent will negotiate the easement/fee title costs (Category A component).

4. Any combination of the above options.

And if those options are not sufficient, the project proponent can choose to not participate in the plan (opt out) and fulfill mitigation requirements on their own with state and federal permitting agencies independently.

RECOMMENDATION:

The HTAC Financial Subcommittee, the HTAC, Executive Committee, and staff make the recommendation to SJCOG, Inc. Board to Approve the 2024 SJMSCP Development Fees as Adjusted Pursuant to the Financial Analysis Model.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Development fees provide funding for SJCOG Inc. to mitigate project impacts covered under the SJMSCP permits for the subsequent calendar year beginning January 1.

ATTACHMENT A
363
BACKGROUND:

Annually, the SJMSCP development fees are reviewed and calculated using a formula method adopted under the habitat. The three components of the formula are adjusted using a specific mechanism, which relates to the individual component in the fee based on the most current data. The development fees established must be adopted by each of the jurisdictions and would become effective on January 1 of the subsequent year for projects using the SJMSCP.

Category A (Acquisition) – Comparable Land Sales
This category is directly related to land valuation based on comparable land sales in San Joaquin County in specific zones of the plan area (Central Zone , Central Southwest Transition Zone and Delta Zone) over an established two-year period meeting the established criteria used for comparable land sales (Attachment 1). Cost estimates for this category will continue to be evaluated on a yearly basis by taking all qualified fee title comparable sales in each zone to set a weighted cost per acre.

Also, the HTAC Financial Subcommittee completed a mid-cycle review of the percentage of easement value to fee title value used in the fee model for this category which was part of the 2020 model update. The percentage reviewed dropped slightly from 58% to 55% which was incorporated into the model going forward until next 5-Year Review process.

The fee model analysis update results in a 13.5% decrease in the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category A (Acquisition) component to be $11,003. The reason for the decrease is the decline in overall comparable fee title land sale values from prior year values.

Category B ( Assessment and Enhancement) – Refined Cost Factors with Consumer Price Index and Model Data Update
Cat A Cat B Cat C Fee

ATTACHMENT A
364
The Category B component of the fee is adjusted using several factors including the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), as reported by the California Department of Finance for the preceding 12 -month fiscal year (June 202 2 – June 2023) and from the updated model numbers completed annually based on the SJMSCP Annual Report.

The unit cost factors (per acre or per year for some items) are adjusted only by the CPI (the California CPI calculation was an increase of 2.88%). But the total cost for Category B is also a function of the SJMSCP Annual Report data updated annually (acres remaining to be acquired and the number of years remaining in the permit term; the fee per acre is a function of those total calculated costs and the land conversion acres remaining). These parts all feed into the fee model.

The fee model update results in a 4.7% increase in the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category B (Assessment and Enhancement) component to be $6,038.

Category C ( Management, Monitoring and Administration) – Refined Cost Factors/Long Term Investment with Consumer Price Index

Annual cost updates use the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), as reported by the California Department of Finance , for the preceding 12-month fiscal year (Ju ne 2022 – June 2023) to keep up with inflation on an annual basis.

The fee model update results in a n 2.88% increase in the Agricultural/Natural Habitat types of Category C (Management, Monitoring and Administration) component from prior years to be $792.15.

In summary, the SJMSCP fees is calculated using the SJMSCP Financial Analysis formula model shown in the final proposed fee table 4 below and Attachment 2 (SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 202 4 Update). The overall result in the fee analysis is a 7.4% decrease in the most impacted Agricultural and Natural Habitat Classifications fees for 2024.

Table 4 - 2024 SJMSCP Development Fees - Proposed

Habitat Type Category
A
Category B Category
C
Total Fee Rounded
Fee
Other Open Space $5,502.00 $3,019.00 $396.66 $8,917.66 $8,918 Natural/Ag Lands $11,003.00 $6,038.00 $792.15 $17,833.15 $17,833 Vernal Pool
Grasslands $52,545.00 $14,906.00 $1,956.53 $69,407.53 $69,408 Vernal Pool Wetted $52,748.00 $123,058.00 $1,918.14 $177,724.14 $177,724

COMMITTEE ACTIONS:

• HTAC FINANCIAL SUBCOMMITTEE: Recommended Approval to HTAC • HTAC: Recommended Approval to SJCOG, Inc. Board

ATTACHMENT A
365
• Management and Finance: Information
• Executive Committee: Recommended Approval to SJCOG, Inc. Board • SJCOG, Inc. Board: Action Required

Prepared by: Steven Mayo, Program Manager

ATTACHMENT A
366
Attachment 1 – 2024 Fee Study Property List - Props 24 Month

ATTACHMENT A
367
Attachment 2 – SJMSCP Cost and Fee Analysis 2024 Update

ATTACHMENT A
368
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Table of Contents List of worksheet tabs and contents
Notes to User Model overview and instructions for annual updates Fee Summary Comparison Table showing calculated fee amounts by habitat type and category; comparison to adopted fees; linked from other sheets; includes California CPI factor for Category C annual update
A1 PerAcreCostFactorsbyZone Per acre easement cost factors by zone based on input from comparables and appraisal analysis A2 PerAcreAcquisitionCost Weighted acquisition cost factors by habitat type based on distribution of preserves by zone; adds transaction costs A3 AcquisitionCostHabitatType Total acquisition cost by habitat type, for preserves remaining to be acquired A4 AcquisitionFEE Category A fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion B1 PreserveEnhancementCost Weighted enhancement cost factors by habitat type based on estimate of acres enhanced and detailed per acre enhancement cost factors B2 AssessmentEnhancementCost All assessment and enhancement cost factors by habitat type, for preserves remaining to be acquired B3 AssessEnhancementCostAllocation Total assessment and enhancement cost by habitat type, remainder of permit term, for preserves remaining to be acquired B4 AssessmentEnhancementFEE Category B fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion C MonitoringAdminFEE Category C fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion; links to summary comparison for annual update For 5-Year Update Only => Workbook break: the following tabs for Category C are only used in the 5-year economic analysis update C1 MonitoringCost Monitoring cost factors by habitat type, including post-permit annual cost; costs for remainder of permit term, all preserve acres C2 PMAdminCost Project management and administrative cost factors, including post-permit annual cost; costs for remainder of permit term, all preserve acr C3 Permit Term Cost Adjustments Category C fund balance deducted from Category C costs remainder of permit term to calculate net cost for cost allocation and fee C4 Endowment Endowment cash flow, return assumptions, and total in year 51 to support post-permit annual cost C5 MonitoringAdminCostAlloc Total monitoring, management, and administrative cost by habitat type, remainder of permit term and endowment for post permit cost C6 MonitoringAdminFEE Category C fee by habitat type, based on remaining land conversion Source for update acres => Workbook break: the following tabs are updated annually and every 5 years for acres inputs 1 SJMSCP Acres 6_4_2015 Land conversion and preserve acres by habitat type for the 50-year permit term (source table)

2.1 RemainingPreservetoAcquire Preserve Acres, Total and Remaining to be Acquired (from Table 1 and Annual Report updates)

2.2 Preserves_Habitat_Zone_2019 Detail on preserve acquisition by habitat type and zone for use in monitoring cost estimates (not used in annual updates) 3 Cumulative Take_Remaining Allowed and Remaining Incidental Take Acreage (from Table 1 and Annual Report updates) 4 PreserveAcquisitionSchedule Preserve Acquisition Schedule, All Habitat Types, by Index Zone, Remaining Permit Term (from Table 2.1 and 2.2) Fund Balance Analysis => Workbook break: the following tabs are updated every 5 years for Category C cost analysis 5 FundBalanceAllocation Allocation of Fund Balance to Category B and Category C (permit term) and post-permit endowment B1 ExistingPreserveEnhanceCost Estimate of enhancement costs on existing preserves with updated cost factors, to allocate fund balance to Category B DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - TABLE OF CONTENTS - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
369
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 This workbook of linked worksheets calculates SJMSCP Impact Fees for Categories A, B, and C.

The workbook contains all of the elements needed for annual updates as well as the framework for the more complex 5- year economic analysis updates.

Action items for annual updates indicated in red italics.

Category A and Category B are fees for one-time costs for land acquisition, enhancement, restoration and associated site assessments and planning.

These fees will be updated annually by updating the per-acre cost factors and updating the acres remaining to be acquired and the remaining acres of land conversion based on data from SJMSCP Annual Reports. - Category A per-acre cost factors updated by annual comparables analysis, as established in past practice, and evaluation of easement cost percent of fee title based on SJMSCP appraisals - Category B per-acre and annual cost factors updated by applying California CPI to unit cost factors - The total costs in Category A and Category B for each annual update will reflect the acres remaining to be acquired and the fees for each annual update will reflect the remaining acres of land conversion from SJMSCP Annual Reports.

Category C is a fee for on-going annual costs for the remainder of the permit term and post-permit in perpetuity. practice.
- Incorporating Annual Report data in the annual updates of on-going permit term and post-permit costs adds unnecessary complexity to the annual update of this component of the SJMSCP fees. the endowment cash flow analysis required to estimate post-permit costs, are more complex work efforts not justified to generally keep Category C fees in line with annual cost inflation. Moreover, because management and administration costs are not sensitive to habitat type, it is not as important to account for the annual variation in preserve acquisition and land conversion captured in the annual updates to Categories A and B.

Components of the workbook:

1. The Fee Summary Comparison worksheet compares calculated updated fees to fees currently in effect and includes the California CPI for Category C updates.

2. Category A tabs A1 - A4 calculate the fees for Category A Acquisition.

3. Category B tabs B1 - B4 calculate the fees for Category B Assessment and Enhancement.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
370
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020

4. Category C Fee tab shows the fees by habitat type calculated in the 2020 Economic Analysis Update, the basis for the

UPDATE ONLY
the SJMSCP Annual Report; Table 4 showing the preserve monitoring schedule by habitat type and zone is used only in the 5-year update.

7. Tables 5 and B1 ExistingPreserveEnhanceCost provide the fund balance analysis completed every five years as part of the Category C update.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
371
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Fee Summary Comparison
Calculates new annual fees and compares to prior year adopted fees.

1. Paste values of prior year adopted fees in cells C11:E14.

2. Insert updated annual California CPI factor in cell F1.

3. Updated fees for Category A show in cells C5:C8 and updated fees for Category B show in cells D5:D8. The fees are link

4. Formulas in cells E5:E8 calculate Category C fee update amounts based on prior year adopted fee amounts in cells E11:E14 and the California CPI.

Category A Acquisition
A.1 Category A Per-Acre Acquisition Cost Factors by Zone Delta.

2. Update SJCOG, Inc. appraisal list each year and calculate weighted average percent by dividing cumulative total easement value (cost) by cumulative total before value (fee title value).

3. Value of Southwest Zone easement cost remains unchanged until experience indicates it should be updated.

A.2 Per-Acre Acquisition Cost Factors by Preserve/Habitat Type No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate total cost factors per acre for each habitat type.

1. Easement cost factor input linked from A.1.

2. Distribution by preserve type is not changed from 1996 Economic Analysis.

3. Transaction cost and VP acquisition assumptions not changed.

A.3 Total Acquisition Costs by Habitat Type, Remainder of Permit Term No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate total cost for each habitat type.

1. Land acquisition cost factors linked from A.2.

2. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired linked from Table 2.1 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report).

A.4 Fee Calculations
No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate fee for each habitat type.

1. Cost by habitat type linked from A.3.

2. Land conversion remaining linked from Table 3 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report).

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
372
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Category B Assessment and Enhancement
B.1 SJMSCP Preserve land by habitat type, enhancement analysis, and enhancement cost factors per preserve acre refined, and update of costs for enhancements and restoration. 2020 Analysis included further cost updates based on actual SJCOG, Inc. experience and other relevant cost updates. Table calculates weighted average cost per preserve acre for agricultural lands, non-vernal pool natural lands, and vernal pool preserves. Update enhancement cost analysis every five years.
formula. Formula references updated annual California CPI factor in cell E1. Formulas calculate updated weighted average cost per preserve acre.

3. Insert updated annual California CPI factor in cell E1.

B.2 Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement Cost Factors

1. Update remaining years in permit term.
enhancement plans in the formula. Formula references updated annual California CPI factor in cell C1. Formulas calculate updated annual costs.

3. Insert updated annual California CPI factor in cell C1.

4. Enhancement and restoration cost factors linked from B.1.

B.3 Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration, and Enhancement Cost Allocation by Habitat Type No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate total cost for each habitat type. factors in B.2.

2. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired linked from Table 2.1 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report).

B.4 Fee Calculations
No annual input needed. Links and formulas calculate fee for each habitat type.

1. Cost by habitat type linked from B.3.

2. Land conversion remaining linked from Table 3 (updated annually based on SJMSCP Annual Report).

Category C Monitoring, Management, and Administration
C.5 Fee Calculations - Annual Update Only
No input needed. Cost and land conversion values frozen based on 2020 Economic Analysis.

1. For 2020 update, Category C fee amounts by habitat type linked to Fee Summary Comparison table.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
373
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020

2. Update annually by applying California CPI factor to prior year Category C fee amounts, as in past practice.

Note: this is done in the Fee Summary Comparison worksheet.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
374
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Category C Monitoring, Management, and Administration - INSTRUCTIONS FOR FIVE-YEAR UPDATE C.1 Category C (part) Compliance and Effectivement Monitoring Cost Assumptions

1. Remaining years in permit term linked from Table 4 Preserve Monitoring Schedule.

2. Update monitoring cost factors (annual costs and annual costs per acre).

3. Total costs by type of monitoring for the remainder of the permit term calculated by worksheet formula. With links to Table 4 Preserve Monitoring Schedule.

4. Post permit cost updates by worksheet formula based on updates to detail in rows above. Acres input linked from Table 4 Preserve Monitoring Schedule.

C.2 Category C (part) Project Management and Administrative Cost Assumptions

1. Remaining years in permit term linked from Table 4 Preserve Monitoring Schedule.

2. Update annual management and administrative staff cost and cost allocation, Habitat Plan Environmental Consulting, and Land Manager Coordination costs from analysis of Cumulative Schedule of Receipts and Disbursements in SJMSCP Annual Report, supplemented as needed by cost code detail provided by SJCOG, Inc. staff.

3. Update Financial Plan fFive-Year Review and Update cost based on contracts.

4. Post permit cost updates by worksheet formula based on updates to detail in rows above.

C.3 Adjustments for Remaining Fund Balance
No input needed. Links and formulas calculate net Category C cost for remainder of permit term.

1. Costs for the remainder of the permit term by cost category linked from Table C.1 and C.2.

2. Category C fund balance as of prior year end for costs on existing preserves linked from Table 5.

C.4 SJMSCP Endowment Fund Cash Flow
This table uses estimates of annual post permit costs, existing fund balance allocated to post-permit costs (based on cumulative take to date as a share of total take), and interest earnings assumptions to estimate the endowment needed at the end of the permit term to fund annual costs in perpetuity.

This analysis is to be updated at each 5-year economic analysis review. The worksheet solves for fund balance amount in year 51 that generates the annual income to fully fund annual post permit costs. The worksheet calculates the annual fee revenue required over the remainder of the permit term to achieve that fund balance when added to the existing fund balance for management and administrative costs post permit and interest earnings over the remainder of the permit term. That amount is the total cost to be allocated by habitat type remaining to be acquired and links to DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
375
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 C.5 Category C Monitoring and Project Management/Adminstration, including endowment for post-permit costs, Cost Allo No input needed. Links and formulas calculate cost for each habitat type. costs by habitat type.

2. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired linked from Table 2 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report).

C.6 Fee Calculations
No input needed. Links and formulas calculate fee for each habitat type.

1. Cost by habitat type linked from C.5.

2. Land conversion remaining linked from Table 3 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report).

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
376
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Tables 1 - 5 (Source Tables)
Table 1 Land Conversion and Preserve Acres by Habitat Type for the 50-year permit term This table was finalized on June 4, 2015 as part of the Economic Analysis update. This table provides the source data by detailed habitat type for the 50-year permit term totals.

Table 2.1 Preserve Acres, Total and Remaining to be Acquired

1. Total Preserve Acres by habitat type linked from Table 1.

2. Annually, update Total Preserve Acres Acquired through 12/31 from the SJMSCP Annual Report. Note that as of the 2020 update and going forward, grassland acquired to mitigate agricultural land impacts has a new line item in Table

2.1. This amount is deducted from total grassland acquired in cell E11. worksheets.

Table 2.2 Preserves_Habitat_Zone_2019 (new in 2020 update) - ONLY USED ON 5-YEAR UPDATE Monitoring Schedule.
preserve to a habitat type and zone. Note that the habitat type represents the type of habitat acquired regardless of the type of impacts mitigated, i.e, grassland preserves acquired to mitigate agricultural impacts are categorized as grassland preserves in this table.

Table 3 Allowed and Remaining Incidental Take Acreage
1 and Table 4.2-2.

2. Annually, update the Cumulative Acres of Take through 12/31 from the SJMSCP Annual Report.

3. Remaining Acres of Land Conversion calculated by worksheet formula; links to cost and fee calculation worksheets.

UPDATE
This table is used in Table C.1 Monitoring Cost All Acres to calculate monitoring costs for the remainder of the permit term for all preserve acres, assuming future acquisition at an average annual pace calculated by dividing the number of acres remaining to be acquired by the number of years remaining in the permit term.

1. Preserve acres remaining to be acquired by zone linked from Table 2.1 (updated based on SJMSCP Annual Report) and Table 2.2 (updated every 5 years).

Column C.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
377
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020

3. At five-year update, double check the formula count of years remaining in permit term in cell C42. This is used as the denominator of the cell formulas for the monitoring schedule above.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
378
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Table 5 Fund Balance Allocation - ONLY USED IN 5-YEAR UPDATE This table is used in Table C.3 Permit Term Cost Adjustments to calculate the net Category C costs for the remainder of the permit term. Category B and Category C fund balance is allocated to permit term and post-permit needs.

1. Every 5 years, update the beginning fund balance from the 12/31 year-end statement.

2. Calculate Category B Fund Balance for Category B Enhancements (remaining enhancement cost for existing preserves) based on Table B.1 ExistingPreserveEnhanceCost (five-year update cost factors applied to existing preserves by type) and subtracting expenditures through the prior year-end on preserve enhancement.

3. Fund Balance for Post-Permit Costs on Existing Preserves is linked from Table C.4 Endowment. This fund balance adjustment is only required for the 2020 five-year update and will not be necessary in subsequent years once the separate post-permit endowment account is established.

4. The table subtracts the Fund Balance for Category B Enhancements and the Fund Balance for Post-Permit Costs on Existing Preserves from the year-end statement balance to generate Remaining Fund Balance for Permit Term Category C Costs on Existing Preserves. This result links to Table C.3 Permit Term Cost Adjustments.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - NOTES TO USER - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
379
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Category A Category B Category C
2024 Fees - Proposed Acquisition Assessment &
Enhancement
Monitoring,
Management &
Administration, & Post-
permit Endowment
Total Total Rounded
Other Open Space $5,502.00 $3,019.00 $396.66 $8,917.66 $8,918 Natural/Ag Lands $11,003.00 $6,038.00 $792.15 $17,833.15 $17,833 Vernal Pool Grasslands $52,545.00 $14,906.00 $1,956.53 $69,407.53 $69,408 Vernal Pool Wetted $52,748.00 $123,058.00 $1,918.14 $177,724.14 $177,724 Category A Category B Category C
2023 Fees - Adopted Acquisition Assessment &
Enhancement
Monitoring,
Management &
Administration, & Post-
permit Endowment
Total Total Rounded
Other Open Space $6,358.00 $2,885.00 $385.55 $9,628.55 $9,629 Natural/Ag Lands $12,716.00 $5,769.00 $769.97 $19,254.97 $19,255 Vernal Pool Grasslands $58,927.00 $14,491.00 $1,901.76 $75,319.76 $75,320 Vernal Pool Wetted $57,912.00 $117,102.00 $1,864.45 $176,878.45 $176,878 Difference Per Acre ($) Acquisition Assessment &
Enhancement
Monitoring,
Management &
Administration, & Post-
permit Endowment
Total Total Rounded
Other Open Space ($856) $134 $11 ($711) ($711)
Natural/Ag Lands ($1,713) $269 $22 ($1,422) ($1,422)
Vernal Pool Grasslands ($6,382) $415 $55 ($5,912) ($5,912) Vernal Pool Wetted ($5,164) $5,956 $54 $846 $846
Percent Difference Acquisition Assessment &
Enhancement
Monitoring,
Management &
Administration, & Post-
permit Endowment
Total Total Rounded
Other Open Space -13.5% 4.6% 2.9% -7.4% -7.4%
Natural/Ag Lands -13.5% 4.7% 2.9% -7.4% -7.4%
Vernal Pool Grasslands -10.8% 2.9% 2.9% -7.8% -7.8%
Vernal Pool Wetted -8.9% 5.1% 2.9% 0.5% 0.5%
DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - Fee Summary Comparison - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
380
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE A.1
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category A Per-Acre Acquisition Cost Factors by Zone (2023 dollars) Central Zone Primary Zone of
the Delta
Southwest
Zone 3
Fee title value1 a $20,543 $19,439 na
Easement percent of fee title value2 b 55% 55% na
Easement costs a × b $11,299 $10,691 $1,000

1. SJCOG, Inc. Fee Study Property List, Table A and Table B

2. SJCOG, Inc. Appraisals as of June 2023

3. Based on standard easement cost in Southwest Zone of $1,000/acre.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - A1 PerAcreCostFactorsbyZone - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
381
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE A.2
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Per Acre Acquisition Cost by Preserve/Habitat Type (2023 dollars) Preserve/Habitat Type
Central Zone Primary Zone of
the Delta
Southwest
Zone
A B C A + B + C = D D × 5% = E D + E
Easement cost by zone 1 d $11,299 $10,691 $1,000
Agricultural Lands
Percent in zone 2 e 98% 2% 0%
Weighted costs 3 d × e $11,095 $193 $0 $11,288 $564 $11,852 Natural Lands
Non-vernal pool natural lands
Percent in zone 2 f 77% 4% 18%
Weighted costs 3 d × f $8,729 $475 $183 $9,387 $469 $9,856 Vernal pool grasslands 4 n/a n/a n/a $16,434 $822 $17,256 Vernal pool wetted 4 n/a n/a n/a $16,434 $822 $17,256

1. See Table A.1.

2. Percent of total lands in each category assumed to be in a given zone. Based on 1996 Economic Analysis.

4. Assumes fee title acquisition for vernal pool lands. Vernal pool habitat fee title land costs assumed to be about 80% of average Central Zone fee title costs.

5. Transaction costs include biological baseline reporting, appraisal, escrow, and survey costs. Costs are estimated at 5 percent of acquisition cost.

SJMSCP Zone

3. Weighted average cost based on generalized proportion of total preserve land in each zone. Assumes easement acquisition for lands categorized as agriculture and all natural lands except vernal pool habitat.

Total
Weighted
Acquisition
Cost
Transaction
Costs 5
Total Land
Acquisition
Costs Per
Acre
DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - A2 PerAcreAcquisitionCost - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
382
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE A.3
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Total Acquisition Costs by Habitat Type, Remainder of Permit Term (2023 dollars) Preserves by Habitat Type
Land
Acquisition
Cost Per Acre
Preserve Acres
Remaining to be
Acquired
Total Costs of
Acquisition
Agricultural lands $11,852 38,488.30 $456,163,343 Natural lands
Non-vernal pool natural lands $9,856 24,321.84 $239,716,055 Total for Non-vernal pool Natural /Ag Land $11,079 62,810.14 $695,879,398 Vernal pool grasslands $17,256 15,720.66 $271,275,623 Vernal pool wetted $17,256 2,115.00 $36,496,440 Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report, and Hausrath Economics Group.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - A3 AcquisitionCostHabitatType - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
383
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE A.4
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category A Acquisition
Fee Calculations (2023 dollars)
Habitat Type Preserve Land Acquisition
Costs associated with non-vernal pool natural/agricultural lands conversio $695,879,398 Natural (non vernal pool)/Agricultural land conversion (acres) , remaining 46,245.39 Multi-purpose open space conversion (acres), remaining1 33,996.68 Multiplier for natural/agricultural land conversion 1
Multiplier for multi-ourpose open space conversion1 0.5 Acquisition Component of Natural (non vernal pool)/Agricultural Lands F $11,003 Acquisition Component of Multi-Purpose Open Space Fee1 $5,502 Costs associated with vernal pool grasslands $271,275,623 Vernal pool grassland conversion (acres), remaining 5,162.74 Acquisition Component of Vernal Pool Grasslands Fee $52,545 Costs associated with vernal pool wetted $36,496,440
Vernal pool wetted conversion (acres), remaining 691.90 Acquisition Component of Vernal Pool Wetted Fee $52,748

1. As described in SJMSCP Section 7.4.1.2, the fee calculation allocates the costs associated with agricultural habitat and non-vernal pool natural lands preserves to conversion of both those high value lands (agricultural land and non- vernal pool natural land) and lower value multi-purpose open space. In other words, the SJMSCP does not enhance multi-purpose open space lands but allocates some of the costs of enhancements on agricultural and natural lands preserves to the conversion of multi-purpose open space lands to assist with the financing of those enhancements.

Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report, and Hausrath Economics Group.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - A4 AcquisitionFEE - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
384
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE B.1
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement Habitat Type
Total Preserve
Acres (including
neighbor
ing lands
preserves)
Percent of
Preserve
Acres
E
nhanced1
Acres Benefiting
from
Enhancem
ents

Hedgerow or
Other L
inear
Habitat Feature (
acres)2
Enhancement
Cost per Acre3
Total
Enhancement Cost
Enhancement
Cost per Preserve
Acre
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Agricultural Habitat Lands4 57,935 10% 5,794 776 $82,588 $64,088,248 $1, 106 Natural Lands
Ditches 378 33% 126 $360,596 $45,435,154
Grasslands 14,559 33% 4,853 $22,798 $110,639,703
Oak woodlands 858 33% 286 $33,733 $9,647,730
Riparian 2,725 33% 908 $98,873 $89,809,482
Submerged aquatic in the Delt 10 100% 10 $68,629 $686,292 Subtotal 18,530 6,183 $41,437 $256,218,361
Other natural lands5 6,445 33% 2,148 $41,437 $89,020,342 Subtotal Non VP Natural 24,975 $345,238,703 $13,823
Vernal pool wetted 2,121 33% 707 $120,626 $85,282,420 $40, 209 Vernal pool grasslands 15,811 33% 5,270 $14,540 $76,630,807 $4, 847 Subtotal All Natural Lands 42,907 14,309 $507,151,930 Total 100,842 20,103 $571,240,178

1. Enhancement criteria derived from the SJMSCP, Section 5.4.6.

5. Estimated based on the weighted average cost for all other non-vernal pool natural lands.

Source
s: Table A.1, SJCOG, Inc., ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group

3. The enhancement cost applies to the acres where construction and/or installation actually takes place. In the case of hedgerows or other linear features, this is only the relatively small area of activity, not the total area that is thereby enhanced. Enhancement cost includes costs for materials, construction labor, and equipment. In addition to the inst
allation activity, the cost per enhanced acre also includes a cost for project oversight and contract adminstration and three years of maintenance and monitoring. For vernal pool wetted restoration, the cost includes 5 monitoring years during a 10 year post-restoration monitoring period.

4. For agricultural habitat lands, a SJMSCP describes a broad range of enhancement activities and a generalized target of 10 percent enhancement; providing benefits to species without substantially reducing the amount of agricultural land in production. This can be achieved by implementing the linear features described in footnote 2. Pollinator hedgerows or similar linear features enhance the entire field that they are associated with, thereby counting toward the 10 percent enhancement criteria while taking substantially less land out of production.

2. Unlike most other habitat types, agricultural lands are enhanced by treating linear features that run along the edge of or through fields--features such as roads or drainage ditches. In these cases, the land area of direct enhancement activity is substantially less than that area benefiting from the enhancement. This has the advantage of minimizing impacts to agricultural land production. Installing pollinator hedgerows at the edges of fields and grassland borders along irrigation and drainage ditches, and planting nest trees and associated shrubs and grasses, are enhancements used in the cost analysis to represent the range of types of agricultural land enhancements outlined in the SJMSCP.

In addition to benefits to species, these linear features offer benefits of preventing soil erosion and reducing costs for weed control and linear water conveyance infrastructure maintenance. They also enhance the entire field they are associated with, meeting the 10 percent enhancement criterion while also minimizing loss of productive agricultural land. The enhancement cost estimate for agricultural lands is therefore based on the acres of hedgerow or other linear feature multiplied by the cost per acre to install hedgerows and similar linear features.

SJMSCP Preserve land by habitat type, enhancement analysis, and enhancement cost per preserve acre (2023 dollars) DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - B1 PreserveEnhancementCost - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
385
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE B.2
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement Cost Factors (2023 dollars) Remainder of Permit Term
Remaining years in permit term 28 used in formulae below to calculate costs for the remainder of the permit Biological Site Assessment
Number of site visits per year 8 assumes 6 hours per visit Annual cost $7,755
Total Site Assessment cost remainder of permit term $217,143 Preserve Management Plan Preparation
Number of management plans per year 12 assumes 40 hours per plan Annual cost $77,548
Total Preserve Management Plan cost remainder of permit t $2,171,340 Preserve Enhancement Plan Preparation
Average cost per enhancement plan $4,524 assumes 28 hours per plan for each enhancement project Average acres per project 240
Average cost per preserve acre $19
Preserve Enhancements on Agricultural Lands
Enhancement cost per preserve acre $1,106 from Table B1 Preserve Enhancements on Non-Vernal Pool Natural Lands
Enhancement cost per preserve acre $13,823 from Table B1 Vernal Pool Creation/Enhancement
Enhancement cost per preserve acre $40,209 from Table B1 Vernal Pool Upland Grassland Enhancement
Enhancement cost per preserve acre $4,847 from Table B1 Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report, ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - B2 AssessmentEnhancementCost - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
386
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE B.3
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement (2023 dollars) Cost Allocation by Habitat Type
Remainder of Permit Term

multiplied by preserve
acres remaining to be
acquired
Preserves by Habitat Type
Acres Remaining
to be Acquired1
Percent
of Total
Biological Site
Assessment
Preserve
Management Plans
Preserve Enhancement
Plans
Preserve
Enhancements
Vernal Pool
Restoration
Agricultural lands 38,488.30 48% $103,632 $1,036,275 $731,278 $42,576,125 na Non-vernal pool natural lands 24,321.84 30% 65,488 654,851 462,115 $336,209, 830 na Vernal pool grasslands 15,720.66 19% 42,329 423,269 298,692 $76,192, 934 na Vernal pool wetted 2,115.00 3% 5,695 56,945 40,185 na $85, 041,169 80,645.80 100% $217,143 $2,171,340 $1,532,270 $454,978,889 $85,041,169

1. Includes 600 acres of neighboring lands preserves.

2. SJCOG, Inc. spending through 12/31/19 on site visits and preserve management plans totals at least $400,000; assume all of these types of costs for existing preserves are included in spe Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report, ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group.

Costs - Remainder of Permit Term
Cost per acre multiplied by
preserve acres remaining to be
acquired
Total cost allocated by preserve type
percent of total preserve acres remaining
to be acquired2
DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - B3 AssessEnhancementCostAlloc - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
387
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE B.4
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category B Assessment, Planning, Restoration and Enhancement Fee Calculations (2023 dollars)
Remainder of Permit Term
Habitat Type
Biological
Site
Assessment
Preserve
Managemen
t Plans
Preserve
Enhancemen
t Plans
Agricultural and
Non VP Natural
Land
Enhancement
Total for
Agricultural and
Non VP Natural
Land (incl. assessment
and plans)
Vernal Pool
Restoration /
Enhancement
Total for
Vernal Pool
(incl. assessment
and plans)
Costs associated with non-vernal pool natural/agricultural lands conver $169,120 $1,691,126 $1,193,393 $378,785,955 $381,839,594 Natural (non vernal pool)/Agricultural land conversion (acres), remainin 46,245.39 46,245.39 46,245.39 46,245.39 46,245.39 Multi-purpose open space conversion (acres), remaining1 33,996.68 33,996.68 33,996.68 33,996.68 33,996.68 Multiplier for natural/agricultural land conversion 1 1 1 1 1 Multiplier for multi-purpose open space conversion1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 .5 0 .5 Assessment & Enhancement Component of Natural (non-vernal pool)/Agricultural Lands Fee $3 $27 $19 $5,989 $6,038
Assessment & Enhancement Component of Multi-Purpose Open Space $2 $14 $10 $2,995 $3,019 Costs associated with vernal pool grasslands $42,329 $423,269 $298,692 $76,192,934 $76,957,224 Vernal pool grassland conversion (acres), remaining 5,162.74 5,162.74 5,162.74 5,162.74 5,162.7 Assessment & Enhancement Component of Vernal Pool Grasslands Fee $8 $82 $58 $14,758 $14,906 Costs associated with vernal pool wetted $5,695 $56,945 $40,185 $85,041,169 $85,143,994 Vernal pool wetted conversion (acres), remaining 691.90 691.90 691.90 691. 90 691. 9 Assessment & Enhancement Component of Vernal Pool Wetted Fee $8 $82 $58 $122,910 $123,058 Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report, ICF, and Hausrath Economics Group.

1. As described in SJMSCP Section 7.4.1.2, the fee calculation allocates the costs associated with agricultural habitat and non-vernal pool natural lands preserves to conversion of both those high value lands (agricultural land and non-vernal pool natural land) and lower value multi-purpose open space. In other words, the SJMSCP does not enhance multi-purpose open space lands but allocates some of the costs of enhancements on agricultural and natural lands preserves to the conversion of multi-purpose open space lands to assist with the financing of those enhancements.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - B4 AssessmentEnhancementFEE - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
388
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE C.5 for Annual Update
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
SJMSCP Fee Update - 2023 (for 2024 SJMSCP Development Fee Cycle) Category C Monitoring and Program Management/Administration, including endowment for post-permit costs Fee Calculations (2023 dollars)
Habitat Type
Remainder of
Permit Term Post permit Total
Post Permit
% of Total
Fee
Costs associated with non-vernal pool natural/agricultural lands conversion $38,737,435 $6,809,704 $45,547,139 Non-vernal pool Natural/Agricultural land conversion (acres), remaining 49,654.31 49,654.31 49,654.31 Multi-purpose open space conversion (acres), remaining1 34,494.82 34,494.82 34,494.82 Multiplier for natural/agricultural land conversion 1 1 1 Multiplier for multi-purpose open space conversion1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Monitoring & Administration Component of Natural (non-vernal pool)/Agricultural Lands Fee $579 $102 $681 15%
Monitoring & Administration Component of Multi-Purpose Open Space Fe $290 $51 $341 15% Costs associated with vernal pool grasslands $7,387,258 $1,298,616 $8,685,874 Vernal pool grassland conversion (acres), remaining 5,163.08 5,163.08 5,163.08 Monitoring & Administration Component of Vernal Pool Grasslands Fee $1,431 $252 $1,682 15% Costs associated with vernal pool wetted $990,979 $174,206 $1,165,185 Vernal pool wetted conversion (acres), remaining 706.75 706.75 706.75 Monitoring & Administration Component of Vernal Pool Wetted Fee $1,402 $246 $1,649 15% Note: Net of existing fund balance allocated to Category C permit-term and post-permit costs.

Sources: SJCOG, Inc., SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report, ICF, Urban Economics, and Hausrath Economics Group.

1. The fee calculation allocates the costs associated with agricultural habitat and non-vernal pool natural lands preserves to conversion of both those high value lands (agricultural land and non-vernal pool natural land) and lower value multi-purpose open space, thereby assisting with the financing of management and monitoring on agricultural and natural lands preserves.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - C MonitorAdminFEE - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
389
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE 1
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
Land Conversion and Preserve Acres by Habitat Type for the 50-year Permit Term Habitat Type Land Conversion1
Number of Preserve
Acres to Land
Conversion Acres
Total Preserve
Acres for
Compensation
Neighboring Land
Protection
Preserves
Total All
Preserve
Acres
Percent
Total Acres
Agricultural lands2 57,635 1.00 57, 635 300 57, 935 57% Natural Lands
Ditches3 126 3.00 378 378 0.37% Grasslands4 4,853 3.00 14, 559 14, 559 14. 44% Oak woodlands5 286 3.00 858 858 0.85% Riparian6 900 3.00 2,7 00 25 2 ,7 25 2.7 0% Submerged aquatic in the Delta Zone 3 3.00 10 1 0 0 .01% Vernal pool grasslands7
VP - wetted surface area 707 3.00 2,1 21 2,1 21 2.1 0% VP - upland grassland 5,187 3.00 15, 561 15, 561 15. 43% VP - Neighboring Land Protection preserves8 na 250 250 0.25% Other natural lands9 2,140 3.00 6,4 20 25 6 ,4 45 6.3 9% Subtotal Natural Lands 14,202 42,607 300 42, 907 42. 55% Total 71,837 100,242 600 100 ,842 100 .00%

3. Drainage ditches (unlined) generally found in agricultural fields (D types).

4. Valley grasslands (G types) and Foothill grasslands (G2 types).

7. Vernal pool grasslands (G3 type) .

NOTE: In the following footnotes, "type" refers to the mapped habitat unit identified in the SJMSCP Biological Analysis (Chapter 2). The following footnotes provide summaries only and the reader should refer to the Biological Analysis for a detailed description of each habitat type.

5. Blue Oak woodlands, savanna and forests (BL types), Blue Oak Conifer woodlands, savanna and forests (BCN types), Valley Oak Woodland, savanna and forests (V types), and Mixed Oak Woodlands, savanna and forests (O types).

6. This category includes those portions of rivers and major streams located outside the Primary Zone of the Delta (Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Rivers). These were originally included in a separate "Riparian Zone" during the SJMSCP planning process (i.e., "Riparian" refers to a zone rather than to the "Riparian" habitat type. The Riparian Zone was "absorbed" or combined into its surrounding zone (i.e., Central/Central-Southwest) in the final SJMSCP. It generally included River and Deep water channel (W), Tributary Streams (W2), Creeks-intermittent and perennial (W3, W3-i, W3-p), Dead-end sloughs (W-4) and their associated riparian habitats (Great Valley Riparian - R, R2, R3, R5, R4, S, S2). This category includes 25 acres of Neighboring Lands Protection Preserves for Valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat.

9. This category includes all natural land types except for Vernal Pools. Cost estimates in this category are an average of the costs of acquiring, restoring, enhancing the Natural Land categories specified in the preceding categories excluding Vernal Pools. This category also includes natural lands not included in other categories: All Water Features (W types), Channel islands (I types), tule island and mudflat (I2) marsh, and Diablan sage scrub (S3 types) and all other types of Natural Lands.

8. The vernal pool preserves for Neighboring Land Protection consist of existing vernal pools (no creation requirement). Enhancements will benefit the tiger salamander.

2. Neighboring Land Protection Preserves consist of ditched agricultural lands providing habitat for giant garter snake and pond turtle and other lands as needed for compensation to other covered species associated with agricultural land preserves.

1. Land conversion includes results of Tier 1 and Tier 2 analyses. Agricultural land conversion includes 9,720 acres from Tier 2 Analysis and Natural Lands conversion includes 5,000 acres from Tier 2 Analysis of vernal pool conversion to orchards and vineyards and 744 acres of other natural lands conversion.

DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - 1 SJMSCP Acres 6_4_2015 - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
390
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE 2.1
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
Preserve Acres, Total and Remaining to be Acquired1
Preserve/Habitat Type
Total Preserve
Acres - 50-year
Permit
Total Preserve
Acres Acquired
through
12/31/2022 2
Total Preserve
Acres Remaining
to Be Acquired
(links to A.3, B.3.
and C.4)
Agricultural lands 57,935 11,403.699
Grasslands mitigating agricultural land impacts 8,043
Natural lands
Ditches 378 - 378.00
Grasslands 14,559 578.510 13,980.49 Oak woodlands 858 - 858.00
Riparian 2,725 44.050 2,680.95
Submerged aquatic in the Delta 10 - 10.00
Other natural lands 6,445 30.600 6,414.40
Subtotal non-vp natural lands 24,975 653.160 24,321.84
Total Non VP Natural/Ag Lands 82,910 20,099.859 62,810.14 Vernal pool wetted 2,121 6.000 2,115.00
Vernal pool grasslands 15,811 90.345 15,720.66 Total 100,842 20,196.204 80,645.80
Notes:

1. Includes six acres of vernal pool jumpstart.

Sources: Table 1 in this workbook, Table 6 from Annual Reports through 2022, and SJCOG Inc. staff.

2.The Mizuno Preserve (row and field crop agricultural land preserve) is recorded at 181.449 acres (3 decimals).

All other preserve acres recorded at 2 decimals or less. 38,488.30
DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - 2.1 RemainingPreservetoAcquire - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
391
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 Table 2.2
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
A. Preserves Acquired by Habitat Type and Zone as of 12/31/2022 Habitat Type Central Delta Southwest Vernal Pool Total
Agricultural lands 6,327.299 4,347.850 10,675.149 Natural lands
Ditches
Grasslands 243.250 7,121.280 7,364.530
Oak woodlands
Riparian 44.050
Submerged aquatic in the Delta
Other natural lands 30.600
Subtotal non-vp natural lands 317.900 - 7,121.280 - 7,439. 180 Total Non VP Natural/Ag Lands 6,645.199 4,347.850 7,121.280 - 18,114.329 Vernal pool wetted 6.000 6.000
Vernal pool grasslands (upland) 71.760 18.585 90.345 Total 6,716.959 4,347.850 7,121.280 24. 585 18,210. 674 Source: SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report , Table 6 and Table 12 B. Preserves Acquired by Summary Habitat Type and Zone as of 12/31/2022 Habitat Type Central Delta Southwest Vernal Pool Total
Agricultural Land 6,327.299 4,347.850 - - 10,675.149 Natural Land 389.66 - 7,121.280 24.585 7,535. 525 Total 6,716.959 4,347.850 7,121.280 24. 585 18,210. 674 Source: SJMSCP 2022 Annual Report , Table 6 and Table 12 C. Estimate of Future Southwest Zone Preserves, July 2020 2,500 Source: SJCOG, Inc. staff.

SJMSCP Index Zone
SJMSCP Index Zone
DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - 2.2 Preserves_Habitat_Zone_2019 - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
392
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS UPDATE Final Adopted August 27, 2020 TABLE 3
2020 Five-Year Economic Analysis and Fee Update
Allowed and Remaining Incidental Take Acreage
Preserve/Habitat Type
Take Authorizations - 50-year
Permit (including multi-
purpose open space)1
Cumulative Acres
of Take through
12/31/2022
Remaining Acres of
Land Conversion (links
to A.4, B.4. and C.5)
Agriculture 57,635 18,966.97 38,668.03 Multi-purpose (other open space) 37,465 3,468.32 33,996.68 Natural lands
Vernal pool wetted 707 15.10 691.90 Vernal pool upland grassland 5,187 24.26 5,162.74 All other natural lands 8,308 730.97 7,577.36 Total 109,302 23,205.62 86,096.71 Notes:

1. Land conversion includes results of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 analysis. See Table 1 note 1.

Sources: Table 1 in this workbook, SJMSCP Table 1-1 and Table 4.2-2; SJCOG, Inc., 2022 Annual Report Table 4 DRAFT SJMSCP Cost and Fee 2024 Analysis Update_July 2023_Annual w CPI - 3 Cumulative Take_Remaining - 7/24/2023

ATTACHMENT A
393
SJCOG, Inc.
555 East Weber Avenue ● Stockton, CA 95202 ● (209) 235-0574 ● Email: [email protected] San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation & Open Space Plan (SJMSCP)
2024 Updated Habitat Fees*
Habitat Type Fee Per Acre
Multi-Purpose Open Space $8,918
Natural $17,833
Agriculture $17,833
Vernal Pool - uplands $69,408
Vernal Pool - wetted $177,724
* Effective January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024
\
2024 Endowment Fees with In-lieu Land**
Type of Preserve Enhancement
Cost/acre
Land
Management
Cost/acre

TOTAL PER
ACRE

ENDOWMENT
Agricultural Habitat Lands $6,038.00 $792.15 $6,830.15
Natural Lands $6,038.00 $792.15 $6,830.15
Vernal Pool Habitat
Vernal Pool Grasslands $14,906.00 $1,956.53 $16,862.53
Vernal Pool Wetted $123,058.00 $1,918.14 $124,976.14
** Effective January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2024 in lieu of fees to be used as the endowment for the dedicated land preserves (Category B + C) based on impacted acres.

VELB Mitigation
A special fee category shall apply when removal of the Valley Elderberry Long-horned Beatle (VELB) habitat of elderberry shrubs occurs. The fee shall be paid to SJCOG, Inc. or a VELB mitigation bank approved by the Permitting Agencies. The current fee, as established in the VELB Conservation Fund Account managed by the Center for Natural Lands Management, and approved by the USFWS, is $1,800 per VELB Unit (one unit= one stem over 1" in diameter at ground level which is removed). Fees shall be established by the JPA during preconstruction surveys (i.e., counts of stems to be removed with and without exit holes shall be completed during preconstruction surveys) and shall be paid to the JPA prior to ground disturbance or stem removal, whichever comes first.

David Bellinger
CHAIR
Diane Lazard

VICE CHAIR
Diane Nguyen

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Member Agencies

CITIES OF

ESCALON,

LATHROP,
LODI,

MANTECA,
RIPON,

STOCKTON,
TRACY,
AND

THE COUNTY OF

SAN JOAQUIN

ATTACHMENT A
394

H A B I T A T F E E A R E A S
L e g e n d
H a b it a t C o n s e r v a t io n Z o n e C a t e g o r ie s H A B 2 - N O P A Y Z O N E
H A B 3 - M U L T I - P U R P O S E
H A B 4 - A G R I L A N D
H A B 5 - N A T U R A L L A N D
H A B 6 - V E R N A L P O O L
H A B 1 - P R I O R A G R E E M E N T
A
B
C
D
E
F
1 2 - J a n - 0 9

ATTACHMENT B
395

ATTACHMENT C
396
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI -SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN 2024 DEVELOPMENT FEE

SCHEDULE

On February 20, 2001, the City Council of the City of Stockton adopted Resolution No. 01-0101 establishing the authority for the collection of a Development Fee for the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) for all new developments pursuant to the SJMSCP within the City of Stockton; and

A "Fee Study" dated July 16, 2001, was prepared which analyzed and identified the costs, funding, and cost-benefit of the SJMSCP; and

The purpose of the SJMSCP Mitigation Fee is to finance the goals and objectives of the SJMSCP that include, but are not limited to, preserving land acquisition, preserving enhancement, land management, and the administration that compensate for such lands lost as a result of future development in the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County; and

After considering the Fee Study and the testimony received at the public hearing, the City Council approved said report and further found that the future development in the City of Stockton will need to compensate cumulative impacts to threatened, endangered, rare, and unlisted SJMSCP Covered Species and other wildlife and compensation for some non -wildlife-related impacts to recreation, agriculture, scenic values, and other beneficial Open Space uses; and

An "Updated Fee Study" was prepared by San Joaquin Council of Government s, Inc. in 2006, 2011, 2016, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 which analyzed and identified the costs and funding of the SJMSCP; and

The SJMSCP Development Fees are divided into three categories: Category A – Acquisition; Category B – Enhancement; and Category C – Land Management/ Administration; and

To ensure that the SJMSCP development fees keep pace with inflation, annual adjustments are made to the fees based on the method previously adopted by the Stockton City Council; and
The method of annual adjustments was modified in 2011, 2016, 2020, 2021, 2022 and again in 2023 by San Joaquin Council of Governments, Inc.; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City Council finds and declare s that the purposes and uses of the Development Fee, and the determination of the reasonable relationship between the fees’ 397
uses and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed, are valid and adopted as set forth herein.

2. The 2024 Development Fee shall be as set forth in the following table:

Proposed 2024 SJMSCP Development Fees
Habitat Type Category A Category B Category C Total Fee Rounded Fee Other Open
Space
$5,502.00 $3,019.00 $396.66 $8,917.66 $8,918.00
Natural/Ag $11,003.00 $6,038.00 $792.15 $17,833.15 $17,833.00 Vernal Pool
Grasslands
$52,545.00 $14,906.00 $1,956.753 $69,407.53 $69,408.00 Vernal Pool
Wetted
$52,748.00 $123,058.00 $1,918.14 $177,724.14 $177,724.00

3. The Fee provided in this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days after the adoption of this resolution pursuant to California Government Code section 66019(b).

4. The City Manager is authorized to take whatever actions are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED December 12, 2023 .

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton

ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
398

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES

HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN

SPACE PLAN (SJMSCP)
2024 DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Agenda Item 16.1
City Council Meeting
December 12, 2023
399
• Adopted November 14, 2000
• Provides strategy for protecting species
and open space
• Provides permanent preservation areas
• Voluntary option for developers
• City Council approved last update in 2022
• August 2023– SJCOG Board approved
updated fees (decrease from prior year)
Background
400
401
Proposed Fee Schedule
• 7.4% decrease
due to a decline
in the land
acquisition
component
402
Proposed 2024 SJMSCP Fees
Habitat Type Category A Category B Category C Total Fee 2024 Rounded
Fee
2023
Rounded
Fee
Other Open
Space
$5,502.00 $3,019.00 $396.66 $8,917.66 $8,918 $9,629
Natural/Ag $11,003.00 $6,038.00 $792.15 $17,833.15 $17,833 $19,255 Vernal Pool
Grasslands
$52,545.00 $14,906.00 $1,956.53 $69,407.53 $69,408 $75,320 Vernal Pool
Wetted
$52,748.00 $123,058.00 $1,918.14 $177,724.14$177,724
$176,878
403
• Streamlines review while protecting
environmental resources
• Overall decrease in fees
• Financial model & fees evaluated
annually by SJCOG
• Voluntary option for developers
• Participatory agencies must adopt
annually
Conclusion
404
Recommended Actions
City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the San Joaquin County
Multi Species Habitat Conservation and
Open Space Plan 2024 Development
Fee Schedule.
405
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1
CONTINUED ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE STOCKTON

MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW LOGISTIC WAREHOUSE STANDARDS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Find the proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), and that no future environmental review is required for proposed code amendments pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan and Community Plan); and

2. Adopt an Ordinance Amending Title 16 (Development Code) of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) to add a new Section 16.80.390 (Logistic Warehouse), including one of the Options below:

Option A - Standards that reflect Memorandum of Agreement with the State of California Attorney General; or
Option B - Standards that reflect the Memorandum of Agreement with adjustments consistent with the Agreement requirements; or
Option C - Standards that reflect industry recommendations.

Summary
On December 5, 2023, the Stockton City Council received a presentation from City staff that recommended three (3) ordinance options for consideration of adoption that amends Title 16 of the Stockton Municipal Code to establish new logistics warehouse standards. Following staff’s presentation, the Council heard all testimony from the public regarding the proposed ordinance amendment. Prior to closing the public hearing, Council discussed the need for more time to review all of the information received and approved a continuation of the agenda item to the next Council meeting of December 12
th.

In December 2022, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State of California Attorney General (AG) and a Settlement Agreement with the Sierra Club to promote responsible industrial development. Per the agreements, a new industrial warehouse ordinance, including (as a minimum consideration) 26 specified development conditions, must be presented to the City Council for consideration by December 31, 2023, for qualifying logistics warehouse buildings totaling 100,000 square feet or larger. The December deadline was established to align with the anticipated City-initiated Stockton Municipal Code Title 16 (Development Code) overhaul Project.

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 1 of 9
powered by Legistar™
406
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1
Due to delays with the Development Code overhaul Project, the proposed warehouse ordinance is being presented separately and in advance of the Development Code overhaul.

Earlier this year, Staff initiated preparation of a warehouse ordinance by conducting research on best practices for industrial warehouse development standards. To clarify, although the MOA refers to “development conditions”, they were intended to become development standards, so this report will refer to those original conditions as “standards”. Outreach was conducted to gather feedback from community stakeholders including environmental and health advocacy organizations, industry advisors and State and regional regulatory agencies. Further, input was received through holding multiple study sessions with the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee. At the October 12
th Planning Commission Study Session, three (3) ordinance options were solidified as 1) Option A - MOA Standards, 2) Option B - Adjusted MOA Standards, and 3) Option C - Industry Recommended Standards. The Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with scheduling a public hearing for consideration of an ordinance for their recommendation to City Council.

On October 26, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and considered proposed ordinance Options A, B, and C along with public written and oral comments received. The Planning Commission approved a resolution recommending the City Council adopt Ordinance Option C, amending Title 16 of the Stockton Municipal Code to establish new industrial warehouse development standards.

DISCUSSION
Background
On December 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolutions 2022-12-06-1602-01 to 03 certifying an Environmental Impact Report, adopting a pre-zoning ordinance, adopting a Development Agreement, authorizing annexation requests, and approving related settlement agreements for the Mariposa Industrial Park Project (P20-0805). To reduce environmental and social impacts, the City, Project Applicant, AG, and the Sierra Club collaborated in negotiating enhanced mitigation measures for the Project as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). These enhanced measures focused on potential impacts related to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise, since the Project was located adjacent to a disadvantaged unincorporated residential community.

The settlement agreements with the AG (Attachment A) and the Sierra Club (Attachment B) imposed an obligation on the City Staff to prepare an industrial warehouse ordinance including, at minimum, 26 specified development standards; a portion of which were derived from the enhanced mitigation measures in the Mariposa Industrial Project EIR. City Staff must present the warehouse ordinance to the City Council for adoption consideration by December 31, 2023. The deadline was based on integrating the warehouse standards into the City’s comprehensive Development Code overhaul that was already underway and anticipated for City Council consideration by end of 2023. If adopted, the warehouse ordinance and new development standards would apply to all future industrial logistics warehouse buildings measuring 100,000 square feet and greater.

Earlier this year, staff initiated the preparation of the warehouse development standards by engaging in research and information gathering, with the intent of incorporating these standards into the Development Code overhaul. In the last several months, it became evident that the Development City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 2 of 9
powered by Legistar™
407
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1
Code overhaul would not be ready for Council until early or mid-2024. As a result, the scope of work to prepare the warehouse development standards was separated from the Development Code overhaul effort and prepared as an independent amendment to the existing Development Code (Title 16) to satisfy obligations under the settlement agreements.

On August 10, 2023, staff scheduled the first of several study sessions with the Planning Commission to present preliminary warehouse development standards and gather feedback for preparing the new industrial warehouse ordinance. The Planning Commission directed staff to schedule an upcoming agenda item to form a three-member Ad Hoc Committee of the Planning Commission to expedite discussions and feedback to Staff on the initial preparation of the development standards and ordinance. On August 24
th, the Planning Commission appointed Vice Chair Nathaniel and Commissioners Boparai and Hull to the Ad Hoc Committee with Chair Rizvi as an alternate member.

On August 30, 2023, staff met with the Ad Hoc Committee to lay the groundwork for reviewing potential warehouse development standards and determining Committee preferences on meeting and receiving information from staff. The Ad Hoc Committee directed staff to establish a group of advisors made up of environmental, community advocate and industrial developer stakeholders based on public written and oral communications received at the August 24 th Commission meeting.

Staff assembled advisory groups consisting of two environmental representatives, two community advocate representatives and two industrial development representatives. The Ad Hoc Committee directed staff to meet with the advisors independent of the Ad Hoc Committee and report back to the Committee on discussions. The Committee began meeting on a weekly basis with staff, and staff began meeting weekly with the advisors to review potential warehouse standards for the proposed ordinance.

Subsequent study sessions were held with the Planning Commission and public on September 28 th
and October 12th. Staff conducted over twenty (20) meetings with industry, environmental and community advisors, residents, stakeholders and had conversations with representatives from other California cities with or considering warehouse ordinances, and consultants working on similar issues throughout the state (Attachment C - Outreach and Comment Summary).

Present Situation
As a result of much outreach conducted and meetings held, Staff and the Planning Commission concluded that some adjustments and possible alternatives to the MOA standards should be considered due to potential concerns with the feasibility of implementation, ongoing monitoring, and economic effects on business development in Stockton. The MOA requires Staff to consider including all 26 standards, at minimum, in the warehouse ordinance and provides for consideration of alternative standards if certain standards are considered infeasible, with appropriate rationale as defined under CEQA.

Staff proposes three (3) ordinance options (Attachments D, E, and F) for City Council’s consideration, two of which include adjustments and/or alternatives to certain MOA standards. The options consist of:

1. Option A - MOA Standards, that consists of all 26 measures as contained in the MOA, with slight adjustment to adapt them to ordinance regulation form, City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 3 of 9
powered by Legistar™
408
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1

2. Option B - Adjusted Standards, that includes some adjustments and alternatives to the MOA standards based on feasibility considerations, and

3. Option C - Industry Recommended, that mostly aligns with Option B, but includes further adjustments to standards to provide greater flexibility for industrial developers based on feasibility considerations.

A comparison table is provided as Attachment G to show the similarities and differences between the options.

The following is a brief summary of the three ordinance Options:

Option A: MOA Standards
This Option includes all 26 standards from the MOA. Language for certain standards has been simplified to be more concise and align with the City’s zoning ordinance format, rather than mitigation measure format used in CEQA. This Option is the Attorney General’s preference that must be presented by City Staff and considered by City Council. Option A standards are shown as a draft ordinance in Attachment E.

Analysis
· Certain standards as drafted, pose a concern, do not respond to, or resolve, potential feasibility issues raised by staff during the study sessions (8/10, 9/28, and 10/12), however, they are the Attorney General’s preferred standards.
· As several of the standards proposed by this option have yet to be implemented by the State and are not standards in common practice, adoption of this Ordinance option could result in some ambiguity in implementation and unforeseen costs.
· Complies with General Plan policies for environmental protection but not for policies on encouraging development or establishing jobs.
· Exceeds greenhouse gas reduction standards of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) but does not align with the CAP strategies for securing funding for proposed reduction standards and lessening the impact of private development.
· The current State objective of climate change is carbon neutrality by 2045 which will implement many of the MOA standards addressed in the letter for solar ready, energy systems, and electric and/or near zero emission vehicles. The MOA standards will ultimately be carried out by State and responsible agencies regardless of the City implementing the measure as part of the agreement.

Option B: Adjusted MOA Standards
This Option includes 14 of the 26 MOA standards that are proposed in Option A. Ten (10) of the standards have been adjusted or alternatives are proposed based on concerns with feasibility of implementation, monitoring, and economic effects on development in Stockton. Two (2) of the MOA standards were removed due to redundancy and conflict with existing practices. Option B standards are shown in ordinance format as Attachment F; the following summarizes each of the adjusted standards and alternatives:

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 4 of 9
powered by Legistar™
409
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1

1. MOA # 2 Off-Road Construction Equipment: This Option requires smaller construction equipment to be powered by clean fuel sources, but does not regulate fuel sources for large construction equipment since source options are limited in availability and still emerging.

2. MOA #7 Paint Coating: This Option requires paint coatings applied on site to have a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) that complies with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) or the current edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), whichever is most restrictive. In comparison, the MOA standard requires paint coatings applied on site to have a VOC compliance of <10g/L that is derived from a Southern California Air District voluntary standard.

3. MOA# 10 CAL Green Building Standards: This Option requires compliance with CAL Green Building Code Tier 1 building standards for energy efficiency for all logistics warehouse facilities 400,000 square feet or greater. Current CAL Green Building Based Code standards shall apply to warehouse facilities measuring 399,999 square feet or less. In comparison, the MOA Standard requires the higher standard CAL Green Tier 2 building standards.

4. MOA#11 Loading Docks (i.e., setbacks from sensitive receptors): This Option requires a 2:1 ratio of building setback to building height is proposed. As an example, a 50’ tall building requires a 100’ setback from any property line of a sensitive receptor. In addition, a 300-foot setback for truck loading docks is required from any property line of a sensitive receptor. In comparison, the building setback aligns with the minimum MOA Standard of a 300-foot setback - however, the MOA requires consideration of up to a 1,000-foot truck loading dock setback from a sensitive receptor.

5. MOA #12 Landscaped buffer: The Option requires a 40-foot landscape buffer consistent with current practices in the State and region. A minimum 10-foot sound wall is also proposed unless a noise analysis indicates a taller wall is necessary to bring noise levels into compliance with nighttime and daytime standards. In comparison, the MOA standard requires a 14-foot sound wall and a landscape width at minimum equal to 50% of the building setback width (i.e., 50-foot for a 50-foot tall building).

6. MOA #13 Solar Power/Battery Energy Storage Systems : A consensus on the definition of “operational base power” for solar and energy calculation is proposed. This Option requires Solar Power installation to supply operational base power, with an option to forgo solar installation if “clean” power can be obtained through procuring clean energy from Ava Community Energy (formerly known as East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) Program or participating in the California’s Clean Solar Program, as well as the option for alternative fuels and energy that can achieve Near Zero Emission (NZE) for enhanced greenhouse gas reduction. In comparison, the MOA standard requires solar power installation to supply operational base power and increased solar installation for any future increase in operational base power. Additionally, a backup battery system is required.

7. MOA #14/17 EV Fleet and Monitoring: The Option provides an alternative standard to provide electric vehicle (EV) ready conduits for future EV truck integration at delivery docks and elsewhere onsite. In comparison, the MOA standard requires Heavy Duty trucks domiciled on site to be at minimum 2014 clean model or later and phased into EV Heavy Duty Trucks by end of year 2025; and requires Medium Duty vehicles domiciled on site to be phased in with City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 5 of 9
powered by Legistar™
410
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1
clean vehicles starting in 2025 and 100% zero emission vehicles by end of year 2027.

8. MOA#18 Transport refrigeration units (TRUs): This Option requires electric connectivity installation for TRUs that serve cold storage facilities. In comparison, the MOA standard also requires electric connectivity for TRUs that serve cold storage and requires the owner of the project site to record a covenant to prohibit future TRUs if they are not initially proposed with a development project. If a cold storage is proposed in the future, the owner would have to remove the covenants recorded on the property.

9. MOA #25/26 Development Agreement (DA) Reviews and Public Noticing: The City already requires annual DA reviews for compliance and requires neighborhood meetings and public hearings for certain discretionary warehouse projects. This includes projects that require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis and public noticing. Other reviews that are ministerial require compliance with development standards and do not require public hearings, notices, and are exempt per CEQA guidelines. While Option B does not require additional meetings as they will result in longer processing times for ministerial actions, all projects are public record. As monitoring and public notification are not a common quantifiable mitigation under CEQA guidelines, and the items are already required per Stockton municipal code, no alternative is proposed.

Analysis
· Complies with General Plan policies for environmental protection and enhanced design standards without including ambiguity that could lead to confusion or added cost for the city and private developers.
· Exceeds greenhouse gas reduction standards of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and conflicts with CAP strategies for securing funding for proposed reduction standards and lessening the impact of private development.
· Staff utilized eight different examples of Setbacks and buffers of other Cities exploring similar warehouse standards to compare what is considered acceptable practice. · While the standard would be implemented for ministerial and discretionary projects, all development would have to indicate compliance with the current State objective of climate change being carbon neutral by 2045. This includes all air quality, stormwater, and building code compliance at the time a permit is issued.

Option C: Industry Recommended
This Option reflects recommendations of the industrial development industry. Option C standards are shown in Attachment F. While industry representatives are mostly agreeable to the standards proposed in Option B, the following summarizes adjustments to the Option B standards which are reflected in Option C.

1. MOA#2 Off-Road Construction Equipment: This Option requires smaller construction equipment to be powered by clean fuel sources, but does not regulate fuel sources for large construction equipment since fuel source options are limited in availability and still emerging.

2. MOA #10 Building Standards : Recommended CALGreen State and local standards should be used for all new building structures. This is the current practice.

City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 6 of 9
powered by Legistar™
411
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1

3. MOA #12 Landscaped buffer: A 20-foot landscape buffer is proposed as opposed to the 40- foot landscape buffer proposed in Option B. This is consistent with current Code (SMC

16.80.170).

4. MOA #13 Solar Power/Battery Energy Storage Systems : Proposed solar shall comply with all current State and local requirements. Further, the use of non-reflective materials on the roof is proposed. Language included for procuring clean energy Ava Community Energy (formerly known as East Bay Community Energy) and participating in California’s Community Solar Program

5. MOA #15 Electric Charging: Provide EV charging for automobiles consistent with the California Building Code.

Analysis
· Complies with General Plan policies for environmental protection and enhanced design standards without including ambiguity that could lead to confusion or added cost for the City and private developers.
· Exceeds greenhouse gas reduction standards of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and conflicts with CAP strategies for securing funding for proposed reduction standards and lessening the impact of private development.
· While the standards would be implemented for ministerial and discretionary projects, all development would have to indicate compliance with the current State objective of climate change being carbon neutral by 2045. This includes all air quality, stormwater, and building code compliance at the time a permit is issued.

Both Ordinance Options B and C propose adjustments and alternatives to certain MOA standards. If certain standards from the MOA are not included in the proposed warehouse ordinance, a justification must be provided to explain:

1. Why such standard is infeasible to include.

2. What alternative measure is being proposed for inclusion in lieu of any omitted measure.

3. How such alternative measure reduces potentially significant environmental impacts.

A feasibility analysis was prepared to address the process specified above for both Ordinance Option B ( see Attachment H - Feasibility Analysis) and Ordinance Option C (see Attachment I- Feasibility Analysis).

On December 5, 2023, the Stockton City Council received a presentation from City staff that recommended three (3) ordinance options for consideration of adoption that amends Title 16 of the Stockton Municipal Code to establish new logistics warehouse standards. Following staff’s presentation, the Council heard all testimony from the public regarding the proposed ordinance amendment. Prior to closing the public hearing, Council discussed the need for more time to review all of the information received and approved a continuation of the agenda item to the next Council meeting of December 12
th.

During Council discussion, questions were raised as to the City’s satisfaction of the settlement City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 7 of 9
powered by Legistar™
412
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1
agreements with the Attorney General and Sierra Club that required consideration of the warehouse ordinance by December 31, 2023. The City Attorney confirmed that the obligation of both agreements was met in accordance with the deadline by Council considering the warehouse ordinance options. Further, staff clarified for Council a stipulation of the Sierra Club Agreement requires, prior to adopting a warehouse ordinance, the City to apply the enhanced mitigation measures from the Mariposa Industrial Project to any project application for logistics warehouse that exceeds 100,000 square feet and requires a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report.

Environmental Analysis
The proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), (Common Sense Exemption) and that no future environmental review is required for proposed code amendments pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan and Community Plan).

Section 15061(b)(3) Exemption (“Common Sense Exception”) CEQA requires the analysis of agency approvals for discretionary actions that could lead to a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed project involves discretionary amendments to the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) but is exempt from CEQA review as it would not significantly impact the environment. The Zoning Code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards for logistic warehouse construction and operation. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. The Project is exempt from CEQA because it would not significantly affect the environment.

Section 15183 (General Plan Consistency) Exemption
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP EIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council as part of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan process (SCH# 2017052062). The proposed code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards for logistic warehouse construction and operation. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the GP EIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required per CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan or Community Plan).

Planning Commission
On October 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 8 of 9
powered by Legistar™
413
File #: 23-1169, Version: 1
warehouse ordinance. At the meeting, staff presented three (3) ordinance options for the Commission’s consideration that reflected discussions in the prior Commission study sessions, research efforts conducted by staff, and public input received. At the conclusion of staff’s presentation and public comments received, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Nathaniel Absent) to recommend the City Council adopt Ordinance Option C (Attachment I - Approved PC Resolution). Following the Planning Commission’s approval of recommendation for Option C Ordinance to City Council for approval, City staff discovered some editorial errors and minor inconsistencies between the draft Option C ordinance and the Comparison Table provided in the Staff report. The comparison table showed that certain standards in Option C were the same as Option B, however, the draft ordinances contained in the staff report had slight clerical differences in phrasing that did not change the purpose and intent of the standard but should have been aligned. Staff performed minor clerical adjustments to the draft Option C ordinance for the City Council report to more accurately reflect the intended language. Further, staff discovered ambiguous language in the draft Option C ordinance for standard 2c, e and f that related to solar panel that have been adjusted to provide greater clarity based on consultation with the development industry that proposed the original standard language. These updates are incorporated in Attachment F for the Council’s consideration.

Public Notice
Notice for the City Council public hearing for this request was published in The Record on November 22, 2023. On December 5, 2023, City Council opened the public hearing and continued the hearing to December 12, 2023, so not further public noticing is required.

A public comment was received prior to the staff report being published; included as Attachment K.

Please note that Attachment K has not been reviewed or vetted by staff. The assertions within said submittal are that of the author(s).

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
The requested action to amend the Stockton Municipal Code Title 16 (Development Code) will have no immediate financial impact.

Attachment A - California Attorney General Approved Agreement Attachment B - Sierra Club Approved Agreement
Attachment C - Outreach and Comment Summary
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)
Attachment G - Ordinance Option Comparison Table)
Attachment H - Option B Feasibility Analysis
Attachment I - Option C Feasibility Analysis
Attachment J - Approved PC Resolution
Attachment K - Public Comment
City of Stockton Printed on 12/7/2023Page 9 of 9
powered by Legistar™
414

ATTACHMENT A
415

ATTACHMENT A
416

ATTACHMENT A
417

ATTACHMENT A
418

ATTACHMENT A
419

ATTACHMENT A
420

ATTACHMENT A
421

ATTACHMENT A
422

ATTACHMENT A
423

ATTACHMENT A
424

ATTACHMENT A
425

ATTACHMENT A
426

ATTACHMENT A
427

ATTACHMENT B
428

ATTACHMENT B
429

ATTACHMENT B
430

ATTACHMENT B
431

ATTACHMENT B
432

ATTACHMENT B
433

ATTACHMENT B
434

ATTACHMENT B
435

ATTACHMENT B
436

ATTACHMENT B
437

ATTACHMENT B
438

ATTACHMENT B
439

ATTACHMENT B
440

ATTACHMENT B
441

ATTACHMENT B
442
Warehouse
Ordinance Outreach Summary
Below summarizes the feedback and sugges�ons received by various groups from late August through October 2023. The points summarize numerous comment leters and mee�ngs held with City staff in the crea�on of the proposed warehouse ordinance.

Mee�ngs Conducted (alphabe�c order)
• Atorney General’s Representa�ve Mee�ngs: 8/30, 9/13, 9/21, 10/5 • Environmental Advisor Mee�ngs: 9/11, 9/14, 9/18, 9/21, 9/26, 10/11 • Industrial Advisor Mee�ng: 9/6, 9/20, 10/5
• Mee�ng with group of concerned residents: 9/18
• Mee�ng Climate Specialist: 10/3,
• Mee�ng with Municipali�es with Warehouse Ordinance or Considera�ons: 9/28, 9/29 • Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Commitee Mee�ng: 8/30, 9/7, 9/14, 9/21 (9/21 Release of Ad-Hoc Notes) • Planning Commission Study Sessions: 8/10, 8/24, 9/28, 10/12 • Release of Ad-Hoc Mee�ng Notes: 9/21
• Release of Working Dra� standards to Public and Groups: 9/15, 10/12, and 10/19

# Comment or Issue Raised City Response
Atorney General’s Representa�ve Mee�ng

1. EV fleets and monitor could be difficult to implement
and enforce. Suggest looking at truck routes (exis�ng
and new) to move away from sensi�ve receptors and
project review to ensure truck routes stay away from
these receptors before approval of the project’s
design.

Staff is open to adding project specific reviews that prohibit new Truck routs from being located next to sensi�ve receptors like schools and homes.

2. Does not want City staff to limit their review of
op�ons to just the MOA or past examples given to the
City.

City staff are inves�ga�ng and exploring op�ons. The City is upda�ng its climate ac�on plan in 2024 and did indicate to the AG representa�ve that a general plan amendment would likely take this effort into summer or fall of 2024.

3. The AG representa�ve wondering if the City would be open to General Plan amendments to reroute trucks
and explore ways to buffer land uses.

Staff indicated a General Plan amendment would take �me and can only be done four �mes a year with the city already engaging in possible amendments for the city and private ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
443
# Comment or Issue Raised City Response
projects. The industrial areas in the general plan were carefully selected, reviewed per CEQA, and adopted so staff would not be comfortable making changes per the MOA that would alter or impact on the land use adopted in the general plan.

4. The AG office is open for an extension should
measures need further discussion.

Staff will discuss if needed.

5. The AG office prefers a 1,000� buffer, rather than
300’ required and Tier 2 standards be considered for
new construc�on.

City staff are inves�ga�ng.

6. The AG’s office sent clarifica�on measures to the City on 10/9/23.

While some measure included alterna�ve language, most of the sugges�ons seem to indicate the AG’s officed preference the original measures included in the MOA and addi�onal items add for clarify and enhanced features (i.e., trees). Staff will con�nue to work with the AG’s office for Op�on B adjustments and
propose the MOA in the original form.

Environmental Advisor Mee�ngs

7. Would like the city to enforce CARB standards directly instead of the Air District which is tasked with
implemen�ng state and CARB standards. Staff
reaching out to Air District and state staff on the
mater.

City staff are inves�ga�ng; however, discussion with air district and climate specialist indicate that the state is s�ll working on standards and process to update new standards. This
complicates the task of applying new standards as they are s�ll being worked on.

8. Does not oppose development but feels the region
needs projects that improve air quality for residents.

Staff will con�nue to work on improving environmental and health condi�ons.

9. Understands staff shortages but would like the City to looking more monitoring and enforcement
procedures to ensure facili�es stay current with best
prac�ces.

City staff are inves�ga�ng. City exploring more informa�on on the city’s website as con�nual monitor of exis�ng opera�ons would be costly and �me consuming as is not a typical prac�ce of most ci�es.

10. Encourages staff to reach out to residents. Especially in the south Stockton areas.

Staff have met with some residents and will con�nue to reach out for this and other city efforts (development code and housing efforts). This includes the rezones in 2022 to remove industrial uses from south and east Stockton areas.

Industry Advisors Mee�ngs
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
444
# Comment or Issue Raised City Response

11. Concerns with added costs of implemen�ng
standards that could make development projects
infeasible. Will put Stockton at a compe��ve
disadvantage with surrounding ci�es that are
suppor�ve of industrial and logis�c uses as job
generators and key components to the economic
market.

Staff exploring feasibility through use of an outside consultant.

This includes review of direct project cost impacts and a compara�ve analysis of how those cost impacts compare with surrounding areas. Study should be complete by October 2023.

12. Does not oppose energy efficiency or climate
reduc�on methods but prefers a well thought out
approach.

No response yet. Coordina�ng with other departments on
status of the City’s Climate Ac�on Plan Update.

13. Significant concerns with requirement to regulate
electric vehicle fleet mixes on industrial operators
and EV repor�ng and compliance. Regula�on should
remain at the state level (Clean Air Resources Board
(CARB)), since they enter into agreements with heavy
and medium duty vehicle manufacturers regarding
vehicle produc�on availability to open market
deadlines. Further adequate vehicle charging
facili�es are s�ll not readily available through the
state to support EV heavy duty and medium duty
vehicles.

City Staff discussing with the AG and Sierra Club, since requirement came from the setlement agreements for
Mariposa Industrial Project.

14. Concerns with costs of compliance with CalGreen Tier two building code requirements and are not a
requirement in most ci�es in the state for Industrial
development.

City staff inves�ga�ng, reques�ng industrial to share cost analysis is available. Not much data on how many ci�es have Tier 1 or Tier or the quan�ta�ve amounts for cost or benefits.

15. Concerns with Solar requirements to construct solar infrastructure, and encouraging the City to join the
East Bay Energy Collec�ve (EBEC), so industry can
purchase clean energy from Collec�ve to provide for
base power opera�ons
City Staff have been going the EBEC and will consider it an op�on.

16. Concerns with what can occur in the 300’ buffer area.

Recommending the City of Fontana ordinance model
restricts diesel trucks in the area.

Staff Inves�ga�ng City of Fontana Ordinance and other sources.

Examples given by the DOJ representa�ve are the basis for the ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
445
# Comment or Issue Raised City Response
Op�on B adjusted measures which include the DOJ’s best
prac�ces.

Mee�ng with group of concerned residents

17. Many feel an ad-hoc commitee of residents is s�ll
needed regardless of consensus on measures. A
commitee for the measures and any Climate Ac�on
Plan update.

Coordina�ng with other departments on status of the City’s Climate Ac�on Plan Update.

18. Although the larger warehouse is not located near
south Stockton homes in urbanized areas, some feel
there will be indirect impacts (traffic, air quality) that need to be accommodated.

In 2022, staff rezoned various industrial proper�es in south Stockton to commercial to remove the poten�al for noxious uses. Staff is hoping to expand on this approach as part of the Development Code overhaul. In addi�on, in 2024 the City will begin the process of upda�ng its climate ac�on plan which will involve a revised emission report.

19. Need for direct dialogue with Commissioners and
Councilmembers on the issues impac�ng south
Stockton communi�es.

Staff encouraged addi�onal mee�ng with city departments and outreach and comments at the hearings.

20. While inclusion of nonprofits and agency are
encouraged, some residents feel these groups do not
represent residents and owners within the
community.

Staff encouraged addi�onal mee�ng with city departments and outreach and comments at the hearings. In addi�on, staff have reached out to the Air District’s AB617 commitee
representa�ves and the Transforma�ve Climate Communi�es (TCC) representa�ves. In addi�on, the environmental advisors are comprised of community representa�ves and individuals familiar with the MOA and Mariposa Industrial Project
measures.

21. Members want staff to extend the MOA �meline first,
and then discuss measures, outreach, and other
efforts to help south Stockton.

Staff will discuss this at the study session and with the Atorney General’s office.

Mee�ng with Climate Specialist

22. Many groups and ci�es are watching what happens
with Stockton as this issue is something many are
Staff will con�nue to explore.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
446
# Comment or Issue Raised City Response
dealing with, and Fontana was the last example of
what the State wanted.

23. The state is s�ll working to outline how the new 2045 carbon neutral direc�ve will be implemented. This
includes new standards and direc�on to the regional
bodies tasked with implemen�ng them.

Staff will con�nue to explore.

24. EV truck technology is present but s�ll not
commercially viable.

Staff will con�nue to explore.

Mee�ng with Municipali�es with Warehouse Ordinance or Considera�ons

25. Many groups and ci�es are watching what happens
with Stockton as this issue is something many are
dealing with, and Fontana was the last example of
what the State wanted. Many ci�es have received
similar leters from environmental groups on similar
mi�ga�on measures for their projects.

Staff will con�nue to explore and coordinate with those ci�es on feasible best prac�ces.

26. Some of the ci�es do not have the same poli�cal
environment or land available to large new
warehouses.

No ac�on.

Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Commitee1

27. Release measures as soon as possible to allow �me to review before adop�on.

Dra� zoning language released to public for review on Friday September 15, 2023. The September 28th mee�ng will focus on dra� language while the October 12th mee�ng will focus on alterna�ves and final language for a proposed ordinance.

28. Members didn’t feel the City should exceed or
expedite items that are the responsibility of the state to monitor and enforce.

Measures requiring monitoring or enforcement of measures that exceed current code enforcement and zoning prac�ces removed. This includes measures that require enforcement of items not commercially available.
1 Mee�ng Notes and Materials included in Exhibit 1 and on the CDD Zoning Update Website ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
447
# Comment or Issue Raised City Response

29. Due to �me constraints, the Commitee directed staff
to form a group of environmental/health advocates
and industry advisors in addi�on to mee�ng with
residents and the AG office.

Staff conducted several weekly mee�ngs with each of these groups to solicit feedback and prepare dra� language for con�nued discussion.

30. Members requested staff inves�gate alterna�ve
measures for EV fleets and examples that allow
alterna�ve fuel op�ons instead of just EV.

City staff are inves�ga�ng.

31. Requested feasibility analysis be conducted. Study is currently underway.

32. Requested all public feedback be considered in staff’s discussion for the proposed zoning standards.

Staff will include a summary of all comments and leters
received to indicate if the item is addressed or can be addressed.

Exh
ibit 1- Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Notes and Materials (release to public 9/21/23) ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
448

Present: A
d Hoc Commitee Member Gurneel Boparai
Rajan Nathaniel
Terry Hull
Michael McDowell, City Staff
Stephanie Ocasio
Mat Diaz
Adriana Guerrero (taking notes)
Mike and
Mat – Gave PPT presenta�on.

Stephani
e - Ad Hoc Commitee needs to iden�fy stakeholder groups (advisors) and determine when they need to be present at Ad Hoc mee�ngs.

Mike - Mee�n
g with Atorney General this week.
- EV Fleet is a significant issue. Equipment may be difficult for Logis�cs Operators to find for purchase.
- Sierra Club can be a regular advisor; it is the Ad Hoc’s choice. - Setbacks of industrial projects (i.e.: air quality for South Stockton) - Commitee needs to determine involvement of advisors
- Recommends 2 measures are reviewed per mee�ng
Terry Hull - T
oo many advisors may take longer to get things done.

Gurneel -
Voiced preference for order of mee�ngs with advisors.
- As decisions are finalized, Ad Hoc should have mee�ngs for advisors to give input - Wants to get this done as quickly as possible.

Rajan - Ad Ho
c should be very clear on what informa�on is being requested of advisors. - Staff can engage with advisors during regular business hours and bring info back to Ad Hoc. - Possible AG li�ga�on if deadline is not met.

Gurneel -
Ad Hoc should have 2 workshops with advisors.

Mike - Needed
clarifica�on on “workshops.”
Gurneel -
At least 2 mee�ngs with advisors. Does City Staff have capacity to meet and stay in contact with advisors?
Mike - Staff
can communicate with interested par�es, get feedback, and report back to Ad Hoc.

Gurneel -
Different perspec�ve but willing to move forward as long as advisor/community input is received.

Stephani
e - Needs clarity.

Terry - Comm
ents from the public will s�ll be received.

Gurneel -
Minutes should be made available to public.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
449
Stephani
e – No official minutes for Ad Hoc, just notes to ensure nothing is forgoten.

Rajan - Ok with
City staff engaging with advisors.

Stephani
e - Ad Hoc is leading and will advise City staff on direc�on of responses to measures along with public input. Would like concurrence on all decisions made.

Gurneel -
Appreciates City staff ge�ng input from the public.

Terry - There wil
l be plenty of public comment on 9/28 Study Session.

Mike - “Pu
blic” is advisors/stakeholders.

Gurneel -
Agrees
Mike - Sug
gested Sierra Club as advisor
Terry - Cont
ractor and industry should be involved to advise of feasibility.

Terry - Dates d
o not seem realis�c.
- Equipment might not be available by deadlines
Mike - Sier
ra Club & Atorney General agreed that deadlines are not realis�c with current Mariposa Road project.

Terry - New co
de should be more realis�c.

Mat - Shoul
d focus on six (6) bigger items. Staff needs to determine how to follow up on standards put into place. Feasibility study being done.

Mike – Kno
ws of two industrial industry par�es available for City staff to bring in as advisors if needed.

Gurneel -
Agrees with Hull. Demand for EV chargers and current ordinance is too heavy handed and manufacturers for chargers are backlogged.
- Hinderance and a loss of money
- There should be a Zoning designa�on for EV charging. Chargers should not be on warehouse proper�es.

Rajan - What
other direc�on is needed from Ad Hoc?
Mike - Need
to finalize length, frequency, and start �mes of mee�ngs.

Rajan - Sugg
ests 1 hour and extend to 1.5 hours as needed for difficult topics.

Terry - 5pm
is challenging. Can make it but is not ideal. 1 hour is ok.

Mike - Sugge
sts lunch hour.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
450

Gurneel
- Ok with lunch hour. Would like to keep under 1 hour.

Rajan - Ok with lunch hour

Mike - Thursdays?

Terry – Agreed to Thursdays

Mike - Time?

Terry – 1 pm

Rajan – Agreed to 1 pm

Gurneel – Agreed to 1 pm

All - Agreed to weekly Ad Hoc Mee�ngs on Thursdays at 1pm from 9/7/23 – 9/28/23.

Mat - 8/10 PPT atached to Teams chat
- Will keep everyone updated
- Dra�s will be posted to City website
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
451

PLANNING COMMISSION
Warehouse Ad-Hoc
Committee

Industrial Warehouse Standards
August 30, 2023
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
452
Today’s Meeting

1. Project Schedule

2. Overview of Measures
– Define what staff proposes to keep; and items
to discuss with th
e ad-hoc group

3. Working Draft of Code

4. Measures Needing Discussion

5. Implementation and Alternatives

6. Ground Rules

7. Use of Advisors

8. Ad-Hoc Schedule
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
453
1) Project Schedule
• September
– Ad-Hoc and Working Group Meetings
– Ord. Working
Draft Available to Public Mid-Sept
• 9/28- PC Study Session on
Committee/grou
p findings & Draft Ordinance
• 10/26- PC for Recommendation
• 12/5- CC Consider
ation for Adoption
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
454
2) MOA Overview
• 26 measures total
– 19 measures proposed to carry over into Code
– 5 measures for focusing Ad-Hoc discussions
• Several of the 6 measures/items may be consolidated
– 2 measures removed
• Discussion on size/definition applicability
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
455
3) Working Draft Code
• MOA measures converted to typical code
outline.
• About 1
9 measures proposed to carry over.
• All were edited for codification, some of
which were chang
ed from their original
thresholds.
• Organized into submittal requirements,
development
standards, construction, and
ongoing activities.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
456
4) Measures for Discussion
• There are five (5) measures and one (1) size
qualifier to d
iscuss.
• Some may get included into the Code, but
others may
have alternatives proposed if
staff cannot find a reasonable compromise.
• Staff defines the issues and possible
solutions that will
likely require collaboration
with stakeholder groups (advisors).

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
457
5) Implementation Table
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
458
5) Alternatives
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
459
6) Ad-Hoc Schedule

1. 8/30- this meeting

2. 9/7- possible 2nd meeting

3. 9/13 - possible 2nd meeting

4. 9/18 or 9/21- possible 3rd meeting

5. 9/28- PC Study Session (no proposed Ad-
Hoc)

6. More/oth
er?
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
460
7) Ground Rules
• Meeting Times
• Information Sharing
• At least 3 more ad-hoc meetings
– 1 per week ending PC meeting week 9/28
• Estimates an hour or more each
• Two discussion measures per meeting
• Materials will be sent to groups for review and
comment separ
ate from the discussion items
• Each meeting will have some time to
discuss commen
ts
• Roughly leaves 25-30 minutes for each discussion
point.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
461
8) Advisors
• Ad-Hoc group meets weekly
• Advisors c
alled on as needed
• Working Draft release in mid-September
– Will send to stakeholders and all individuals
expressing i
nterest in the effort. CDD
Warehouse Website
• Effort could extend into 2024, requires
consent of Sierr
a Club and A.G Office.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
462

Present:

Gurneel Boparai
Rajan Nathaniel
Terry Hull
Michael McDowell
Stephanie Ocasio
Mat Diaz (taking notes)
Adriana Guerrero

General
• ADC wanted the public dra�s release asap to give people �me to review • Agreed with staffs approach to the advisors and reaching out to the general public • Wanted staff to include all comments received, even if it is more policy based that may result in ac�ons beyond the code wri�ng.
• Staff indicated measure 20 and the applicability would be the next topic for discussion. • Staff indicated that the 9/28 study session could extend into 10/12 for the city and stakeholders to feel comfortable in moving towards a 10/26 or 11/7 PC and 12/5 CC • Staff informed the ADC that the city received grant money to update the climate ac�on plan and that some may be more interested in that effort than the code.

Measure 20-
• Most seem agreeable to the program, but wanted to know if there were costs associated with its inclusion.
• ADC stated the city should not be responsible for monitoring the program and agreed with staff that enforcement of the program could be messy.
• The ADC indicated a preference to either amend the measure to remove enforcement/monitoring or look for an alterna�ve if agreeable to the DOJ

Measure 14/17-
• Staff outlined the requirement for permit approval, the monitoring, and enforcement issues with requiring an all EV fleet with yearly monitoring.
• The ADC members indicated it was not the city’s place to require and monitor/enforce forcing an industry standard that is not applied by the state and may result in a significant impact in the market.
• The ADC was interested in a feasibility analysis for how this impacts the market. • One member of the ADC wanted staff to explore incen�ves and alterna�ve fuels in addi�on to EV items.
• Staff indicated that the DOJ is mee�ng with staff to explore alterna�ves to these measures that would be more project based or involve analysis of truck movement. • The ADC directed staff to explore more op�ons and alterna�ves and examples of how other ci�es are dealing with similar measures or with requiring EV fleet mixes. • Since the ADC did not support the measures, the members agreed with staff that an alterna�ve measure(s) should be explored with the help of the DOJ.

(MOA#20) The tenant/operator of the qualifying facility(ies) shall enroll and par�cipate the in SmartWay program for eligible businesses.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
463
 Issue: Staff i
s unsure how to enforce the inclusion for all future tenants, if a compliant is filled about a facility not repor�ng data to the voluntary program.

 Solu�on (order of preference):

1. Define needed only at issuance of permit.

2. Remove programs (DOJ isn’t worried)

3. Alterna�ve measure for monitoring.

(MOA#14) EV Fleet and (MOA#17) EV Monitoring

 Issue:
• This measure exceeds the �meline of the state’s implementa�on of carbon neutral by 2045.
• The technology does not seem to be there for EV fleets. • Staff �me to monitory and legally of enforcing these measures. • Impacts to the city’s good movement and industrial sector.

 Solu�on (14/17):
• Remove and find alterna�ve (revised truck routs via DOJ recommenda�on)
• Comply with CARB
• Look into alterna�ve fuel op�ons.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
464
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/14/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM) 1 Present: Gurneel Boparai
Rajan Nathaniel
Terry Hull
Michael McDowell
Stephanie Ocasio
Matt Diaz
Adriana Guerrero (taking notes)

Notes:

Mike
- Requested Ad-Hoc member’s availability for Special meeting on 9/20 or 9/21.

All
- Yes, all are available.

Mike
- Might not have a quorum for tonight’s PC Meeting
- Will still have PC Meeting and continue items to Special Meeting

-----------
Mike
- Working with 4 Industry Representatives
Matt
- Some advisors are also consulting with other individuals on other committees - Explained how he has been interacting with consultants - Smart Way programs/EV - Sierra Club does not have confidence that Air District will enforce compliance to State standards
o Need to reach out to AG
- Has had group meetings with citizens that desire to be on Ad Hoc Committee o Discussed direction of groups & why there are no other committees being formed o Citizens want Ad-Hoc committee
o Shared info & process before code
o $650,000 grant for Housing Action Plan
o Citizens may be at next meeting voicing their concerns Gurneel
- Thinks current Ad Hoc Committee have already met guidelines set by City legal Matt
- Citizens did not give specifics on concerns
- Meeting with Environmental Advisors today
Gurneel
- Appreciates staff engaging with public on behalf of Ad-Hoc Committee Mike
- Targeting a 9/28 Study Session with PC
Matt
- Will be summarizing in notes from each advisory group in hopes to help study session on 9/28
- Solar Power Energy and Solar Systems
o No definition of base power makes it difficult
John
- Base Power can be defined in different ways
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
465
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/14/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM) 2 - Base Power will dictate what size solar system will be required - There are different places where solar can be installed o Roof top, car port, ground mount
o Ground mount system requires fire access roads
- How to deal with future changes to building
o Future occupants may have a different type of company (energy need) - Batteries
o Backup battery system so generators do not have to be used o Solar energy stored in batteries
o Too many batteries stored in building can cause hazardous occupancy o Spec Shell buildings - Buildings that are constructed without tenant present a challenge as energy need is not defined yet
Gurneel
- Storing solar energy in batteries is very expensive
- Father is starting a solar farm
- Suggests considering zone or utility piece that companies can offload into John
- Solar panels must be kept at 80% efficiency
Rajan
- What does Industry say about this measure?
Mike
- Industry is trying to define definition of base power.

Rajan
- Will need to know % of base power
Gurneel
- He understands base power to mean all in one system.
- Will need to know how much power is coming in and how much will need to be stored Stephanie
- What was AG’s perspective? How did this become a mitigation.

Mike
- AG & Sierra Club wanted to ensure less reliance on the grid - Industry does not think measure is reasonable or feasible Stephanie
- Confirmed intent was to reduce reliance on grid and the reduction of greenhouse gases Terry
- Do any other cities have similar measures?
Gurneel
- Need to calculate how much solar power will be needed Stephanie
- Base power may change depending on other factors
- How many solar panels will be enough?
Matt
- Will need to be reviewed at time of construction via building permit process - Will standard be enough to cover future tenants?
Stephanie
- Concerns with monitoring
Matt
- Staff does not have the capacity to monitor
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
466
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/14/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM) 3 Matt
- Staff is not an expert
- Need to be easy to understand by applicants and by staff Stephanie
- Can baseline be estimated from energy currently being used without solar? Matt
- There are different ways to determine energy needed
- Anything Ad-Hoc Committee would like Staff to consider/explore? Rajan
- Recommends looking into percentage/amount of power being generated by solar Terry
- Recommends finding examples from other cities
- Do not reinvent the wheel
Matt
- AG provided case studies which were usually dictated by policy instead of standard Gurneel
- Make sure we are calculating amount of energy from solar Mike
- Community Solar Program with the State
o Not yet implemented
- East Bay Energy Collective is an offshoot of Community Solar Program o Solar power will be provided for citizens that cannot pay their energy bills Gurneel
- Confirmed this is Assembly Bill 2316
Mike
- Industry would like this to be included as an option in the standard Stephanie
- How are reductions in greenhouse gases quantified?
Matt
- AG is not worried about quantifying if groups are okay with the measure - AG has raised concerns of incentives & programs
- Might come up at 9/28 PC Meeting

Applicability
Matt
- Logistics is not only warehousing type. Trying to define “logistics” with AG. - Average warehouse size is 600-700 k sq ft, on a 20-50 acre project site - Staff is working on a map that identifies future use areas Gurneel
- 100k sq ft is a lot lower than the average determined by Dept of Labor which is 670k sq ft Matt
- Shared map of past entitlement improvements of the area o Used to determine average of sq ft
o 700k sq ft will require around 38 acres
Stephanie
- Recommends a large square footage and use market info to support Gurneel
- Can get that info from Dept of labor
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
467
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/14/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM) 4 Rajan
- Agrees with using larger sq ft along with market info Gurneel
- Suggests threshold of 100k – 400k
Mike
- Different sq ft might need different measures, similar to Fontana Ordinance. - Meant for logistics as in Cold storage and distribution with a lot of trucks Matt
- Is group interested in that type of standard?
Gurneel
- Requests staff determine and come back to Ad-Hoc with info Matt
- Next meeting will be discussing Measure 10 which is about energy efficiency of buildings Mike
- Would like to have draft ordinance by 9/28 PC Study Session Matt
- Committee will be receiving draft language of measure soon - Will also be released to the public
Gurneel
- Staff is doing a great job & he appreciates the work
Matt
- Will email to all that are interested in measure and post on website Gurneel
- Wants to be sure that final version is sent to the public

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
468
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/21/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM)

1 Meeting: PC Ad-Hoc Meeting
Date: 09/21/2023
Time: 1:00 – 2:00 pm
Attendance: Staff Ad Hoc Committee
Stephanie Ocasio Gurneel Boparai
Mike McDowell Rajan Nathaniel
John Schweigerdt Terry Hull
Matt Diaz
Adriana Guerrero (note taker)

Notes:

Mike
- Continued item from 9/14 PC meeting will be continued again due to applicant not being available for 9/28 PC meeting.
- Staff is compiling meeting notes for Ad Hoc Committee meetings and will post on City website.
- Ad Hoc members will receive notice regarding Draft Warehouse Ordinance which includes AG measures and alternate language recommended by Ad Hoc and advisors.

Rajan
- Glad notes are being released to the public
Matt
- Shared draft language of Warehouse standards
- Currently receiving feedback on wording
- Would like to focus on issues or standards that need to be discussed - Has received some feedback regarding landscape buffer - Explained what will be discussed at 9/28 PC Meeting
- Questions? (none from Committee)
Matt
- Measure #10 states that all buildings must meet Tier 2 CalGreen standards John
- Currently enforces statewide minimum/mandatory requirements of the CalGreen Code - Levels of the CalGreen Code are Mandatory, then Tier 1, Tier 2 - Tier 2 will be enforced with new ordinance. This is 2 levels higher than current.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
469
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/21/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM)

2 - Complying with entire division in CalGreen code will result in override of other measures that require Tier 1.

Matt
- Staff prefers consistent standards for everything
- Environmental groups prefer Tier 2
- Industry prefers current standards
- Staff is looking for healthy medium between the two
- Questions? (none from Committee)
Gurneel
- Needs time to go through CalGreen standards
- How many fall into each tier in the AG’s Best Practice Report? Matt
- Difficult to lock down AG best practices. Looking to have analysis ready for future study sessions.
- Will review each measure.
- DOJ Best Practices recommend and prefer tier 2
- Doing a cost estimate and will have figures at a later meeting Gurneel
- We need to get cleaned up and will review standards
Matt
- Will have an outline at a high level in the future
- Won’t have estimate from consultants before 9/28 PC Meeting Mike
- Asked John to share reference document that explains the differences between tiers John
- Shared a summary chart from CalGreen. Applies to all buildings. - 15 measures over minimums for Tier 1
- 25 measures over minimums for Tier 2
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
470
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/21/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM)

3 - Each tier is more restrictive.

Mike
- Regarding EV charging, what is currently mandatory under CalGreen? John
- About 10% of stalls
Matt
- LEED certification is reviewed by private outside agency and will still need to comply to CalGreen
John
- Confirmed
Matt
- LEED standards will be reviewed but will not determine a Tier of CalGreen.

Rajan
- Cost analysis will be helpful
Matt
- General Assessment of Costs is available online
- Asked Ad Hoc members to share ideas
- Questions?
Terry
- Has Fontana code been reviewed by staff?
Matt
- Staff has been putting together a list of alternatives to Fontana code Terry
- Fontana is the only code he’s been able to find in the state Matt
- Reviewer from AG Office recommends not using Fontana as an example - Staff is looking for a healthy medium. AG prefers a larger buffer zone.

Terry
- Fontana is the only example
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
471
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/21/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM)

4 Matt
- Staff has compiled all examples from AG Office and is reviewing Terry
- Fontana’s code was just adopted in April 2022. Would like to see impacts to development since adoption.

Mike
- Current code is 20 feet. Agreement encourages staff consider a buffer of 1,000 ft. - Per AG, no semi trucks can be located in the buffer.

Stephanie
- Is Staff parking (i.e. personal passenger vehicles) permissable in buffer? Mike
- Yes
Matt
- Asked AG if Zero emissions trucks are ok to park in buffer but there is no way to regulate/monitor this
- Shared image of map that indicates areas that will accommodate new warehouses of that size
- Map shows industrial vacant lots that are 5.5 acres or more based on a calculation of 10 recent projects and lot coverage.
- Staff has paired standards provided by AG with Fontana and is using as a template - Staff is not comfortable implementing as proposed
Terry
- Colton is smaller than Stockton
Matt
- Colton standards are more aggressive than others but Colton does not have the same makeup as Stockton.
- Would like to find out how standards in Colton evolved Terry
- Fontana is closer to the size of Stockton
Matt
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
472
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/21/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM)

5 - Will most likely not have time to discuss alternatives at next PC Meeting. Staff to recommend discussing at a future meeting.

Mike
- Hopes PC will make determination at 9/28 meeting if discussions should continue Matt
- If PC recommends continuation, should we have another Ad Hoc meeting? Mike
- Deferred to Ad Hoc
Terry
- Will probably want to meet again
Gurneel
- Agrees to meeting again
Terry
- Might not be present at 9/28 PC Meeting
Mike
- Would like as many voters as possible to be present
Terry
- Will try and make it to meeting
Terry
- Can make it to the 10/26 meeting
Mike
- No action to be taken on 9/28 PC meeting but encouraged attendance for Ad Hoc members.

Matt
- Reviewed follow up items: staff will continue to review standards, Committee has no preference on Tiers without seeing financial figures, and Ad Hoc will meet again between 9/28 and 10/12 PC Meetings.

Terry
- Confirmed
Mike
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
473
Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee 9/21/23 Meeting Notes (1:00-2:00 PM) 6 - Ad Hoc will not meet next week as there’s the PC Study Session that evening.

Matt
- Will need to schedule an additional meeting if item continued Mike
- Will most likely be scheduled for 10/5
Gurneel
- Requested staff’s notes on CalGreen be shared with committee.

Matt
- Information will be in Staff Report and PPT presented at PC meeting. Will try to have ready by 9/28 meeting.

Stephanie
- Everything shared during Ad Hoc meetings will be attached to the meeting notes Matt
- Will be posting notes online
Gurneel
- Thanked staff for their hard work.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
474




















 
 



 




 

!"
#"$"!
#%"& ' $$" '(





 




 



 


 







!


"#$  
  

%



  !


 


&
 




! "#$!%

$&'$( )$
*
"($*'
$
+
&

$ $), 
+*"*!$-($!
'$

"
*$(%$* ($
* *$
&./&
)'$"!
 0(
%
+*, 
($
+ **$1 $, $, !
!(!'2 )$
,$!
''
"
# 0(
%
+*,$+$ $,
3 $
',
$' $ , *

(
*
$ **, *
**,
3.$


$ ***,$ '*
$
*




(%
+*, %,*
$
*

,(*, %
, %
+'$!#*$(
*
 %
,$'$
",$ $',#(
%
+*,


#

(%%
,
%$!

'

(
*
$ **
/ '"
 ****!
!

,


4.24
,*%! "#*(#*(%'$$*$1! *($*'$!1* 
4
 * +, 
#-,    


!(!
% $"
5 
% $"6,7
*8


',
$1*
*'6, $
5 
$6,7
*8


',
$1*
*'6, $
5 
$&6,7
*8


 #

 
!
 *+
% $7
+'$9(

''

,
*5
$
%
$&

"8

$/ :'

* *

$ .:'

* *

$,
6, $+
+
$/.:'

* *

$4 :'

* *
6

'
%(; 
*

%''

'

<&
&


3 '

=&
&

>

'

<&
&


?&

'

=&
&

&3
 %%


1
'$!1*


/ %%


1*
'$!1*




 &
.%%''. 
$+"$'$!
& @&#
(%$
+,
+$

2.:' $>




(%$
+,
+$

2.:' $>



' 
 #
@*
$
$), 
+*"*!
,!
!(!*
$
* 1
+*'$ 
'.
' 
 #
@*
$
$), 
+*"*!
,!
!(!*
$
* 1
+*'$ 
'.
A $,(*%$*
* A $,(*%$*
*
6!
",% "
+,
+
$-($!
*
6!
",% "
+,
+
$-($!
*
, (*, $1$" , (*, $1$"

$+"0(%+2 :$

2.:' $>
(
%
1 ('




$+"0(%+2.:$
? :' $>
(
%
1 ('





 // %%''. 
"!0 " 
%$A $* &:
1
+* &.:
1
+*
 %%


1
'$!1*

/
/ %%


1*
'$!1*

/



4, 
"!0 " 
!"'%%''.1
6
*$(
A *
%(


 *> :$%(


 *?.:$%(

"
%6



B$"
%


! $
*'$.:'

! $
*

B$"
%


! $
*'$ :'

! $
*
 %%


1
'$!1*

4
/ %%


1*
'$!1*

4


  0"&
2
. )
6
*

9
$
+ 2.:''
$
+!*

6
!*
..:''
$
+!*

6
!*
)
6
,$!

*(

6!
",
6
!*

*


) %%%
'$!
%,"%
*(


%!
",
6 !*
 %%


1
'$!1*


/ %%


1*
'$!1*



"
, !!  %%


1
'$!
"%1*

/ %%


1*
'$!
"%1*

$$")& "
, !!  &
6"$+,D&.&/
$


6%6(

@
@$*

*$*5

E;




8



'() 
*+,+
,-

" 
.) /

- 

 

 0
1
 0- 

 

$ 

 

-  


2 $


 . 

-

 


 


 #

 
!



 &
.%%''.


  0"&
2
.
& 
10 16
If Division 5.3 and 5.4
were included. Without Divisions 5.3 and

5.4 included. Difference
of (6) total measures
between Tier levels.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
475
Summary of CALGreen Measures w/ Proposed Warehouse Ordinance

CALGreen Related Measures from MOA (Exhibit A):

MOA Reference: Measure:

Pg. 5, Bullet #3 Cool Roof

Pg. 6, Bullet #5 Advanced Energy Efficiency

Pg. 12, Bullet #1,
Sub Bullet #1
Passenger EV

Pg. 12, Bullet #1,
Sub Bullet #2
Fuel Efficient Vehicle Parking:

Conflicting Measures:
• The “advanced energy efficiency” requirement above, specified for compliance with CALGreen Tier 2, would override the “cool roof” requirement that is specified for compliance at Tier 1. To meet compliance with Division A5.1, Tier 2, the aged solar reflectance and thermal emittance will exceed Tier 1 requirements nullifying the “cool roof” MOA measure.
• The “advanced energy efficiency” requirement above, specified for compliance with CALGreen Tier 2, would override the “passenger EV” requirement that is specified for compliance at Tier 1. To meet compliance with Division A5.1, Tier 2, the minimum number of EV stalls will exceed Tier 1 requirements by 15% nullifying the “passenger EV” MOA measure.
• The “advanced energy efficiency” requirement above, specified for compliance with CALGreen Tier 2, would override the “fuel efficient vehicle parking” requirement that is specified for compliance at Tier 1. To meet compliance with Division A5.1, Tier 2, the minimum number of stalls designated for fuel efficient ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
476
vehicles will exceed Tier 1 requirements by 15% nullifying the “fuel efficient vehicle parking” MOA measure.

Other Conflicts:

MOA Reference: Measure:

Pg. 6, Bullet #2 VOC Limits
• Section 5.504 of the CALGReen Code, specifically Table 5.504.4.3, already has requirements for VOC content limits for architectural paints and coatings as part of the mandatory measures. This measure exceeds any level provided for in the CALGreen Code.

CALGreen Tier 1/Tier 2 Comparison Table.

Attached is a summary table of the differences between Tier 1 and Tier 2. Note that the MOA does not require compliance with Divisions A5.3 or A5.4 for Tier level compliance, however the mandatory measures of Division

5.3 and 5.4 are still applicable.

Attachments:

CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 Comparison Table
Executed Memorandum of Agreement
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
477




















 
 



 




 

!"
#"$"!
#%"& ' $$" '(





 




 



 


 







!


"#$  
  

%



  !


 


&
 




! "#$!%

$&'$( )$
*
"($*'
$
+
&

$ $), 
+*"*!$-($!
'$

"
*$(%$* ($
* *$
&./&
)'$"!
 0(
%
+*, 
($
+ **$1 $, $, !
!(!'2 )$
,$!
''
"
# 0(
%
+*,$+$ $,
3 $
',
$' $ , *

(
*
$ **, *
**,
3.$


$ ***,$ '*
$
*




(%
+*, %,*
$
*

,(*, %
, %
+'$!#*$(
*
 %
,$'$
",$ $',#(
%
+*,


#

(%%
,
%$!

'

(
*
$ **
/ '"
 ****!
!

,


4.24
,*%! "#*(#*(%'$$*$1! *($*'$!1* 
4
 * +, 
#-,    


!(!
% $"
5 
% $"6,7
*8


',
$1*
*'6, $
5 
$6,7
*8


',
$1*
*'6, $
5 
$&6,7
*8


 #

 
!
 *+
% $7
+'$9(

''

,
*5
$
%
$&

"8

$/ :'

* *

$ .:'

* *

$,
6, $+
+
$/.:'

* *

$4 :'

* *
6

'
%(; 
*

%''

'

<&
&


3 '

=&
&

>

'

<&
&


?&

'

=&
&

&3
 %%


1
'$!1*


/ %%


1*
'$!1*




 &
.%%''. 
$+"$'$!
& @&#
(%$
+,
+$

2.:' $>




(%$
+,
+$

2.:' $>



' 
 #
@*
$
$), 
+*"*!
,!
!(!*
$
* 1
+*'$ 
'.
' 
 #
@*
$
$), 
+*"*!
,!
!(!*
$
* 1
+*'$ 
'.
A $,(*%$*
* A $,(*%$*
*
6!
",% "
+,
+
$-($!
*
6!
",% "
+,
+
$-($!
*
, (*, $1$" , (*, $1$"

$+"0(%+2 :$

2.:' $>
(
%
1 ('




$+"0(%+2.:$
? :' $>
(
%
1 ('





 // %%''. 
"!0 " 
%$A $* &:
1
+* &.:
1
+*
 %%


1
'$!1*

/
/ %%


1*
'$!1*

/



4, 
"!0 " 
!"'%%''.1
6
*$(
A *
%(


 *> :$%(


 *?.:$%(

"
%6



B$"
%


! $
*'$.:'

! $
*

B$"
%


! $
*'$ :'

! $
*
 %%


1
'$!1*

4
/ %%


1*
'$!1*

4


  0"&
2
. )
6
*

9
$
+ 2.:''
$
+!*

6
!*
..:''
$
+!*

6
!*
)
6
,$!

*(

6!
",
6
!*

*


) %%%
'$!
%,"%
*(


%!
",
6 !*
 %%


1
'$!1*


/ %%


1*
'$!1*



"
, !!  %%


1
'$!
"%1*

/ %%


1*
'$!
"%1*

$$")& "
, !!  &
6"$+,D&.&/
$


6%6(

@
@$*

*$*5

E;




8



'() 
*+,+
,-

" 
.) /

- 

 

 0
1
 0- 

 

$ 

 

-  


2 $


 . 

-

 


 


 #

 
!



 &
.%%''.


  0"&
2
.
& 
10 16
If Division 5.3 and 5.4
were included. Without Divisions 5.3 and

5.4 included. Difference
of (6) total measures
between Tier levels.

ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
478
City Limits
Large Industrial Parcels
Legend
Vacant Industrial
Parcels Larger than

5.5-Acres
Map created by City of Stockton Advanced Planning
staff on September 18, 2023. Aerial image is from
ArcGIS baselayer, "Earthstar Geographics".

City of Stockton
Community Development Department
345 N. El Dorado Street
Map created by: Advanced Planning staff
Map created on: September 18, 2023
Eight Mile Road
Hammer Lane
March Lane
Pacific Avenue
Airport Way
Harding Way
West Lane
ATTACHMENT C - Outreach Summary
479
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE STOCKTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I: FINDINGS AND INTENT
The City Council is authorized by section 16.212.030 of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) to adopt amendments to Title 16 (Development Code) based on the Mandatory Findings of Fact for Development Code Amendments per SMC 16.116.050.

1. Finding #1: The proposed amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with general land uses, objectives, policies, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan on balance and would not create any inconsistencies with this Development Code.

Evidence: T
he proposed amendments to Title 16 are needed for consistency with General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents.

2. Finding #2: The proposed amendment will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City.

Evidence: T
he purpose of the proposed amendments is to comply with the General Plan policies to proactively mitigate potential impacts. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

3. Finding #3: The proposed amendment complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.

Evidence: T he proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), (Common Sense Exemption) and that no future environmental review is required for proposed code amendments pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan and Community Plan).

F
or Section 15061(b)(3) Exemption (General Rule “Common Sense”) CEQA requires the analysis of agency approvals for discretionary actions that 480
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
could lead to a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed Project involves discretionary amendments to the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) but is exempt from CEQA review as it would not significantly impact the environment. The zoning code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistics warehouses.

These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. The Project is exempt from CEQA because it would not significantly affect the environment.

For Section 15183 (General Plan Consistency) Exemption
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council as part of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan process (SCH# 2017052062). The proposed code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistics warehouses. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the GPEIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required per CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan or Community Plan).

4. Finding #4 (Development Code Amendments): The proposed amendment would be internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development Code.

Evidence: T
he proposed amendments are needed to implement General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

SECTION II: AMENDMENT OF CODE

481
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
Title 16, Chapter 16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) is amended to add a new Section 16.80.390 (Logistics Warehouses) to read, as follows:

16.80.390 I ndustrial Warehouse Standards
This section establishes standards for logistics warehouses in zoning districts where they are allowed in compliance with the provisions of Division 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards).

A. Applicability. The standards will apply to the following applications:

1. These standards shall apply to logistics warehouses 100,000 square feet in size or greater.

B. Development Standards.

1. S
ite Plan Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (site plan), grading and improvement plans, and construction permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. A
ll loading docks shall be located no closer than 300 feet from all sensitive receptor groups. The distance shall be measured from the loading dock or any building edge, whichever is closer to the property line of any nearby sensitive receptor defined as any residence including private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters, schools, preschools, daycare centers, in- home daycares, health facilities such as hospitals, long term care facilities, retirement and nursing homes, community centers, places of worship, parks (excluding trails), prisons, and dormitories.
b. All landscaping adjacent to residential or institution zoning designations or uses shall install an onsite landscape buffer. The buffer shall extend the property line abutting those designations and uses and be sized at a 2:1 ratio for the closest warehouse building(s)–for everyone (1) foot of building height, the buffer shall be two (2) foot minimum, unless approved by the Director if the depth is infeasible. The buffer shall be landscaped not be less than 50 percent of the total buffer size with two rows of 15-gallon trees planted along the length of the entire buffer.
c. The buffer landscape can include areas to be used for bioswales, retention/detention areas and/or other stormwater and water quality management areas in compliance with SMC Section 16.56 (Landscaping).
d. The buffer area shall include a minimum 14-foot solid decorative wall(s), or landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped berm 482
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
adjacent to sensitive receptors unless a noise analysis indicates an alternative height is needed for sound attenuation.
e. All on and off-site landscaping shall comply with SMC Chapter

16.56 (Landscaping).
f. All landscaping shall be drought tolerant and, to the extent feasible, comprised of species with low biogenic emissions. Palm trees shall not be utilized.
g. All landscaping areas shall be properly irrigated for the life of the facility to allow for plants and trees to maintain growth with no undue pruning.
h. Tree maintenance shall comply with SMC Section 16.56 as a certified Landscape Architect must prepare the Preliminary and Final Landscape plan and certify the planting is water efficient at the time of construction permit approval.
i. All applicable facilities shall maintain Electric Vehicle (EV) fleets in accordance with the following:
i. Heavy-Duty Trucks: all heavy-duty trucks (Class 7 and 8) domiciled on site are model year 2014 or later from start of operations and shall expedite a transition to zero-emission vehicles, with the fleet fully zero-emission by December 31, 2025, or when commercially available for the intended
application, whichever date is later.
ii. Medium-Duty Vehicles: vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 6) on site shall apply: (i) 33% of the fleet will be zero emission vehicles at start of operations, (ii) 65% of the fleet will be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2023, (iii) 80% of the fleet will be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2025, and (iv) 100% of the fleet will be zero emission vehicles by December 31, 2027.
iii. "Domiciled on site": applies to vehicles parked or kept overnight at the qualifying facility(ies) more than 70% of the calendar year or dedicated to the qualifying facility(ies) site (defined as more than 70% of the truck routes during the calendar year that start at the qualifying facility(ies) site even if parked or kept elsewhere). The tenant/operator of the qualifying facility(ies) shall not be responsible to meet "clean fleet" requirements for vehicles used by common carriers operating under their own authority that provide delivery services to or from the qualifying facility(ies) site.
iv. Zero emission vehicles that require maintenance can be temporarily replaced with alternative vehicles.
v. If an EV fleet is not commercially viable, documentation from a minimum of three (3) EV dealers identified on the
californiahvip.org website must be submitted prior to
issuance of a building permit for the new building
483
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
demonstrating the inability to obtain the required EVs or equipment needed within 6 months.
vi. If a qualifying facility fails to meet the "clean fleet" requirement, the tenant/operator must implement a
Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) that
mitigates emissions through emission reduction projects.

The Air District will verify the mitigation effort. The tenant/operator must continue to fund the VERA until fully compliant with the clean fleet requirements.
j. Electric charging facilities shall be provided onsite sufficient to charge all automobiles, and electric trucks domiciled on the site. k. All truck turning movements at entrances, exits, and street intersections shall be located on local industrial, collector or arterial streets and all vehicle entries shall be designed to prevent truck access to local and back-up residential collector streets. l. All trucks and commercial vehicles serving the facility shall occur in compliance with the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map in SMC 10.08.030 and Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Truck Route Map.
m. Off-street loading shall comply with Section 16.64.110 Off-street loading space standards.
n. Signs shall be posted inside and outside of the building and facility indicating all off-site parking is prohibited for adjacent street that do not permit parking.
o. All truck driveway exits shall include signs directing truck drivers to the truck routes identified in the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map and State Highway System designations.
p. Upon commencement of operations, the tenant/operator of the facility shall be required to restrict truck idling on site to a maximum of three (3) minutes, subject to exceptions defined by CARB’s commercial vehicle idling requirements.

2. B
uilding Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (design review), grading and improvement plans, and construction permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. A
ll qualifying facilities shall be constructed using “cool roof” materials with an aged reflectance and thermal emittance values that are equal to or greater than those specified in the current edition of the California (CAL) Green Building Tier 1 Standards. b. All architectural and industrial maintenance coatings (e.g., paints) applied on site shall be consistent with a VOC content of <10 g/L.

Developer or tenant is not expected to exercise control over materials painted offsite by a third party.
484
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
c. All buildings shall be constructed consistent with the California (CAL) Green Building Tier 2 Standards Energy Efficient Standard Section 5.1, 5.2, 5.5.
d. All buildings shall be constructed with Solar Power and Energy Systems large enough to accommodate the building and
operation’s base power use demand at the start of operation and as the base power demand increases to accommodate an electric fleet.
e. The energy storage systems shall have enough battery capacity to serve the photovoltaic system in the event of a blackout. f. All facilities shall be designed to accommodate enough space for all solar panels and batteries.
g. The solar system installation should be done by owners, operators, tenants, or a qualified solar system contractor.

Operation should begin after receiving permission from the utility.

The owner is responsible for maintaining the system at 80% of rated power for 20 years. After 20 years, install a new system or maintain the existing one for the life of the facility. h. Demonstration of compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) is required prior to obtaining any building permit for a qualifying facility.
i. The tenant/operator of the qualifying facility(ies) shall enroll and participate the in SmartWay program. Proof of enrollment shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of a Building Permit for the facility.

3. C
onstruction Permit Approval . The following standards shall apply to all construction related activity associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. Q ualifying facilities shall comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) requirements prior to beginning construction.
b. All off-road construction equipment, with a power rating of less than 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers, shall be electric-powered.
c. The use of electric-powered, battery-powered, natural gas, or hybrid construction equipment and vehicles are required during construction if commercially available meeting the highest rated California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier technology available at the time of construction may be used.
d. Subject to all other idling restrictions, off-road diesel-powered construction equipment shall not be left in the “on position” for more than 10 hours per day.
485
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
e. Temporary electrical hookups to all construction yards and associated work areas shall be required.
f. Temporary signage shall be posted in public view throughout the construction site indicating truck idling lasting more than five (5) minutes is prohibited. The signs shall include contact information for the facility operator or designee responsible for receiving complaints (i.e. excessive dust, fumes, odors) for the site and contact information for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s on-line complaint system and its complaint call- line for those interested in filing a complaint. Any complaints made to the facility operator’s designee shall be answered within 72 hours of receipt.
g. The construction contractor(s) shall maintain on the construction site an inventory of construction equipment, maintenance records, and datasheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
h. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to establish one or more locations for food or catering truck service to construction workers and to cooperate with food service providers to provide consistent food service.
i. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to provide transit and ridesharing information for construction workers. j. Diesel Generators are prohibited, except in emergency situations and during construction when establishing the facility’s new electrical service connection. In those temporary cases, all generators shall have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that meets CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.

C. On-Going Operations: The following standards shall be implemented during all on-going business.

1. All forklifts, yard trucks, and other equipment used for on-site movement of trucks, trailers and warehoused goods, as well as landscaping maintenance equipment used on the site, shall be electrically powered or zero-emission.

2. All facilities shall maintain a zero emission vehicles/trucks required to meet the "clean fleet" requirements above.

3. Within 30 days of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, the tenant/operator shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of CDD staff that the applicable clean fleet requirements are being met. Any extension of time granted to implement this condition shall be limited to the shortest period necessary to allow for 100% electrification under the clean fleet requirements.

4. The tenant/operator shall submit similar reports every two years thereafter until full compliance with the applicable clean fleet requirements is achieved.
486
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)

5. If the tenant/operator has not met each 100% clean fleet requirement by December 31, 2027, then the tenant/operator shall submit reports annually until the 100% clean fleet requirement is implemented.

6. After the 100% clean fleet requirement has been implemented, the tenant/operator shall submit to the CDD an on-going compliance report every three years containing all necessary documentation to verify that the clean fleet requirements are being met.

7. Each subsequent on-going compliance report shall be due within 30 days of, but not later than, the three-year anniversary of the preceding due date.

8. Refrigeration Units: proposed cold storage and associated transport refrigerated units (TRUs) shall include electric plug-in units at loading docks serving such refrigerated space.

9. Employers shall provide employees with transit route and schedule information on systems serving the facility area and coordinate ridesharing amongst employees.

10. Employers shall provide on-site locations for food or catering truck service and cooperate with food service providers to accommodate food service to operations employees.

11. All outdoor areas allowing smoking shall be located at least 25 feet from the nearest property line.

12. All trucks, supportive vehicles and equipment shall be kept onsite in all loading, storage, and parking areas, and kept behind locked gates during nonbusiness hours.

13. Truck queuing, idling, or circling of vehicles, onsite or on public streets adjacent to the facility is prohibited.

14. Periodic yard and parking area sweeping shall be provided to minimize dust generation.

15. Every development agreement, approved and executed in conjunction with the applicable warehouse, shall be subject to periodic review of the applicant’s/contracting party’s compliance with the agreement, by the Commission, during the full term of the agreement, as specified in the agreement, but in no case less frequently than once every 12 months as required per SMC 16.128.110 (Periodic Review). Appropriate fees to cover the City’s cost(s) to conduct the periodic reviews in compliance with the Council’s fee resolution shall be collected from the applicant/contracting party.

16. A neighborhood meeting shall be required for any application requiring Council review. At the discretion of the Director, a neighborhood meeting may be required for other applications consistent with SMC section

16.88.025 (Neighborhood Meetings).

SECTION III.

SEVERABILITY
If any part of this Ordinance is held invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby 487
Attachment D - Proposed Ordinance (Option A)
declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its passage.

ADOPTED:

EFFECTIVE:

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton

488
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE STOCKTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I: FINDINGS AND INTENT
The City Council is authorized by section 16.212.030 of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) to adopt amendments to Title 16 (Development Code) based on the Mandatory Findings of Fact for Development Code Amendments per SMC 16.116.050.

1. Finding #1: The proposed amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with general land uses, objectives, policies, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan on balance and would not create any inconsistencies with this Development Code.

Evidence: The proposed amendments to Title 16 are needed for consistency with General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents.

2. Finding #2: The proposed amendment will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City.

Evidence: The purpose of the proposed amendments is to comply with the General Plan policies to proactively mitigate potential impacts. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

3. Finding #3: The proposed amendment complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.

Evidence: T he proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), (Common Sense Exemption) and that no future environmental review is required for proposed code amendments pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan and Community Plan).

F
or Section 15061(b)(3) Exemption (General Rule “Common Sense”) CEQA requires the analysis of agency approvals for discretionary actions that 489
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
could lead to a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed Project involves discretionary amendments to the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) but is exempt from CEQA review as it would not significantly impact the environment. The zoning code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistics warehouses.

These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. The Project is exempt from CEQA because it would not significantly affect the environment.

For Section 15183 (General Plan Consistency) Exemption
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council as part of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan process (SCH# 2017052062). The proposed code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistics warehouses. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the GPEIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required per CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan or Community Plan).

4. Finding #4 (Development Code Amendments): The proposed amendment would be internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development Code.

Evidence: The proposed amendments are needed to implement General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

SECTION II: AMENDMENT OF CODE

490
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
Title 16, Chapter 16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) is amended to add a new Section 16.80.390 (Logistics Warehouses) to read, as follows:

16.80.39 0 Industrial Warehouse Standards
This section establishes standards for logistics warehouses in zoning districts where they are allowed in compliance with the provisions of Division 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards).

A. Applicability. The standards will apply to the following applications:

1. logistics warehouses 100,000 square feet in size or greater, unless specified otherwise in Section 16.80.390.

B. Development Standards.

1. S
ite Plan Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (site plan), grading and improvement plans, and construction permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. B
uilding Setbacks: 2:1 ratio of building setback to building height shall be required when adjacent to sensitive receptors. b. Loading Dock Setback: Unless determined to be physically impossible, when adjacent to sensitive receptors, a 300-foot buffer shall separate all truck loading docks unless the areas within the 300-foot buffer utilize zero emission trucks and equipment.
c. A sensitive receptor shall be defined as schools, health care facilities, libraries, churches, correctional facilities, parks/recreational facilities, in home daycare, health facilities (hospitals, long term care facilities, retirement, and nursing homes) or more than two directly contiguous residential units. d. A 40-foot landscaped planter (buffer) shall be installed along the property line adjacent to a sensitive receptor. The buffer shall be landscaped and not be less than 50% of the total buffer size with two rows of 15-gallon trees planted along the length of the property line adjacent to the sensitive receptor.
e. The buffer landscape can include areas to be used for bioswales, retention/detention areas and/or other stormwater and water quality management areas in compliance with SMC Section 16.56 (Landscaping).
f. The buffer area shall include a minimum 10-foot solid decorative wall(s), or landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped berm adjacent to sensitive receptors unless a noise analysis indicates an alternative height is needed for sound attenuation.
491
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
g. All on and off-site landscaping shall comply with SMC Chapter

16.56 (Landscaping).
h. All landscaping shall be drought tolerant and, to the extent feasible, comprised of species with low biogenic emissions. Palm trees shall not be utilized.
i. All landscaping areas shall be properly irrigated for the life of the facility to allow for plants and trees to maintain growth with no undue pruning.
j. Tree maintenance shall comply with SMC Section 16.56 as a certified Landscape Architect must prepare the Preliminary and Final Landscape plan and certify the planting is water efficient at the time of construction permit approval.
k. Trees shall be installed in automobile parking areas to provide at least 35% shade cover of passenger vehicular parking areas within fifteen years. Trees shall be planted that can meet this requirement. If solar panels are installed in parking areas, the shade area created by the panels shall be counted toward the 35% shade cover of passenger vehicular parking areas, in lieu of trees.
l. Electric Vehicle Chargers Stations (EVCS) Infrastructure for Trucks: provide conduits to provide EVCS to meet future needs.

Conduit should be provided on the site to serve 50% of the number of truck docking stations. Location of conduit is at the discretion of the developer (e.g., truck trailer parking spaces or docking stations).
m. Electric charging facilities shall be provided onsite sufficient to charge all electric automobiles, and electric trucks domiciled on the site, unless otherwise prescribed in Section 16.80.390. n. All truck turning movements at entrances, exits, and street intersections shall be located on local industrial, collector or arterial streets and all vehicle entries shall be designed to prevent truck access to local and back-up residential collector streets. o. All trucks and commercial vehicles serving the facility shall occur in compliance with the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map in SMC 10.08.030 and Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Truck Route Map.
p. Off-street loading shall comply with Section 16.64.110 Off-street loading space standards and Section 16.36.30 to ensure driveway access and onsite circulation are designed and maintained to increase public safety and reduce congestion on public streets. q. Signs shall be posted inside and outside of the building and facility indicating all off-site parking is prohibited
for adjacent
street that do not permit parking.
r. All truck driveway exits shall include signs directing truck drivers to the truck routes identified in the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map and State Highway System designations.
492
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
s. Upon commencement of operations, the tenant/operator of the facility shall be required to restrict truck idling on site to a maximum of three (3) minutes, subject to exceptions defined by CARB’s commercial vehicle idling requirements.

2. B
uilding Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (design review), grading and improvement plans, and construction permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. A
ll qualifying facilities shall be constructed using “cool roof” materials with an aged reflectance and thermal emittance values that are equal to or greater than those specified in the current edition of the California (CAL) Green Building Tier 1 Standards. b. Architectural and industrial coatings (e.g. paints) applied on the qualifying facility(ies) shall be consistent with the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content limits set by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) or the current edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen),
whichever is most restrictive. Developer or tenant is not required to exercise control over materials painted offsite.
c. Logistics warehouses 400,000 square feet and greater shall meet the Tier 1 energy efficient standards of the CALGreen Code Divisions A5.1, A5.2, and A5.5.
d. The building permit application for qualifying facilities must demonstrate sufficient solar panels to provide power for the operational base power use at the start of operations. When available, applicant’s will be permitted to utilize “clean energy” sources in-lieu of providing onsite energy production. “Clean Energy” sources include programs such as, but not limited to, Ava Community Energy.
e. Operational base power is defined as the amount of power required to supply loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site. Loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site include, as non-exhaustive examples, loads for minimal heating for fire sprinklers, primary office space lighting, HVAC, warehouse power, warehouse lighting, site lighting, minimum power for dock positions (including chargers for yard equipment and any plug-ins for transport refrigeration units), and the amount of light-duty electric vehicle supply equipment required by CalGreen code.

Loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site exclude, as non- exhaustive examples, loads for specialized equipment, non- standard automation or material handling systems, and chargers for heavy-duty trucks.
493
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
f. Projects shall be allowed to utilize alternative energy means that achieve comparable energy or greenhouse gas offsets. This includes Near Zero Emission (NZE) technology when
commercially available.
g. Demonstration of compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) is required prior to obtaining any building permit for a qualifying facility.
h. T enant/Operator of the qualifying facility(ies) shall enroll and participate in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program. Proof of enrollment shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of a Building Permit for the facility.

3. C
onstruction Permit Approval. The following standards shall apply to all construction related activity associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. Q ualifying facilities shall comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) requirements prior to beginning construction.
b. All off-road construction equipment, with a power rating of less than 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) shall be electric powered, battery-powered, natural gas, or hybrid if commercially available.
c. Subject to all other idling restrictions, off-road diesel-powered construction equipment shall not be left in the “on position” for more than 10 hours per day.
d. Temporary electrical hookups to all construction yards and associated work areas shall be required.
e. Temporary signage shall be posted in public view throughout the construction site indicating truck idling lasting more than five (5) minutes is prohibited. The signs shall include contact information for the facility operator or designee responsible for receiving complaints (i.e. excessive dust, fumes, odors) for the site, and contact information for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s on-line complaint system and its complaint call- line for those interested in filing a complaint. Any complaints made to the facility operator’s designee shall be answered within 72 hours of receipt.
f. The construction contractor(s) shall maintain on the construction site an inventory of construction equipment, maintenance records, and datasheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
494
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)
g. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to establish one or more locations for food or catering truck service to construction workers and to cooperate with food service providers to provide consistent food service.
h. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to provide transit and ridesharing information for construction workers.

C. On-Going Operations: The following standards shall be implemented during all on-going business.

1. All forklifts, yard trucks, and other equipment used for on-site movement of trucks, trailers and warehoused goods, as well as landscaping maintenance equipment used on the site, shall be electrically powered or zero-emission unless new technology is determined to be commercially unavailable.

2. Where transport by temperature-controlled trucks or trailers is proposed, on-site electrical hookups shall be provided at loading docks. Idling or use of auxiliary truck engine power to power climate-control equipment shall be prohibited.

3. Employers shall provide employees with transit route and schedule information on systems serving the facility area and coordinate ridesharing amongst employees.

4. Employers shall provide on-site locations for food or catering truck service and cooperate with food service providers to accommodate food service to operations employees.

5. All outdoor areas allowing smoking shall be located at least 25 feet from the nearest property line.

6. All trucks, supportive vehicles and equipment shall be kept onsite in all loading, storage, and parking areas, and kept behind locked gates during nonbusiness hours.

7. Truck queuing, idling, or circling of vehicles on public streets adjacent to the facility is prohibited.

8. Periodic yard and parking area sweeping shall be provided to minimize dust generation.

9. Diesel Generators are prohibited, except in emergency situations and during construction when establishing the facility’s new electrical service connection. In those temporary cases, all generators shall have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that meets CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.

SECTION III.

SEVERABILITY
If any part of this Ordinance is held invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
495
Attachment E - Proposed Ordinance (Option B)

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its passage.

ADOPTED:

EFFECTIVE:

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton

496
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE STOCKTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I: FINDINGS AND INTENT
The City Council is authorized by section 16.212.030 of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) to adopt amendments to Title 16 (Development Code) based on the Mandatory Findings of Fact for Development Code Amendments per SMC 16.116.050.

1. Finding #1: The proposed amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with general land uses, objectives, policies, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan on balance and would not create any inconsistencies with this Development Code.

Evidence: The proposed amendments to Title 16 are needed for consistency with General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents.

2. Finding #2: The proposed amendment will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City.

Evidence: The purpose of the proposed amendments is to comply with the General Plan policies to proactively mitigate potential impacts. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

3. Finding #3: The proposed amendment complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.

Evidence: T he proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), (Common Sense Exemption) and that no future environmental review is required for proposed code amendments pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan and Community Plan).

F
or Section 15061(b)(3) Exemption (General Rule “Common Sense”) CEQA requires the analysis of agency approvals for discretionary actions that 497
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)
could lead to a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed Project involves discretionary amendments to the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) but is exempt from CEQA review as it would not significantly impact the environment. The zoning code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistics warehouses.

These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. The Project is exempt from CEQA because it would not significantly affect the environment.

For Section 15183 (General Plan Consistency) Exemption
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council as part of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan process (SCH# 2017052062). The proposed code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistics warehouses. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the GPEIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required per CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan or Community Plan).

4. Finding #4 (Development Code Amendments): The proposed amendment would be internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development Code.

Evidence: The proposed amendments are needed to implement General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

SECTION II: AMENDMENT OF CODE

498
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)
Title 16, Chapter 16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) is amended to add a new Section 16.80.390 (Logistics Warehouses) to read, as follows:

16.80.39 0 Industrial Warehouse Standards
This section establishes standards for logistics warehouses in zoning districts where they are allowed in compliance with the provisions of Division 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards).

A. Applicability. The standards will apply to the following applications:

1. These standards shall apply to logistics warehouses 100,000 square feet in size or greater.

B. Development Standards.

1. S
ite Plan Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (site plan), grading and improvement plans, and construction permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. U
nless determined to be physically i mpossible, when adjacent to sensitive receptors, a loading dock door shall be oriented away from the sensitive receptor and located a distance of 300- feet from said receptor, unless the dock doors are utilized by zero emission trucks and equipment only. The building and auto parking can be located within the 300-foot distance. A sensitive receptor shall be defined as schools, health care facilities, libraries, churches, correctional facilities, parks/recreational facilities, in home daycare, health facilities (hospitals, long term care facilities, retirement, and nursing homes) or more than two directly contiguous residential units.
b. A 20-foot landscaped planter (buffer) shall be installed along the property line adjacent to a sensitive receptor.
c. The buffer shall be landscaped and not be less than 50 percent of the total buffer size with two rows of 15-gallon trees planted along the length of the property line adjacent to the sensitive receptor. d. The buffer landscape can include areas to be used for bioswales, retention/detention areas and/or other stormwater and water quality management areas in compliance with SMC Section 16.56 (Landscaping).
e. The buffer area shall include a minimum 10-foot solid decorative wall(s), or landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped berm adjacent to sensitive receptors unless a noise analysis indicates an alternative height is needed for sound attenuation.
f. All on and off-site landscaping shall comply with SMC Chapter

16.56 (Landscaping).
499
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)
g. All landscaping shall be drought tolerant and, to the extent feasible, comprised of species with low biogenic emissions. Palm trees shall not be utilized.
h. All landscaping areas shall be properly irrigated for the life of the facility to allow for plants and trees to maintain growth with no undue pruning.
i. Tree maintenance shall comply with SMC Section 16.56 as a certified Landscape Architect must prepare the Preliminary and Final Landscape plan and certify the planting is water efficient at the time of construction permit approval.
j. Trees shall be installed in automobile parking areas to provide at least 35% shade cover of passenger vehicular parking areas within fifteen years. Trees shall be planted that can meet this requirement. The 35% shade created by trees amount can be substituted for solar canopy upon approval by the Director. k. To facilitate the installation of future electric vehicle charging stations for heavy-heavy duty (HHD) trucks, in connection with each individual development proposal, the subject building improvement plans shall identify an area for future HHD truck charging stations and the subject developer shall install conduit from the power source to the identified area.
l. Provide EV charging stations for automobiles per building code and provide conduit to a future designated area for Heavy Duty Turck Charging Facility.
m. All truck turning movements at entrances, exits, and street intersections shall be located on local industrial, collector or arterial streets and all vehicle entries shall be designed to prevent truck access to local and back-up residential collector streets. n. All trucks and commercial vehicles serving the facility shall occur in compliance with the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map in SMC 10.08.030 and Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Truck Route Map.
o. Off-street loading shall comply with Section 16.64.110 Off-street loading space standards and Section 16.36.30 to ensure driveway access and onsite circulation are designed and maintained to increase public safety and reduce congestion on public streets. p. Signs shall be posted inside and outside of the building and facility indicating all off-site parking is prohibited
for adjacent
street that do not permit parking.
q. All truck driveway exits shall include signs directing truck drivers to the truck routes identified in the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map and State Highway System designations.
r. Upon commencement of operations, the tenant/operator of the facility shall be required to restrict truck idling on site to a maximum of three (3) minutes, subject to exceptions defined by CARB’s commercial vehicle idling requirements.
500
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)

2. B uilding Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (design review), grading and improvement plans, and construction permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. A ll qualifying facilities shall be constructed using “cool roof” materials with an aged reflectance and thermal emittance values that are equal to or greater than those specified in the current edition of the California (CAL) Green Building Tier 1 Standards. b. Architectural and industrial coatings (e.g. paints) applied on the qualifying facility(ies) shall be consistent with the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content limits set by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) or the current edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen),
whichever is most restrictive. Developer or tenant is not required to exercise control over materials painted offsite.
c. Qualifying facilities shall be constructed in compliance with the most current edition of all adopted City building codes, including the adopted Green Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer of the qualifying facility(ies) shall demonstrate (e.g., provide building plans) that the proposed buildings are designed and will be built. d. Each developer of an individual specific development proposal shall prepare the subject building structures in such a way to accommodate future solar panels pursuant to applicable Building Code requirements.
e. The building permit application for qualifying facilities must demonstrate that sufficient power will be provided from clean energy sources for the operational base power use at the start of operations. Developers shall have the following options, or any combination of options, for procuring clean energy to meet operational base power needs for new building structures.

Options may include 1) installing solar panels on the subject building or building site, and/or 2) procuring 100% clean energy from AVA Community Energy, and/or 3) participating in
California’s Community Solar Program.
f. Operational base power is defined as the amount of power required to supply loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site. Loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site include, as non-exhaustive examples, loads for minimal heating for fire sprinklers, primary office space lighting, HVAC, warehouse power, warehouse lighting, site lighting, minimum power for dock positions (including chargers for yard equipment and any plug-ins for transport refrigeration units), and the amount of light-duty 501
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)
electric vehicle supply equipment required by CalGreen code.

Loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site exclude, as non- exhaustive examples, loads for specialized equipment, non- standard automation or material handling systems, and chargers for heavy-duty trucks.

g. The office portion of a building’s rooftop that is not covered with solar panels or other utilities shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index of not less than 78.

h. Electrical Room Sizing. To ensure that warehouse electrical rooms are sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or the primary electrical room shall be sized 25% larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with 25% excess demand capacity.
i. Warehouse Dock Seal Doors. Exterior loading dock doors that are adjacent to conditioned or indirectly conditioned spaces shall have dock seals or dock shelters installed at the time of permitting.
j. Onsite Equipment Infrastructure. Project should provide infrastructure to support charging of electric power onsite equipment.
k. Demonstration of compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) is required prior to obtaining any building permit for a qualifying facility.
l. Tenant/Operator of the qualifying facility(ies) shall enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's SmartWay Program. Proof of enrollment shall be given to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of a Building Permit for the facility.

3. C
onstruction Permit Approval. The following standards shall apply to all construction related activity associated with facilities subject to the Logistics Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. Q ualifying facilities shall comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) requirements prior to beginning construction.
b. All off-road construction equipment, with a power rating of less than 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers, shall 502
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)
be electric-powered.
c. Subject to all other idling restrictions, off-road diesel-powered construction equipment shall not be left in the “on position” for more than 10 hours per day.
d. Temporary electrical hookups to all construction yards and associated work areas shall be required.
e. Temporary signage shall be posted in public view throughout the construction site indicating truck idling lasting more than five (5) minutes is prohibited. The signs shall include contact information for the facility operator or designee responsible for receiving complaints (i.e. excessive dust, fumes, odors) for the site, and contact information for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s on-line complaint system and its complaint call- line for those interested in filing a complaint. Any complaints made to the facility operator’s designee shall be answered within 72 hours of receipt.
f. The construction contractor(s) shall maintain on the construction site an inventory of construction equipment, maintenance records, and datasheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
g. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to establish one or more locations for food or catering truck service to construction workers and to cooperate with food service providers to provide consistent food service.
h. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to provide transit and ridesharing information for construction workers.

C. On-Going Operations: The following standards shall be implemented during all on-going business.

1. All forklifts, yard trucks, and other equipment used for on-site movement of trucks, trailers and warehoused goods, as well as landscaping maintenance equipment used on the site, shall be electrically powered or zero-emission unless new technology is determined to be commercially unavailable.

2. Where transport by temperature-controlled trucks or trailers is proposed, on-site electrical hookups shall be provided at loading docks. Idling or use of auxiliary truck engine power to power climate-control equipment shall be prohibited.

3. Employers shall provide employees with transit route and schedule information on systems serving the facility area and coordinate ridesharing amongst employees.

4. Employers shall provide on-site locations for food or catering truck service and cooperate with food service providers to accommodate food service to operations employees.

5. All outdoor areas allowing smoking shall be located at least 25 feet from the nearest property line.
503
Attachment F - Proposed Ordinance (Option C)

6. All trucks, supportive vehicles and equipment shall be kept onsite in all loading, storage, and parking areas, and kept behind locked gates during nonbusiness hours.

7. Truck queuing, idling, or circling of vehicles, on public streets adjacent to the facility is prohibited.

8. Periodic yard and parking area sweeping shall be provided to minimize dust generation.

9. Diesel Generators are prohibited, except in emergency situations and during construction when establishing the facility’s new electrical service connection. In those temporary cases, all generators shall have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that meets CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.

SECTION III.

SEVERABILITY
If any part of this Ordinance is held invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its passage.

ADOPTED:

EFFECTIVE:

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton

504
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
1 The following table reflects the following:
• First column - Numbering assigned to MOA Standards.
• Second column – OPTION A- Proposed Ordinance with MOA Standards. • Third column - OPTION B- Proposed Ordinance with MOA Adjusted Standards. • Fourth column - OPTION C- Proposed Ordinance with Industry Recommended Standards. • Fifth column - City staff notes and references relating to initial draft standards contained in Column 3 (Option B and Option C Standards)

Proposed Ordinance Format:

Each of the Adoption Options shown below will be presented in a similar zoning code format for consideration. The above language will be kept and formatted in the following format and proposed as a new Title 16 (Development Code) Section 16.80.390 (Logistics Warehouse) in Chapter

16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses). Any adopted ordinance will be included in the current Development Code as well as the Development Code Overhaul currently in progress.

Proposed Format for New Section 16.80.390 (Logistics Warehouse) A. Applicability
B. Development Standards
a. Site Design Standards
b. Building Design Standards
c. Construction Activity Standards
C. On-Going Requirements

505
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
2 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3

0. These standards shall apply to
logistics warehouses 100,000 square
feet in size or greater.

These standards shall apply to
logistics warehouses 100,000 square
feet in size or greater.

Option B Language for Code Added to Applicability
section of new code.

Construction Mitigation

1. Qualifying facilities shall comply
with the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) requirements prior to
beginning construction.

Qualifying facilities shall comply
with the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) requirements prior to
beginning construction.

Option B Language for Code Language shortened and
simplified for clarity.

Added to Construction
Permit Approval section of
new code.

2. • All off-road construction
equipment, with a power
rating of less than 19
kilowatts (e.g., plate
compactors, pressure
washers, shall be electric-
powered.
• The use of electric-
powered, battery-powered,
natural gas, or hybrid
construction equipment and
vehicles are required during
construction if
commercially available
meeting the highest rated
California Air Resources
Board (CARB) Tier
technology available at the
time of construction may
be used.
• Subject to all other idling
restrictions, off-road diesel-
• All off-road construction
equipment, with a power
rating of less than 19
kilowatts (e.g., plate
compactors, pressure
washers) shall be electric
powered, battery-powered,
natural gas, or hybrid if
commercially available.
• Subject to all other idling
restrictions, off-road diesel-
powered construction
equipment shall not be left
in the “on position” for
more than 10 hours per
day.
• All off-road construction
equipment, with a power
rating of less than 19
kilowatts (e.g., plate
compactors, pressure
washers, shall be electric-
powered.

• Subject to all other idling
restrictions, off-road diesel-
powered construction
equipment shall not be left
in the “on position” for
more than 10 hours per
day.

Language shortened and
simplified for clarity.

Removed the CARB option
as it is unclear what those
standards may be as there
does not appear to be a set
list to pull from. Staff will
continue to consider should
a CARB list of requirements
or options be established by
working professionals or the
CARB itself. Added to
Construction Permit
Approval section of new
code.

Per discussions with
contractors (Teichert and
Knife River), they are not
aware of any large
construction equipment, like
an electric scraper being
506
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
3 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
powered construction
equipment shall not be left
in the “on position” for
more than 10 hours per day
available in the market
today.

3. All qualifying facilities shall be
constructed using “cool roof”
materials with an aged reflectance
and thermal emittance values that
are equal to or greater than those
specified in the current edition of the
California (CAL) Green Building
Tier 1 Standards.

All qualifying facilities shall be
constructed using “cool roof”
materials with an aged reflectance
and thermal emittance values that
are equal to or greater than those
specified in the current edition of the
California (CAL) Green Building
Tier 1 Standards.

Option B language for code. No change from original.

Added to Site Design
section of new code.

4. Temporary electrical hookups to all
construction yards and associated
work areas shall be required.

Temporary electrical hookups to all
construction yards and associated
work areas shall be required.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Construction
Permit Approval section of
new code.

5. Temporary signage shall be posted
in public view throughout the
construction site indicating truck
idling lasting more than five (5)
minutes is prohibited. The signs
shall include contact information for
the facility operator or designee
responsible for receiving complaints
(i.e. excessive dust, fumes, odors)
for the site and contact information
for the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District’s on-line
complaint system and its complaint
call-line for those interested in filing
a complaint. Any complaints made
Temporary signage shall be posted
in public view throughout the
construction site indicating truck
idling lasting more than five (5)
minutes is prohibited. The signs
shall include contact information for
the facility operator or designee
responsible for receiving complaints
(i.e. excessive dust, fumes, odors)
for the site and contact information
for the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District’s on-line
complaint system and its complaint
call-line for those interested in filing
a complaint. Any complaints made
Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Construction
Permit Approval section of
new code.
507
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
4 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
to the facility operator’s designee
shall be answered within 72 hours of
receipt.

to the facility operator’s designee
shall be answered within 72 hours of
receipt.

6. The construction contractor(s) shall
maintain on the construction site an
inventory of construction
equipment, maintenance records,
and datasheets, including design
specifications and emission control
tier classifications.

The construction contractor(s) shall
maintain on the construction site an
inventory of construction
equipment, maintenance records,
and datasheets, including design
specifications and emission control
tier classifications.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Construction
Permit Approval section of
new code.

7. All architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings (e.g., paints)
applied on site shall be consistent
with a VOC content of <10 g/L.

Developer or tenant is not expected
to exercise control over materials
painted offsite by a third party.

Architectural and industrial coatings
(e.g. paints) applied on the
qualifying facility(ies) shall be
consistent with the Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) content limits set
by the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) or the current edition of
the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen),
whichever is most restrictive.

Developer or tenant is not required
to exercise control over materials
painted offsite.

Option B language for code. VOC 10g/L or less has been
found to be infeasible and
difficult to implement. Parts
may be superseded by
overall building standard
mentioned in MOA#10.

Added to Buildings Design
section of new code.
508
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
5 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3

8. The facilities shall require the
construction contractor to establish
one or more locations for food or
catering truck service to
construction workers and to
cooperate with food service
providers to provide consistent food
service.

The facilities shall require the
construction contractor to establish
one or more locations for food or
catering truck service to
construction workers and to
cooperate with food service
providers to provide consistent food
service.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Construction
Permit Approval section of
new code.

9. The facilities shall require the
construction contractor to provide
transit and ridesharing information
for construction workers.

The facilities shall require the
construction contractor to provide
transit and ridesharing information
for construction workers.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Construction
Permit Approval section of
new code.

Site Design

10. All buildings shall be constructed
consistent with the California (CAL)
Green Building Tier 2 Standards
Energy Efficient Standard Section

5.1, 5.2, 5.5.

Logistic warehouses 400,000 square
feet and greater shall meet the Tier 1
energy efficient standards of the
CALGreen Code Divisions A5.1,
A5.2, and A5.5.

Qualifying facilities shall be
constructed in compliance with the
most current edition of all adopted
City building codes, including the
adopted Green Building Standards
Code. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the
applicant/developer of the
qualifying facility(ies) shall
demonstrate (e.g., provide building
plans) that the proposed buildings
are designed and will be built.

Option B changed from
original to Tier 1 and
applied only to buildings
400,000 sqft feet or larger.

Added to Buildings Design
section of new code.
509
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
6 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3

11. All loading docks shall be located
no closer than 300 feet from all
sensitive receptor groups. The
distance shall be measured from the
loading dock or any building edge,
whichever is closer to the property
line of any nearby sensitive receptor
defined as any residence including
private homes, condominiums,
apartments, and living quarters,
schools, preschools, daycare centers,
in-home daycares, health facilities
such as hospitals, long term care
facilities, retirement and nursing
homes, community centers, places
of worship, parks (excluding trails),
prisons, and dormitories.
• Building Setbacks: 2:1 ratio
of building setback to
building height shall be
required when adjacent to
sensitive receptors.
• Loading Dock Setback:

Unless determined to be
physically impossible,
when adjacent to sensitive
receptors, a 300-foot buffer
shall separate all truck
loading docks unless the
areas within the 300-foot
buffer utilize zero emission
trucks and equipment.
• Sensitive receptor shall be
defined as schools, health
care facilities, libraries,
churches, correctional
facilities, parks/recreational
facilities, in home daycare,
health facilities (hospitals,
long term care facilities,
retirement, and nursing
homes) or more than two
directly contiguous
residential units.

Loading Dock Door Setback: Unless
determined to be physically
impossible, when adjacent to
sensitive receptors, a loading dock
door shall be oriented away from the
sensitive receptor and located a
distance of 300-feet from said
receptor, unless the dock doors are
utilized by zero emission trucks and
equipment only. The building and
auto parking can be located within
the 300-foot distance. A sensitive
receptor shall be defined as schools,
health care facilities, libraries,
churches, correctional facilities,
parks/recreational facilities, in home
daycare, health facilities (hospitals,
long term care facilities, retirement
and nursing homes) or more than
two directly contiguous residential
units.

Building setback reflects
other examples found in the
state and still maintains a
slip scale of height to
building setback as well as
the 300-foot buffer for
loading areas. Added to Site
Design section of new code.

12. • All landscaping adjacent to
residential or institution
zoning designations or uses
shall install an onsite
landscape buffer. The
buffer shall extend the
property line abutting those
designations and uses and
be sized at a 2:1 ratio for
• A 40-foot landscaped
planter (buffer) shall be
installed along the property
line adjacent to a sensitive
receptor.
• The buffer shall be
landscaped, and not be less
than 50% of the total buffer
size with two rows of 15-
• A 20-foot landscaped
planter (buffer) shall be
installed along the property
line adjacent to a sensitive
receptor.

Option B Language for
remainder of code
Landscape reflects other
examples found in the state
and a large enough planter
space for large trees to grow.

Alternative added to
increase shade tree
requirements in areas.

Added to Site Design
section of new code.
510
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
7 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
the closest warehouse
building(s)–for everyone
(1) foot of building height,
the buffer shall be two (2)
foot minimum, unless
approved by the Director if
the depth is infeasible. The
buffer shall be landscaped
not be less than 50 percent
of the total buffer size with
two rows of 15-gallon trees
planted along the length of
the entire buffer.
• The buffer landscape can
include areas to be used for
bioswales,
retention/detention areas
and/or other stormwater
and water quality
management areas in
compliance with SMC
Section 16.56
(Landscaping).
• The buffer area shall
include a minimum 14-foot
solid decorative wall(s), or
landscaped berm and wall,
or landscaped berm
adjacent to sensitive
receptors unless a noise
analysis indicates an
alternative height is needed
for sound attenuation.
• All on and off-site
landscaping shall comply
gallon trees planted along
the length of the property
line adjacent to the
sensitive receptor.

• The buffer landscape can
include areas to be used for
bioswales,
retention/detention areas
and/or other stormwater
and water quality
management areas in
compliance with SMC
Section 16.56
(Landscaping).
• The buffer area shall
include a minimum 10-foot
solid decorative wall(s), or
landscaped berm and wall,
or landscaped berm
adjacent to sensitive
receptors unless a noise
analysis indicates an
alternative height is needed
for sound attenuation.
• All on and off-site
landscaping shall comply
with SMC Chapter 16.56
(Landscaping).
• All landscaping shall be
drought tolerant and, to the
extent feasible, comprised
of species with low
biogenic emissions. Palm
trees shall not be utilized.
• All landscaping areas shall
be properly irrigated for the
511
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
8 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
with SMC Chapter 16.56
(Landscaping).
• All landscaping shall be
drought tolerant and, to the
extent feasible, comprised
of species with low
biogenic emissions. Palm
trees shall not be utilized.
• All landscaping areas shall
be properly irrigated for the
life of the facility to allow
for plants and trees to
maintain growth with no
undue pruning.
• Tree maintenance shall
comply with SMC Section

16.56 as a certified
Landscape Architect must
prepare the Preliminary and
Final Landscape plan and
certify the planting is water
efficient at the time of
construction permit
approval.
life of the facility to allow
for plants and trees to
maintain growth with no
undue pruning.
• Tree maintenance shall
comply with SMC Section

16.56 as a certified
Landscape Architect must
prepare the Preliminary and
Final Landscape plan and
certify the planting is water
efficient at the time of
construction permit
approval.
• Trees shall be installed in
automobile parking areas to
provide at least 35% shade
cover of passenger
vehicular parking areas
within fifteen years. Trees
shall be planted that can
meet this requirement.

If
solar panels are installed in
parking areas, the shade
area created by the panels
shall be counted toward the
35% shade cover of
passenger vehicular
parking areas, in lieu of
trees.

Operational Mitigation
512
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
9 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3

13. • All buildings shall be
constructed with Solar Power
and Energy Systems large
enough to accommodate the
building and operation’s base
power use demand at the start
of operation and as the base
power demand increases to
accommodate an electric fleet.
• The energy storage systems
shall have enough battery
capacity to serve the
photovoltaic system in the event
of a blackout.
• All facilities shall be designed
to accommodate enough space
for all solar panels and
batteries.
• The solar system installation
should be done by owners,
operators, tenants, or a qualified
solar system contractor.

Operation should begin after
receiving permission from the
utility. The owner is responsible
for maintaining the system at
80% of rated power for 20
years. After 20 years, install a
new system or maintain the
existing one for the life of the
facility.
• The building permit
application for qualifying
facilities must demonstrate
sufficient solar panels to
provide power for the
operational base power use
at the start of operations.

When available, applicant’s
will be permitted to utilize
“clean energy” sources in-
lieu of providing onsite
energy production. “Clean
Energy” sources include
programs such as, but not
limited to, Ava Community
Energy.
• Operational base power is
defined as the amount of
power required to supply
loads for all ordinary
operational uses of the site.

Loads for all ordinary
operational uses of the site
include, as non-exhaustive
examples, loads for
minimal heating for fire
sprinklers, primary office
space lighting, HVAC,
warehouse power,
warehouse lighting, site
lighting, minimum power
for dock positions
(including chargers for yard
equipment and any plug-ins
for transport refrigeration
units), and the amount of
• Each developer of an
individual specific
development proposal shall
prepare the subject building
structures in such a way to
accommodate future solar
panels pursuant to
applicable Building Code
requirements.
• The building permit
application for qualifying
facilities must demonstrate
that sufficient power will
be provided from clean
energy sources for the
operational base power use
at the start of operations.

Developers shall have the
following options, or any
combination of options, for
procuring clean energy to
meet operational base
power needs for new
building structures.

Options may include 1)
installing solar panels on
the subject building or
building site, and/or 2)
procuring 100% clean
energy from AVA
Community Energy, and/or
3) participating in
California’s Community
Solar Program.

• Operational base power is
defined as the amount of
Revised to define base
power and add option for
when “clean” energy sources
are available. Removed the
compliance provisions as the
City will rely on the state
and responsible agencies to
direct staff to best practices
in common usage and
changes to state law. Added
to Building Design section
of new code.
513
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
10 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
light-duty electric vehicle
supply equipment required
by CalGreen. Loads for all
ordinary operational uses of
the site exclude, as non-
exhaustive examples, loads
for specialized equipment,
non-standard automation or
material handling systems,
and chargers for heavy-
duty trucks.
• Projects shall be allowed to
utilize alternative energy
means that achieve
comparable energy or
greenhouse gas offsets.

This includes Near Zero
Emission (NZE)
technology when
commercially available.

power required to supply
loads for all ordinary
operational uses of the site.

Loads for all ordinary
operational uses of the site
include, as non-exhaustive
examples, loads for
minimal heating for fire
sprinklers, primary office
space lighting, HVAC,
warehouse power,
warehouse lighting, site
lighting, minimum power
for dock positions
(including chargers for yard
equipment and any plug-ins
for transport refrigeration
units), and the amount of
light-duty electric vehicle
supply equipment required
by CalGreen code. Loads
for all ordinary operational
uses of the site exclude, as
non-exhaustive examples,
loads for specialized
equipment, non-standard
automation or material
handling systems, and
chargers for heavy-duty
trucks.
• The office portion of a
building’s rooftop that is
not covered with solar
panels or other utilities
shall be constructed with
light colored roofing
514
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
11 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
material with a solar
reflective index of not less
than 78.
• Electrical Room Sizing. To
ensure that warehouse
electrical rooms are
sufficiently sized to
accommodate the potential
need for additional
electrical panels, either a
secondary electrical room
shall be provided in the
building, or the primary
electrical room shall be
sized 25% larger than is
required to satisfy the
service requirements of the
building or the electrical
gear shall be installed with
the initial construction with
25% excess demand
capacity.
• Warehouse Dock Seal
Doors. Exterior loading
dock doors that are
adjacent to conditioned or
indirectly conditioned
spaces shall have dock
seals or dock shelters
installed at the time of
permitting.
• Onsite Equipment
Infrastructure. Project
515
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
12 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
should provide
infrastructure to support
charging of electric power
onsite equipment.

14. All applicable facilities shall
maintain Electric Vehicle (EV)
fleets in accordance with the
following:
• Heavy-Duty Trucks: all
heavy-duty trucks (Class 7
and 8) domiciled on site are
model year 2014 or later
from start of operations and
shall expedite a transition
to zero-emission vehicles,
with the fleet fully zero-
Electric Vehicle Chargers Stations
(EVCS) Infrastructure for Trucks:
provide conduits to provide EVCS
to meet future needs. Conduit should
be provided on the site to serve 50%
of the number of truck docking
stations. Location of conduit is at
the discretion of the developer (e.g.,
truck trailer parking spaces or
docking stations).

To facilitate the installation of future
electric vehicle charging stations for
heavy-heavy duty (HHD) trucks, in
connection with each individual
development proposal, the subject
building improvement plans shall
identify an area for future HHD
truck charging stations and the
subject developer shall install
conduit from the power source to the
identified area.

Alternative standard is
proposed to require
installation of conduits for
heavy duty charging stations
for future installation of
charging stations. California
Air Resources Board
(CARB) is responsible for
regulating and enforcing
state standards for electric
vehicle (EV) heavy duty and
medium duty fleet
516
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
13 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
emission by December 31,
2025, or when
commercially available for
the intended application,
whichever date is later.
• Medium-Duty Vehicles:
vehicles/delivery
vans/trucks (Class 2
through 6) on site shall
apply: (i) 33% of the fleet
will be zero emission
vehicles at start of
operations, (ii) 65% of the
fleet will be zero emission
vehicles by December 31,
2023, (iii) 80% of the fleet
will be zero emission
vehicles by December 31,
2025, and (iv) 100% of the
fleet will be zero emission
vehicles by December 31,
2027.
• "Domiciled on site":
applies to vehicles parked
or kept overnight at the
qualifying facility(ies)
more than 70% of the
calendar year or dedicated
to the qualifying
facility(ies) site (defined as
more than 70% of the truck
routes during the calendar
year that start at the
qualifying facility(ies) site
even if parked or kept
elsewhere). The
compliance requirements.

Revised as EV Fleets and
monitor are not current
requirements per state law
nor in common practice or
commercially available.

Staff proposed alternatives
based on other examples
provided by independent
consultants. Alternatives
include EV ready truck
charging stations and
enhance automobile parking.

Added to Site Design
section of new code.
517
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
14 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
tenant/operator of the
qualifying facility(ies) shall
not be responsible to meet
"clean fleet" requirements
for vehicles used by
common carriers operating
under their own authority
that provide delivery
services to or from the
qualifying facility(ies) site.
• Zero emission vehicles that
require maintenance can be
temporarily replaced with
alternative vehicles.
• If an EV fleet is not
commercially viable,
documentation from a
minimum of three (3) EV
dealers identified on the
californiahvip.org website
must be submitted prior to
issuance of a building
permit for the new building
demonstrating the inability
to obtain the required EVs
or equipment needed within
6 months.
• If a qualifying facility fails
to meet the "clean fleet"
requirement, the
tenant/operator must
implement a Voluntary
Emissions Reduction
Agreement (VERA) that
mitigates emissions
through emission reduction
518
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
15 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
projects. The Air District
will verify the mitigation
effort. The tenant/operator
must continue to fund the
VERA until fully compliant
with the clean fleet
requirements.

15. Electric charging facilities shall be
provided onsite sufficient to charge
all automobiles, and electric trucks
domiciled on the site.

Electric charging facilities shall be
provided onsite sufficient to charge
all electric automobiles, and electric
trucks domiciled on the site, unless
otherwise prescribed in Section

16.80.390.

Provide EV charging stations for
automobiles per building code and
provide conduit to a future
designated area for Heavy Duty
Truck Charging Facility.

Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Site Design
section of new code.

16. All forklifts, yard trucks, and other
equipment used for on-site
movement of trucks, trailers and
warehoused goods, as well as
landscaping maintenance equipment
used on the site, shall be electrically
powered or zero-emission.

All forklifts, yard trucks, and other
equipment used for on-site
movement of trucks, trailers and
warehoused goods, as well as
landscaping maintenance equipment
used on the site, shall be electrically
powered or zero-emission unless
new technology is determined to be
commercially unavailable.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity and
address future equipment
that may not be
commercially available. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Ongoing
Operations section of new
code.

17. EV Compliance Reporting
• All facilities shall maintain
a zero emission
vehicles/trucks required to
meet the "clean fleet"
requirements above.
• Within 30 days of issuance
of the final certificate of
occupancy, the
tenant/operator shall
No standard is recommended since
the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) is responsible for
regulating manufacturers of EV
heavy duty and medium duty
vehicles and enforcing state
standards for electric vehicle (EV)
heavy duty and medium duty fleet
compliance requirements.

Same position as Option B.
519
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
16 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
demonstrate to the
satisfaction of CDD staff
that the applicable clean
fleet requirements are being
met. Any extension of time
granted to implement this
condition shall be limited
to the shortest period
necessary to allow for
100% electrification under
the clean fleet
requirements.
• The tenant/operator shall
submit similar reports
every two years thereafter
until full compliance with
the applicable clean fleet
requirements is achieved.
• If the tenant/operator has
not met each 100% clean
fleet requirement by
December 31, 2027, then
the tenant/operator shall
submit reports annually
until the 100% clean fleet
requirement is
implemented.
• After the 100% clean fleet
requirement has been
implemented, the
tenant/operator shall submit
to the CDD an on-going
compliance report every
three years containing all
necessary documentation to
520
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
17 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
verify that the clean fleet
requirements are being met.
• Each subsequent on-going
compliance report shall be
due within 30 days of, but
not later than, the three-
year anniversary of the
preceding due date.

18. Refrigeration Units: proposed cold
storage and associated transport
refrigerated units (TRUs) shall
include electric plug-in units at
loading docks serving such
refrigerated space.

Where transport by temperature-
controlled trucks or trailers is
proposed, on-site electrical hookups
shall be provided at loading docks.

Idling or use of auxiliary truck
engine power to power climate-
control equipment shall be
prohibited.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity and
covenant requirement
removed from MOA
language shortened and
standard written in
Ordinance format. Added to
Ongoing Operations section
of new code.

19. Demonstration of compliance with
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule
9510 (Indirect Source Review) is
required prior to obtaining any
building permit for a qualifying
facility.

Demonstration of compliance with
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule
9510 (Indirect Source Review) is
required prior to obtaining any
building permit for a qualifying
facility.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. May
consolidate with MOA#1 as
they both talk about
SJCAPCD compliance.

Added to Building Design
section of new code.

20. The tenant/operator of the qualifying
facility(ies) shall enroll and
participate in the SmartWay
program. Proof of enrollment shall
be given to the Community
Development Department prior to
issuance of a Building Permit for the
facility.

The tenant/operator of the qualifying
facility(ies) shall enroll and
participate in United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s
SmartWay program. Proof of
enrollment shall be given to the
Community Development
Department prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy of a
Building Permit for the facility.

Option B language for code. Kept but removed
enforcements provisions
from MOA. Added to
Building Design section of
new code.
521
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
18 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3

21. • All truck turning
movements at entrances,
exits, and street
intersections shall be
located on local industrial,
collector or arterial streets
and all vehicle entries shall
be designed to prevent
truck access to local and
back-up residential
collector streets.
• All trucks and commercial
vehicles serving the facility
shall occur in compliance
with the City of Stockton
Truck Traffic Route Map in
SMC 10.08.030 and
Surface Transportation
Assistance Act (STAA)
Truck Route Map.
• Off-street loading shall
comply with Section

16.64.110 Off-street
loading space standards.
• Signs shall be posted inside
and outside of the building
and facility indicating all
off-site parking is
prohibited for adjacent
street that do not permit
parking.
• All truck driveway exits
shall include signs directing
truck drivers to the truck
routes identified in the City
of Stockton Truck Traffic
• All trucks and commercial
vehicles serving the facility
shall occur in compliance
with the City of Stockton
Truck Traffic Route Map in
SMC 10.08.030 and
Surface Transportation
Assistance Act (STAA)
Truck Route Map.
• Off-street loading shall
comply with Section

16.64.110 Off-street
loading space standards and
Section 16.36.30 to ensure
driveway access and onsite
circulation are designed
and maintained to increase
public safety and reduce
congestion on public
streets.
• Signs shall be posted inside
and outside of the building
and facility indicating all
off-site parking is
prohibited for adjacent
street that do not permit
parking.
• All truck driveway exits
shall include signs directing
truck drivers to the truck
routes identified in the City
of Stockton Truck Traffic
Route Map and State
Highway System
designations.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standard
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Site Design
section of new code.
522
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
19 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
Route Map and State
Highway System
designations.
• Upon commencement of
operations, the
tenant/operator of the
facility shall be required to
restrict truck idling on site
to a maximum of three (3)
minutes, subject to
exceptions defined by
CARB’s commercial
vehicle idling requirements.

• Upon commencement of
operations, the
tenant/operator of the
facility shall be required to
restrict truck idling on site
to a maximum of three (3)
minutes, subject to
exceptions defined by
CARB’s commercial
vehicle idling requirements.

22. • Employers shall provide
employees with transit
route and schedule
information on systems
serving the facility area and
coordinate ridesharing
amongst employees.
• Employers shall provide
on-site locations for food or
catering truck service and
cooperate with food service
providers to accommodate
food service to operations
employees.
• All outdoor areas allowing
smoking shall be located at
least 25 feet from the
nearest property line.
• All trucks, supportive
vehicles and equipment
• Employers shall provide
employees with transit
route and schedule
information on systems
serving the facility area and
coordinate ridesharing
amongst employees.
• Employers shall provide
on-site locations for food or
catering truck service and
cooperate with food service
providers to accommodate
food service to operations
employees.
• All outdoor areas allowing
smoking shall be located at
least 25 feet from the
nearest property line.
• All trucks, supportive
vehicles and equipment
shall be kept onsite in all
loading, storage, and
Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standards
written in Ordinance format.

The standard may be
superseded by overall
building standard MOA#10.

Added to Ongoing
Operations section of new
code.
523
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
20 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
shall be kept onsite in all
loading, storage, and
parking areas, and kept
behind locked gates during
nonbusiness hours.
• Truck queuing, idling, or
circling of vehicles, onsite
or on public streets
adjacent to the facility is
prohibited.

parking areas, and kept
behind locked gates during
nonbusiness hours.
• Truck queuing, idling, or
circling of vehicles on
public streets adjacent to
the facility is prohibited.

23. Periodic yard and parking area
sweeping shall be provided to
minimize dust generation.

Periodic yard and parking area
sweeping shall be provided to
minimize dust generation.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standards
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Ongoing
Operations section of new
code.

24. Diesel Generators are prohibited,
except in emergency situations and
during construction when
establishing the facility’s new
electrical service connection. In
those temporary cases, all generators
shall have Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) that meets
CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards
Diesel Generators are prohibited,
except in emergency situations and
during construction when
establishing the facility’s new
electrical service connection. In
those temporary cases, all generators
shall have Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) that meets
CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.

Option B language for code. Language shortened and
simplified for clarity. No
Change from MOA,
development standards
written in Ordinance format.

Added to Construction
Permit Approval section of
new code.

Additional Mitigation

25. Every development agreement,
approved and executed in
conjunction with the applicable
warehouse, shall be subject to
periodic review of the
Staff proposes removal. Annual
compliance reviews are already
required by State Law and the
Development Code.

Same position as Option B. Staff proposes removal.

Annual compliance reviews
are already required by State
Law and the Development
Code ordinance. Not
524
ATTACHMENT G – ORDINANCE OPTION COMPARISON TABLE
21 1 2 3 4 5
Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA
Ordinance Standards
Option C- Proposed Industry
Ordinance Standards
Notes/References Relating
to Column 3
applicant’s/contracting party’s
compliance with the agreement, by
the Commission, during the full
term of the agreement, as specified
in the agreement, but in no case less
frequently than once every 12
months as required per SMC

16.128.110 (Periodic Review).

Appropriate fees to cover the City’s
cost(s) to conduct the periodic
reviews in compliance with the
Council’s fee resolution shall be
collected from the
applicant/contracting party.
include in Option B or C
options. Added to Ongoing
Operations section of new
code for Option A only.

26. A neighborhood meeting shall be
required for any application
requiring Council review. At the
discretion of the Director, a
neighborhood meeting may be
required for other applications
consistent with SMC section

16.88.025 (Neighborhood
Meetings).

Staff proposes removal. Conflicts
with ministerial reviews and already
required for approvals requiring
public hearings and annexations.

Same position as Option B. Staff proposes removal.

Conflicts with ministerial
reviews and already required
for approvals requiring
public hearings and
annexations. Added to
Ongoing Operations section
of new code for Option A
only.
525

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

1 PREPARED BY

The City of Stockton Community Development Department with the assistance from PlaceWorks (Climate, Economics, CEQA).

INTRODUCTION

In 2022, the City Council approved two agreements with the State of California Attorney General (AG) and the Sierra Club, respectively, to improve and facilitate approval of the Mariposa Industrial Park Project in particular, and to promote sustainable warehouse development in general going forward. Per the agreements, a new industrial warehouse ordinance must be presented to the City Council for its consideration by December 31, 2023, including proposed new development standards for qualifying warehouse development projects engaged in logistics uses with a building or buildings totaling 100,000 square feet or larger. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the AG defines qualifying facilities engaged in logistics use as any warehouse or wholesaling and distribution land use which entails facilities to be used for the storage of farm products, furniture, household goods, or other commercial goods of any nature for distribution to wholesalers and/or retails, including cold storage.

Per the Memorandum of Agreement with the AG’s office, if any of the conditions included in Exhibit A to the MOA are not included in the proposed warehouse ordinance, an explanation needs be provided to explain: (1) why such condition is infeasible as defined under CEQA; (2) what alternative conditions are being proposed for inclusion in lieu of any omitted conditions; and (3) how such alternative conditions reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. While the MOA refers to “conditions,” this report herein refers to them as “standards” for the purpose of preparing an ordinance.

To prepare the proposed warehouse ordinance, City staff conducted extensive research and performed outreach with other municipalities that either prepared or are in the process of preparing logistics warehouse development standards (i.e., City of Fontana, City of Irwindale, San Joaquin County, and City of Tracy). Additionally, staff sought input from Stockton residents, local community advocates, industrial developers and their consultants (i.e., architects, environmental professionals), and representatives from State and local regulatory agencies (i.e., California Air Resources Board, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Attorney General’s Office). This was achieved via phone conversations, emails, virtual meetings, Planning Commission workshops, and responses to comments received by staff. A summary of meeting dates is provided below:

• Attorney General’s Representative Meetings: 8/30, 9/13, 9/21, 10/5, 10/19 • Environmental Advisor Meetings
1: 9/11, 9/14, 9/18, 9/21, 9/26, 10/11, 10/16

1 Representa�ves from Sierra Club, Catholic Chari�es of the Diocese of Stockton, and Litle Manila Rising 526

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

2 • Industrial Advisor Meeting2: 9/6, 9/20, 10/5, 10/11 • Meeting with group of Stockton residents expressing interest in the Ordinance3 9/18, 10/17
• Meeting Climate Specialists (PlaceWorks): 10/3, 10/16 • Meeting with Municipalities with Warehouse Ordinance or Considerations: 9/28, 9/29
• Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee Meetings4: 8/30, 9/7, 9/14, 9/21 (9/21 Release of Ad-Hoc Notes)
• Planning Commission Public Study Sessions: 8/10, 8/24, 9/28, 10/12 • Planning Commission Public Hearing: 10/26

In addition, Working Draft standards were emailed to the above groups and posted on the City’s website on 9/15 and 10/12, respectively, for review. This was in addition to drafts presented at the Planning Commission public study sessions in the same months.

Project Description
The Project entails a City initiated amendment of the Stockton Municipal Code, Title 16 (Development Code), Chapter 16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) to add a new Section 16.80.390 (Logistic Warehouse) containing development standards for logistics warehouse development. The MOA outlined 26 items as the basis for new development standards to serve as the foundation of a future ordinance. In accordance with Title

16.116, the City Council is the review authority for amendments to the Development Code, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The process for consideration entails providing public notice of and conducting public hearings, with any decisions needing to be supported by required findings.

Project Objectives
The project objective is to propose an ordinance for adoption that is consistent with the MOA. The proposed ordinance would apply to all qualifying logistics warehouse projects whether discretionary or ministerial and whether CEQA applies or not, and would achieve the following objectives:

• Satisfy obligations of the MOA.
• Reduce potential environmental impacts through enhanced design standards. • Balance the need for high-quality and sustainable design with the project feasibility • Continue to streamline reviews and provide clarity in the development review process.
• Create consistency through objective design standards. • Minimize future legal challenges through enhanced design.

2 Greenlaw Partners (Rob Mitchell, Mike Souza), Dermody Proper�es (George Condon), Lazares Companies (Trevor Smith)
3 Group mee�ngs as well as individual mee�ngs for residents who expressed interest in the effort. 4 Commissioners Gurneel Boparai, Terry Hull, and Rajan Nathaniel 527

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

3 FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES

Staff performed significant research, outreach, and held meetings as summarized above and concluded that certain MOA standards were infeasible. Per the MOA, if certain standards from the MOA are not included in the proposed warehouse ordinance, an explanation needs be provided to explain:

1) Why such condition is infeasible as defined under CEQA 5;
2) What alternative conditions are being proposed for inclusion in lieu of any omitted conditions; and
3) How such alternative conditions reduce potentially significant environmental impacts.

The following provides findings that incorporate feasibility analysis, explanations, responses to comments, and conclusions of staff’s review of all proposed standards that require feasibility consideration consistent with the MOA criteria listed above. This feasibility analysis was prepared by the City with the assistance of outside consultants (PlaceWorks) hired independently by the City.

For this analysis, staff is proposing to incorporate the proposed alternatives into an optional ordinance, referred to in the analysis as "Option B (Adjusted Standards)” and are herein referred to as the “Project” for the purposes of the feasibility analysis presented in this report. The MOA standards (original MOA Exhibit A language) are considered Option A. A third optional ordinance (Option C) is proposed by members of the industrial development community which has several differences from Option B - this analysis does not address (Option C). The analysis for Option C is a separate document.

MOA# 7 Paint Coating6:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) All architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings (e.g., paints)
applied on site shall be consistent with a
VOC content of <10 g/L. Developer or
tenant is not expected to exercise control
over materials painted offsite by a third
party.

Architectural and industrial coatings (e.g.,
paints) applied on the qualifying
facility(ies) shall be consistent with the
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
content limits set by the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) or the current edition of the
California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen), whichever is most
restrictive. Developer or tenant is not

5 "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of �me, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. [CEQA §15364] 6 The MOA Exhibit A included bullet points and not numbers. For the purposes of tracking changes, those bullet points have been converted to numbers for easier reference. All proposed standards have been kept in the same order.
528

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

4 required to exercise control over
materials painted offsite.

Analysis:

Feasibility
This MOA (Option A) standard is deemed to be infeasible based on legal and economic factors discussed below. This measure is taken directly from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule Book. The following language was proposed by the California Attorney General’s Office on October 9, 2023:

o “ Architectural paints and coatings used shall have maximum VOC emissions of 10 g/L or the most current regulatory standard promulgated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, whichever is lower. o All other adhesive, sealant, or specialty coating products used shall have VOC emissions meeting the most current regulatory standard promulgated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
o [If City staff deem definitions necessary] Define architectural paints and coatings and other adhesive, sealant, and specialty coating products as they are defined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.”

Per the SCAQMD, the above language (referencing Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings) “…is applicable…to any architectural coating that is intended to be field applied within the [SCAQMD] District…[and] The purpose of this rule is to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings used in the [SCAQMD] District.” Further, the strictest building codes (CAL Green Tier 2), LEED, and most air district standards throughout the State do not require this mitigation standard. Therefore, the City of Stockton, which is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), over 300 miles north of SCAQMD, does not find Rule 1113 applicable nor appropriate for utilization in our region as it has not been evaluated as such. Accordingly, use of this standard is not appropriate in Stockton nor legally required.

Additionally, the recent Mariposa Industrial development project attempted to comply with this requirement as a CEQA mitigation measure and determined (from their architect) that a paint that low in VOC (<10 g/L) was not commercially available as the process to manufacture VOC that low involved high production costs due to heating and preparation

7. Despite market availability, excessive costs are an economic factor, which is recognized by CEQA as a relevant and appropriate factor when determining feasibility.

Further, via a third-party economic consultant (PlaceWorks), it was confirmed that while water-based zero VOC interior paints (defined as <10 g/L) are widely available at comparable costs to widely available higher VOC paints, the commercial availability of zero VOC (<10 g/L) exterior paint is generally very limited and expensive (approximately

7 Correspondence from V. Melton BRR Architecture, Leters from PPG & Sherwin Williams (on file) 529

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

5 77% higher cost8). It is important to note that, upon consultation with a major paint manufacturer9, not all paint manufacturers provide exterior zero VOC paint options (only low VOC <50 g/L was more commonly available).

Alternative Standards Proposed
As an alternative, Option B proposes a standard metric for paint VOC that aligns with current California Green Building Standards Code and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) requirements. Based on feedback from climate and environmental professionals, staff anticipates the Building Code and Air District standards to increase as the State works to implement it’s 2045 carbon neutral objectives via enhanced minimum air quality and building standards. Including this language in the proposed ordinance will ensure that more restrictive standards will automatically apply once adopted by CALGreen or SJVAPCD.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed standard is consistent with State, local, and best management practices and will automatically correspond with changes to paint VOC requirements adopted by the SJVAPCD and consistent with State Carbon Neutrality objectives.

It is important to note that, absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

MOA# 10 Building Standards:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) Qualifying facilities shall be constructed in
compliance with the most current edition
of all adopted City building codes,
including the adopted Green Building
Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the applicant/developer
of the qualifying facility(ies) shall
demonstrate (e.g., provide building plans)
that the proposed buildings are designed
and will be built to, at a minimum, meet
the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency
requirements of the Nonresidential
Voluntary Standards of the California
Green Building Standards code, Divisions
A5.1, A5.2 and A5.5, Energy Efficiency as
outlined under Section A5.203.1.2.

Logistic warehouses 400,000 square feet
and greater shall meet the Tier 1 energy
efficient standards of the CALGreen Code
Divisions A5.1, A5.2, and A5.5.

8 Sherwin Williams 5-gallon A-100 low-VOC (<50 g/L) is $277.45 and 5-gallon Emerald zero-VOC (<10 g/L) is $489.95 9 PlaceWorks met with Behr on November 8, 2023
530

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

6 Analysis:

Feasibility
This MOA Option A standard is deemed to be infeasible based on the economic factors discussed below. There are not many examples of other cities in the State utilizing Tier 1 or Tier 2 for all building standards. Some cities and air districts utilize Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards specific to a select item (i.e., employee parking), but there aren’t many examples of this requirement in common practice.

As shown below, the application of California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) Tier 2 standards on warehouse development less than 400,000 square feet is not feasible as it could be cost prohibitive for that size development; excessive costs are an economical factor, which is recognized by CEQA when determining feasibility.

Division A5.1—Planning and Design

A5.104.1 Reduce development footprint and optimize open space.

For industrial uses in the IL and IG zoning district, the City’s development code requires a landscaped 20-foot setback from any public street and, for an industrial site abutting a residential zoning district, the Code requires a landscaped setback equal to the height of the building. There is no setback specified for side or rear property lines that are adjacent to other industrially zoned properties.

The cost estimate is based on a typical 2.5 million-square foot warehouse site. 10 The
area required for landscaping will vary from site to site, based on street frontage, parcel shape, and the presence of adjacent residential zoning districts. This analysis assumes a square site with one side adjacent to a street, with a 20-foot landscaped setback, and a rear property line abutting a residential zone with a 36-foot landscaped setback (reflecting a 36-foot building height). The total landscaped setback area would be 88,348 square feet. Section A5.104.1.1 would require the site to provide an additional 25 percent landscaped open space, an additional 22,087 square feet.

The cost to acquire land for this additional open space, install landscaping, and maintain the landscaping is calculated in Table 1. The analysis estimates that the additional land would cost $331,000 and installing landscaping would cost $248,000.

Financed over 20 years, this upfront capital cost would require a monthly debt service payment of $6,700. With a 9.8 percent allowance for vacancies and a 30 percent allowance for operations, the increase in gross rent would need to be $11,240. For the typical 1,072,076-square foot warehouse, the asking lease rate would need to increase by $0.01 per square foot per month, rising from $0.71
11 to $0.72.

10 The size of a typical warehouse site is based on the average lot/parcel size for ten recent large (>100,000 sq. ft.) warehouse development projects identified by city staff: Permit numbers: P19-0189, P20-0114, P20- 0115, P20-0242, P20-0395, P20-0805, P21-0277, P21-0576, P21-0980.
11 CB Richard Ellis’ Central Valley Industrial Figures Q3 2023 report 531

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

7 Table 1: Cost Calculation for Increased Open Space
Additional required landscaped area (sq. ft.) 22,087
Land acquisition @ $15/sq. ft. 331,305
Landscape Installation @ $11.2512 per sq. ft. 248,479
Total upfront capital cost ($) 579,784
Monthly debt service ($) 6,691
w/Vacancies and operations ($) 11,114
Warehousing space (sq. ft.) 1,072,076
Increase lease rate ($/sq. ft./month) 0.01
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from industry interviews13, property sales data, vacancy rate data from CB Richard Ellis, and financing cost data from RealtyRates.com.

The additional open space that would be required under this standard could overlap with other standards in the MOA, namely the increased setback for industrial buildings and the 300-foot buffer between loading docks and potential sensitive receptors. In addition, this standard and others that would result in additional land and/or smaller warehouse footprints will have the effect of spreading warehousing development out and consuming more land over time; in direct conflict with compact development 14 and
agricultural preservation15 policies.

A5.106.3 Low Impact Development (LID)

Drainage and stormwater management will vary considerably from site to site. Onsite facilities would need to be engineered for the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event or hourly intensity for each individual site and additional land area may have to be acquired.

City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (MUD) estimates the cost to comply with SWQCP requirements to be approximately $2,000 per acre for a 1.1 MSF warehouse on a 58-acre site. This assumes the project is connecting to an existing storm drain conveyance system and pump station. For sites required to design master plans and build public storm drain improvements including conveyance systems, basins, and pump stations, the costs would be considerably more.

Division A5.2—Energy Efficiency

A5.203.1.1 Tier 1 and Tier 2 Prerequisites
To comply with Tier 2, Two (2) efficiency measures (listed under CalGreen Section A5.203.1.1.1/4/5) are required. Said measures are formatted menu-style where developers can select which measures to utilize to meet CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2

12 Averages from $10 to $12.50 per square foot
13 Industry representa�ves: Greenlaw Partners, Cushman Wakefield, Dermody Proper�es, and Lazares Companies 14 SJCOG 2022 Regional Transporta�on Plan/Sustainable Communi�es Strategy, Sierra Club California Urban Growth Management Policy Guidelines
15 San Joaquin County Mul�-Species Habitat Conserva�on and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), Sierra Club California Urban Growth Management Policy Guidelines

532

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

8 thresholds.

The Tier 1 standard would require a new warehouse development to implement one of the efficiency measures referenced above. Tier 2 would require a new warehouse to implement a second efficiency measure. The analysis assumes that the outdoor lighting efficiency measure (available under CalGreen Sections A5.203.1.1.1/4/5) would be the easiest to implement and would be chosen to satisfy the Tier 1 requirement. The analysis assumes that the second easiest measure (available under CalGreen Sections A5.203.1.1.1/4/5) to implement would be the warehouse dock seal doors. Thus, the analysis estimates the cost for this measure as the cost to satisfy the MOA standard to require Tier 2 compliance.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)’s High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study from 2014 found that the average warehouse has 1.8 dock doors per 10,000 square feet of warehousing floor area. Based on this rate, the typical 1,072,076 square foot warehouse would be expected to have 193 dock doors. With an estimated cost of $10,000 per dock seal door, Table 2 provides the estimated cost to implement this standard.

The analysis estimates that the total cost for this measure would be $1.93 million. To finance this amount, the lease rate would need to increase by $0.03 per square foot per month, which represents a 4.9 percent increase over the asking lease rate of $0.71; an increase of $32,162.28 per month.

Table 2: Cost Calculation for Dock Seal Doors
Number of Dock Doors 193
Cost per Dock Seal ($) 10,000
Total Cost ($) 1,930,000
Monthly Debt Service ($) 22,272
Gross Monthly Income w/Vacancies and
operations ($)
36,996
Warehousing Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1,072,076
Increased Lease Rate ($/sq. ft./month) 0.03
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from industry interviews, vacancy rate data from CB Richard Ellis, and financing cost data from RealtyRates.com.

A5.203.1.2 Performance Standard
To reduce a building's energy usage below code minimums by 10-15% as required, upgrades to building components would be necessary such as: exterior wall/roof assemblies, higher efficiency mechanical units, reduction in lighting power, high efficiency water heating appliances. Determining compliance with this standard requires detailed engineering analysis of a specific building, its components, and its intended tenant, which is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, most buildings are designed to meet code minimums for envelope and mechanical, electrical, plumbing designs and would therefore require upgrades, increasing construction costs. 533

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

9 Section A5.211 Renewable Energy
If a new warehouse facility provides solar power and battery storage under MOA #13, then it would appear that A5.211.1 would be satisfied. For MOA #13, the analysis estimated that providing onsite solar power generation would cost $6.41 million. If an alternative to MOA #13 is adopted and this standard is adopted, then the electric generation would be generally about 1 percent of the cost for MOA #13, or about $641,000. This would be a negligible cost increase. However, the standard described above requires additional calculation beyond the simple percentage adjustment used here, and it also requires electric power generation equivalent to 1 percent of the natural gas and propane use, so the final cost could be somewhat larger.

A5.211.3 Green power
With Ava Community Energy expected to begin offering service in Stockton in 2025, this standard can be implemented. There would be a slight increase in utility rates for Ava’s Renewable 100 service plan. On their website, they estimate that participation in this plan would cost about 0.7 percent more than standard PG&E rates for a small commercial business.

For a 1,072,076 square-foot warehouse, the base power requirement is 5,038,756 kWh per year
16 for non-refrigerated warehouses and 31,733,465 for refrigerated warehouses.

With Ava’s rate being ¼ cent more per kilowatt hour than PG&E17, this equates to a monthly utility cost increase of $1,049.74 and $6,611.14 for non-refrigerated and refrigerated warehouses (respectively) over PG&E.

Section A5.212 E levators, Escalators and Other Equipment Based on interviews with industry representatives, elevators and escalators are generally not installed in typical warehouses. Thus, the analysis does not estimate a cost for this standard.

Section A5.213 E
nergy Efficient Steel Framing
Based on interviews with industry representatives, we have not been able to identify how this standard would affect warehouse construction, so the analysis does not estimate a cost for this standard. However, there might be a substantive cost to comply with this standard or it might be negligible.

Division A5.5—Environmental Quality

A5.504.2.1 IAQ Testing
There is the potential to incur additional costs in meeting the standards if indoor air flushing alone is not sufficient (and the premise of this standard is that an engineer has determined that flushing out is not feasible), and, because this testing occurs after construction and before occupancy (the provision to allow occupancy after four days

16 See MOA #13 for calcula�on
17 htps://avaenergy.org/service-plans-business/
534

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

10 applies to facilities in which flushing out is feasible), there is also the potential to delay occupancy, which itself imposes a cost.

A5.504.4.7 Resilient flooring systems
Under base CALGreen, 80 percent of the floor space receiving resilient flooring would have to be constructed with VOC-specific flooring material. The Tier 2 standard increases the coverage from 80 percent to 100 percent. Based on interviews with industry representatives, the costs to comply for the final 20 percent of the floor area receiving resilient flooring would be negligible.

A5.507.1 Lighting and thermal comfort controls
Based on interviews with industry representatives, it appears that the costs to comply with this standard for the office space would be negligible and the standard would not be applicable to warehousing space. The cost estimates analysis has not calculated a cost to comply with this standard.

A5.507.3 Views
Based on interviews with industry representatives, it appears that the costs to comply with this standard for office space would be negligible relative to the financial feasibility of warehousing development. However, it is not clear if or how this standard would apply to occupants in the warehousing space. The cost estimates analysis has not calculated a cost to comply with this standard.

Based on discussion with industry experts and the City’s consultant, Tier 2 standards are not commonly applied by most municipalities throughout California as the primary means to reduce greenhouse gas emission for industrial warehouses. While some municipalities and agencies have selected components of CAL Green Tier 2 standards for various items (i.e., EV parking amount), using the standards on a comprehensive basis does not appear to be a standard in common usage.

In conclusion, the application of Tier 2 standards on warehouse development less than 400,000 square feet is currently infeasible as the known costs would increase overall construction cost, building user costs and leasable spaces, and put the City at a competitive disadvantage for attracting industrial warehouse projects compared to surrounding jurisdictions that do not have these requirements.

A
lternative Standards Proposed
Option B changed the original MOA measure of Tier 2 to Tier 1 and applied only to buildings 400,000 square feet or larger. All other warehouse facilities would have to maintain compliance with current state and local standards. Since larger facilities (i.e., greater than 400,000 square feet) typically have large businesses that can accommodate the increased cost, the threshold was proposed to provide cost savings for smaller companies with facilities less than 400,000 square feet.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
535

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

11 The proposed alternative is effective as the increased building standards for warehouses larger than 400,000 square feet will help with energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction and exceed current practices. The proposed standard is consistent with state, local, and best management practices and will automatically correspond with changes in minimum building requirements (CAL Green) adopted by the state, consistent with State Carbon Neutrality objectives. These standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

It is important to note that, absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

MOA #11 Loading Docks:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) Qualifying facilities and their associated
loading docks must be located no closer
than 300 feet from sensitive receptors,
and the City staff should consider the
public health and safety benefits of
requiring a larger buffer, up to 1,000 ft. All
such setbacks will be measured from the
loading dock or any building edge,
whichever is closer to the property line of
any nearby sensitive receptors using the
straight-line method. The setbacks and
buffers required in this ordinance shall
prevail over any less-stringent standards
in the City’s Development Code.

Sensitive receptor shall be defined as any
residence including private homes,
condominiums, apartments, and living
quarters, schools, preschools, daycare
centers, correctional facilities,
parks/recreation facilities, in-home
daycares, and health facilities such as
hospitals, long term care facilities,
retirement, and nursing homes.

Building Setbacks: 2:1 ratio of building
setback to building height shall be
required when adjacent to sensitive
receptors.

Loading Dock Setback: Unless
determined to be physically impossible,
when adjacent to sensitive receptors, a
300-foot buffer shall separate all truck
loading docks unless the areas within the
300-foot buffer utilize zero emission
trucks and equipment.

Sensitive receptor shall be defined as
schools, health care facilities, libraries,
churches, correctional facilities,
parks/recreational facilities, in home
daycare, health facilities (hospitals, long
term care facilities, retirement, and nursing
homes) or more than two directly
contiguous residential units.

Analysis:

Feasibility
This MOA Option A standard is deemed to be infeasible based on the practical, technological, and economic factors discussed below. An analysis conducted by staff 536

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

12 using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping indicated that, a proposed 300- foot and 1,000-foot buffer consistent with that metric, would have a significant impact on what new facilities industrially designated properties would be allowed to develop.

Exhibits shown to the Planning Commission at public study sessions provided examples of actual local industrial parcels that would see their respective building area reduced by 60-80 percent. Parcels that were large enough and not next to receptors that would trigger the buffer requirement were located within the City’s sphere of influence, but not in a legal position to be annexed into the City as they were not contiguous to the City limits. Contiguous location is defined as “territory adjacent to an agency to which annexation is proposed” and is a State (Local Government Reorganization Act) and local requirement for annexation consideration. Since the total amount of warehouse space would be significantly reduced by the MOA’s 300- and 1,000-foot buffers, it is infeasible due to its impracticality, technological and economic factors. Therefore, staff is proposing an alternative.

A
s discussed elsewhere in the analysis, this requirement could result in the effective loss of all viable use of some industrial parcels in Stockton. The other question is what is the economic impact of requiring a 300 or 1,000 buffer on industrial properties adjacent to potential sensitive receptors when such parcels are not large enough to physically accommodate such a buffer. Generally, an industrial developer makes full use of a site, given the needs for truck movement onsite, employee parking, stormwater management and so forth. The required buffer would necessitate the developer purchasing additional land area for a warehouse and this land area would provide no economic benefit for the property owner or tenant.

PlaceWorks reviewed ten recent warehouse projects
18,four of which appear as though a
buffer would be required if developed under the MOA language. PlaceWorks estimates the total property line length for these four buffers would be 13,135 feet. Across the four sites, the 300-foot buffer would require the purchase of an additional 90.5 acres of land (assuming the developer builds similarly sized warehouses and simply purchases additional land to accommodate the buffer). This additional land area would be a 28 percent increase in site area for the four projects, with the individual sites requiring an increase ranging from 23 to 52 percent. A 1,000-foot buffer area would require the purchase of an additional 301.5 acres of land, or an increase of 93 percent.

Based on an analysis of industrial property sales in San Joaquin County from 2021 to 2023, PlaceWorks, estimates the cost to acquire industrial zoned land at $699,000 per acre. As this land value, the 300-foot buffer would increase the cost of development by $15.8 million based on a weighted average for the four projects evaluated. The 1,000- foot buffer area would increase the cost of development by $52.7 million, on average.

If these projects were developed under the MOA language and had to purchase additional land to accommodate a 300-foot buffer, these lease rate would need to increase by $0.09 per square foot per month (based on a permanent loan for the full

18 Permit numbers: P19-0189, P20-0114, P20-0115, P20-0242, P20-0395, P20-0805, P21-0277, P21-0576, P21-0980. 537

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

13 cost19 of the additional land, with an interest rate of 7.07 percent, and a debt service coverage ratio of 1.45, representing third quarter 2023 market conditions as reported by RealtyRates.com). This would represent a 13 percent increase in the average lease rate, $0.71 per square foot per month, as reported by CB Richard Ellis for Stockton in their Central Valley Industrial Figures Q3 2023 report. Currently, Stockton has the third highest lease rates in the Central Valley, and an increase of $0.09 would push it into second place, just behind Tracy, where the average lease rate is $0.82. If a 1,000-foot buffer were required, lease rates would have to increase by $0.31, or 43 percent, to $1.02. However, this accounts just for the cost of the land; the cost to provide landscaping still needs to be considered.

In addition to economic impacts to the developer, this would also result in the permanent elimination of farmland, in direct contradiction with San Joaquin County General Plan (SJC GP)
20, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), and Sierra Club California Urban Growth Management Policy Guidelines21. Further, the premature conversion of farmland could create pressure to develop on surrounding agricultural lands, conflicting with SJC GP Goal LU-7 Provide for the long-term preservation of productive farmland.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Consistent with the MOA, Option B proposes a 300-foot loading dock setback but is reducing the building setback to align with the proposed height of the building. This 2:1 ratio of setback to height (i.e., 50ft tall building=100ft setback) maintains a larger than currently required setback based on proposed height.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed standard is consistent with State, local, and best management practices.

The new loading standard maintains the intent of the MOA 300-foot buffer and increases the setback distance from the building to the sensitive receptors which will reduce noise, visibility, and possible odor impacts.

It is important to note that, absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing noise, visibility, and possible odor impacts to sensitive receptors.

19 Typically, a construc�on loan might provide half the cost of land acquisi�on, with the developer’s equity investment making up the remainder. It is very unlikely that a warehouse would be financially feasible if the developer is required to invest an addi�onal $7.9 million to purchase land that generates no economic ac�vity.

However, it is also not certain whether a developer would be able to finance the full buffer-area acquisi�on through the construc�on loan or permanent loan.
20 Goal LU -1.7 Farmland Preservation
21 htps://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce/mother-lode- chapter/Website/Growth%20Management%20Guidelines.pdf
538

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

14 MOA# 12 Landscaped Buffer:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) Qualifying facilities must include an onsite
landscape buffer, measured from the
property line of all adjacent sensitive
receptors. The width of the buffer shall be
proportionate to the height of the
warehouse building with specified
minimums as set forth below unless
infeasible. Landscaping shall be installed
at the periphery of the qualifying
facility(ies) site along adjacent rights of
way and the landscaping buffer area shall
not include the right of way itself.

Landscape buffers shall not be required
on interior boundaries of the qualifying
facility(ies).
a) The width of the buffer shall be set at
a 2:1 ratio for all warehouses–for
every 1 foot of building height, the
buffer shall be 2 feet. The landscaping
portion of this buffer shall not be less
than 50% of this buffer, but may
include areas to be used for
bioswales, retention/detention areas
and/or other stormwater and water
quality management areas.
b) The buffer area(s) shall include, at a
minimum, a solid decorative wall(s)
adjacent to sensitive receptors,
natural ground landscaping, and solid
screen buffering trees, as described
below, unless there is an existing solid
block wall. Onsite buffer areas shall
not include deceleration lanes or right-
turn lanes. To the extent allowed by
other applicable City codes, policies,
and regulations the height of the
decorative wall shall be at least 14
feet, except in buffer areas adjacent to
sensitive receptors. For areas
adjacent to sensitive receptors, the
decorative wall shall be a minimum of
14 to 18 feet to the extent otherwise
• A 40-foot landscaped planter (buffer)
shall be installed along the property
line adjacent to a sensitive receptor.
• The buffer shall be landscaped, and
not be less than 50% of the total buffer
size with two rows of 15-gallon trees
planted along the length of the
property line adjacent to the sensitive
receptor.
• The buffer landscape can include
areas to be used for bioswales,
retention/detention areas and/or other
stormwater and water quality
management areas in compliance with
SMC Section 16.56 (Landscaping).
• The buffer area shall include a
minimum 10-foot solid decorative
wall(s), or landscaped berm and wall,
or landscaped berm adjacent to
sensitive receptors unless a noise
analysis indicates an alternative height
is needed for sound attenuation.
• All on and off-site landscaping shall
comply with SMC Chapter 16.56
(Landscaping).
• All landscaping shall be drought
tolerant and, to the extent feasible,
comprised of species with low
biogenic emissions. Palm trees shall
not be utilized.
• All landscaping areas shall be properly
irrigated for the life of the facility to
allow for plants and trees to maintain
growth with no undue pruning.
• Tree maintenance shall comply with
SMC Section 16.56 as a certified
Landscape Architect must prepare the
Preliminary and Final Landscape plan
and certify the planting is water
efficient at the time of construction
permit approval.
• Trees shall be installed in automobile
parking areas to provide at least 35%
539

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

15 permitted by city codes, policies, and
regulations.
c) Trees shall be used as part of the
solid screen buffering treatment. Trees
used for this purpose shall be
evergreen, drought tolerant, and shall
be spaced in two rows along the
length of the buffer, with trees in each
row offset, and each tree no greater
than 15 feet on center. Spacing up to
20 feet may be allowed if wide canopy
trees are used sufficient to create wall
of vegetation that filters warehouse
pollution. The property owner, tenant,
operator, and any successors in
interest shall maintain these trees for
the duration of ownership, ensuring
any unhealthy or dead trees are
replaced with a similar tree as soon as
possible.
d) All landscaping shall be drought
tolerant, and to the extent feasible,
species with low biogenic emissions.

Palm trees shall not be utilized.
e) All landscaping areas shall be
properly irrigated for the life of the
qualifying facility(ies) to allow for
plants and trees to maintain growth
with no undue pruning.
shade cover of passenger vehicular
parking areas within fifteen years.

Trees shall be planted that can meet
this requirement. The 35% shade
trees amount can be substituted for
solar canopy upon approval by the
Director.

Analysis:

Feasibility
This MOA Option A standard is deemed to be infeasible based on the practical and economic factors discussed below. As further explained here, for certain properties, 1,000 feet of landscape buffer would render the property undevelopable for warehouse development.

The landscaping required for this standard would vary from one project to the next. To provide an assessment of the economic feasibility, the analysis assesses the impact of the cost to provide landscaping in the buffer area as described in the analysis for MOA #11. The actual area requiring landscaping for MOA #12 could be different because it is based on the height of the building and it also allows stormwater management facilities, which would not be a new cost item.

PlaceWorks’ landscape architects recommend using a generalized cost estimate of $10 per square foot for the cost to install irrigation and landscaping, and to include an upper 540

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

16 range of $12.50 per square foot. The analysis for MOA #11 evaluated a 300-foot and a 1,000-foot buffer. Because the standard would be 2 feet of buffer for every one foot of building height, a 300-foot buffer would be applicable to a building that is 150 feet in height or less. This analysis is based solely on the 300-foot buffer width and the assumption that it would be landscaped in its entirety.

Based on PlaceWorks’ analysis of four recent warehouse projects that would require a buffer adjacent to sensitive receptors, the average cost to install landscaping for a 150 to 300-foot-wide buffer area would range from $4.95 million to $12.3 million.

If the four projects were developed under the MOA language and had to install landscaping for a 300-foot buffer, lease rates would need to increase by $0.06. to $0.07 per square foot per month (based on a permanent loan for the full cost 22 of the
additional land, with an interest rate of 7.07 percent, and a debt service coverage ratio of 1.45, representing third quarter 2023 market conditions as reported by RealtyRates.com). This would represent an 8.1 to 10.1 percent increase in lease rates.

Taken together with the added land cost for a buffer area, the combined impact of the buffer and landscaping would be an increase in monthly lease rates from $0.71 to $0.86, an increase of 21 percent. This would also push the cost for new warehousing space in Stockton to the highest in the region, exceeding asking lease rates in Tracy by 5 to 6.5 percent.

It is important to note that the economic/market conditions between Tracy and Stockton differ, with Stockton facing higher unemployment, lower household income, and higher poverty rates (among other factors as sampled below):

7/7/202223 Tracy Stockton
Population 97,328 321,819 330% 
Employment Rate 67.7 59.6 12% 
Retail Sales Per Capita 2017 ($1,000) $16,195 $12,715 21.5%  Median Household Income $102,336 $63,916 37.5% 
Poverty Rate 9.8% 16.3% 166% 
U.S. Census QuickFacts - U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Tracy city, California; Stockton city, California

22 Typically, a construc�on loan might provide half the cost of land acquisi�on, with the developer’s equity investment making up the remainder. It is very unlikely that a warehouse would be financially feasible if the developer is required to invest an addi�onal $7.9 million to purchase land that generates no economic ac�vity.

However, it is also not certain whether a developer would be able to finance the full buffer-area acquisi�on through the construc�on loan or permanent loan.
23 Typically, a construc�on loan might provide half the cost of land acquisi�on, with the developer’s equity investment making up the remainder. It is very unlikely that a warehouse would be financially feasible if the developer is required to invest an addi�onal $7.9 million to purchase land that generates no economic ac�vity.

However, it is also not certain whether a developer would be able to finance the full buffer-area acquisi�on through the construc�on loan or permanent loan.
541

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

17 Alternative Standards Proposed
Consistent with examples provided by the state attorney office and other cities within the state, a 40-foot landscape buffer is proposed. A minimum 10-foot sound wall is also proposed unless a noise analysis indicates a taller wall is needed to bring noise levels into compliance with nighttime and daytime standards. In addition, staff added an alternative based on other city examples. That addition requires that trees be installed in automobile parking areas to provide at least 35% shade cover of passenger vehicular parking areas within fifteen years. Trees shall be planted that can meet this requirement; however, parking area trees could be substituted for solar canopies to help provide shade and energy efficiency consistent with current practices in the state.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed alternative measure will provide environmental enhancements similar to the MOA standards and will exceed current local standards. The increase in landscaping will provide a larger and enhanced buffer between operational uses and the adjacent receptors that will mitigate noise, visual, and potential odor impacts from the facilities. It is important to note that, absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing noise, visual, and potential odor impacts to adjacent receptors.

MOA# 13: Solar, Battery Energy System:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) Solar Power/Battery Energy Storage
Systems:
a) The building permit application for
qualifying facilities must demonstrate
sufficient solar panels to provide power
for the operation’s base power use at the
start of operations and as base power
use demand increases. The application
shall include analysis of plans to meet (a)
projected power requirements at the start
of operations and as base power demand
increases corresponding to the
implementation of the “clean fleet”
requirements, and (b) generating capacity
of the solar installation.
a) The photovoltaic system(s) shall
include a battery energy storage system
to serve the qualifying facility(ies) in the
event of a power outage to the extent
required by the most current edition of the
California Building Standards Code.
• The building permit application for
qualifying facilities must demonstrate
sufficient solar panels to provide
power for the operational base power
use at the start of operations. When
available, applicants will be permitted
to utilize “clean energy” sources in-lieu
of providing onsite energy production.
“Clean Energy” sources include
programs such as, but not limited to,
Ava Community Energy.
• Operational base power is defined as
the amount of power required to
supply loads for all ordinary
operational uses of the site. Loads for
all ordinary operational uses of the site
include, as non-exhaustive examples,
loads for minimal heating for fire
sprinklers, primary office space
lighting, HVAC, warehouse power,
warehouse lighting, site lighting,
542

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

18 b) Stockton’s Community
Development Department (CDD) shall
verify the size and scope of the solar
project based upon the analysis of the
projected power requirements and
generating capacity as well as the
available solar panel installation space.
c) In the event sufficient space is not
available on the subject lot to
accommodate the needed number of
solar panels to produce the operation’s
base or anticipated power use, the
applicant of the qualifying facility(ies)
shall demonstrate how all available space
has been maximized (e.g., roof, parking
areas, etc.) for photovoltaic and battery
energy storage system use. Areas which
provide truck movement may be excluded
from these calculations unless otherwise
deemed acceptable by the supplied
reports and applicable building standards.
d) The owners, operators or tenants,
or qualified solar system contractor
engaged by the developer or tenant, shall
install the system when the City has
approved building permits and the
necessary equipment has arrived. The
tenant/operator of the qualifying
facility(ies) shall commence operation of
the system only when it has received
permission to operate from the utility. The
photovoltaic system owner shall be
responsible for maintaining the system(s)
at not less than 80% of the rated power
for 20 years. At the end of the 20-year
period, the owners, operators, or tenants
shall install a new photovoltaic system
meeting the capacity and operational
requirements of this measure, or continue
to maintain the existing system, for the
life of the qualifying facility(ies).
minimum power for dock positions
(including chargers for yard equipment
and any plug-ins for transport
refrigeration units), and the amount of
light-duty electric vehicle supply
equipment required by
CalGreen. Loads for all ordinary
operational uses of the site exclude,
as non-exhaustive examples, loads for
specialized equipment, non-standard
automation or material handling
systems, and chargers for heavy-duty
trucks.
• Projects shall be allowed to utilize
alternative energy means that achieve
comparable energy or greenhouse
gas offsets. This includes Near Zero
Emission (Near ZE) technology when
commercially available.

Analysis:

Feasibility
This MOA Option A standard requiring solar power to power multiple components of the building operation and provide battery backup power is deemed to be infeasible for the 543

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

19 practical and economic factors discussed below. There has been much uncertainty as to what the base power of operation consists of. Additionally, there are concerns from the industry that the placement of solar power on the roofs of warehouse buildings is a risk for potential fire hazard. This has triggered some instances of ligation and safety concerns for workers.

To define the energy needed for base power, which is not yet fully defined per building standards, the analysis uses average energy consumption. The US Energy Information Administration conducts the Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey every five years (https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/), with the most recent report being from 2018. At that time, they calculated the average electricity use at non- refrigerated warehouses at 4.7 kWh per square foot per year, which jumps 29.6 kWh per square foot per year for refrigerated warehouses. For the ten recent warehouses used in the economic analysis, the average size is 1,072,076 sq. ft. To assess the economic impact of this standard, the analysis defines the base power requirement as 5,038,756 kWh per year (4.7 kWh X 1,072,076 square feet) for non-refrigerated warehouses, which is equal to 13,805 kWh per day. For refrigerated warehouses this increases to 86,941 kWh per day.

The number of solar power panels is based on the average number of hours of peak sunlight. There are a variety of sources that estimate this, and in general, the analysis found that the average that would apply to Stockton is 5.38 hours per day, averaging over the course of a year. Solar panels generate electricity in DC, which then must be converted to AC. Typically, there is an 80 percent efficiency for the conversion. To provide base power (as defined above) solar panels would need to generate 3,207 kW (or 20,200 kW for refrigerated warehouses): 13,805 kWh per day ÷ 5.38 peak hours of sunlight per day ÷ 80 percent efficiency in converting from DC to AC.

A 72-cell solar panel generates 0.375 kW and costs $750. For an average size warehouse as analyzed for this report (1,072,076 sq. ft.) needing solar power to generate 13,805 kWh per day, it would take 8,553 72-cell solar panels (3,207 kW ÷

0.375 kW per panel), which would cost $6,414,876 (8,553 panels X $705 per panel).

For a refrigerated warehouse, 53,867 72-cell solar panels would be required, costing $40,400,067.

A solar power analysis for an 890,000 square foot warehouse on Mariposa Road found that it would require 13.21 acres to accommodate the solar panels needed for base power generation. That plan would use solar panels over car parking areas for 31.2 percent of the required area, with the remaining solar panels over unused land on the site. Assuming the same proportions for the typical warehouse, 1,072,000 square feet, analyzed above, the typical project would require 15.9 acres to accommodate the solar panels, and 11.7 acres would need to be accommodated on unused land. For a non- refrigerated warehouse, the cost to acquire the additional unused land area needed to accommodate the solar panels would be $8.2 million.

544

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

20 This MOA standard also requires a battery energy storage system. To evaluate this cost, the assessment analyzes battery units that store 2,288 kWh and cost $2,471,0405. For the non-refrigerated warehouse’s average daily electricity need, 13,805 kWh, 6.03 battery storage units would be required. The cost would be $14.9 million. For a refrigerated warehouse, 38 battery units would be needed at a total cost of $93.9 million.

The total cost of this MOA standard for a 1,072,076-square foot warehouse would be $29.5 million, with $6.4 million for solar panels, $8.2 million for the land area for the solar panel installation, and $14.9 million for battery energy storage. A developer incurring this cost on a new warehouse would need to increase the lease rate by $0.27 per square foot per month, or 37.6 percent, going from $0.71 to $0.98 per square foot per month (based on a permanent loan for the full cost of the solar panels and battery storage, with an interest rate of 7.07 percent, and a debt service coverage ratio of 1.45, representing third quarter 2023 market conditions as reported by RealtyRates.com).

Alternative Standards Proposed
The solar requirement remains as staff has added a definition of what “base power” is as it was lacking from the original standards and is not a definition commonly used in planning and building profession. While the battery component was considered, due to the potential cost and additional detail missing from the MOA (length of charge, and location of batteries), that requirement has been removed due to the potential cost associated with the different types and needed capacity of the batteries beyond base power. In addition, Option B is proposing an option for the use of “clean” energy sources as an alternative to installing solar equipment when they become available for use in projects. Option B is proposing to remove the monitoring component for the upgrades and will rely on changes to state law or projects specific reviews.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts (MOA #13)
The proposed alternative will still result in positive environmental effects on the environment, there are simply more options being provided for the industry to have greater flexibility to determine what is best for their individual project. The proposed alternative will exceed current standards and increase energy efficiency to reduce greenhouse gases and impacts on the City’s energy systems. This includes an increase in required solar or mandate to purchase clean energy, both of which are not current requirements. The proposed standard is consistent with state, local, and best management practices for energy production, management, and coordination with clean energy providers throughout the state.

It is important to note that, absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives regarding energy efficiency.

545

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

21 MOA# 14/17 EV Fleet and Monitoring

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) #14- The lease agreement should include
requirements for sustainable business
practices, such as the use of trucks from
2014 or newer that transition to zero-
emission vehicles. Clean fleet standards
must be met by all other vehicles on-site.
(SEE MOA FOR FULL TEXT)
Electric Vehicle Chargers Stations
(EVCS) Infrastructure for Trucks: provide
conduits to provide EVCS to meet future
needs. Conduit should be provided on the
site to serve 50% of the number of truck
docking stations. Location of conduit is at
the discretion of the developer (e.g., truck
trailer parking spaces or docking
stations).
#17- (REMOVE) Facilities need to
purchase electric vehicles to comply with
clean fleet rules. Reports are due every
two years until requirements are met.

Public hearings will evaluate compliance.

Annual reports are required if
requirements aren't met by December 31,
2027. After achieving a 100% clean fleet,
reports are due every three years.

Display signs prohibiting off-site parking
and truck idling. Report complaints about
dust, fumes, odors, and parking to
designated representatives and the air
pollution control district. Complaints must
be addressed within 72 hours. (SEE MOA

FOR FULL TEXT)
No standard is recommended since the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is
responsible for regulating manufacturers
of EV heavy duty and medium duty
vehicles and enforcing state standards for
electric vehicle (EV) heavy duty and
medium duty fleet compliance
requirements.

#14 and #17 Analysis:

Feasibility
Both of these MOA Option A standards are deemed to be infeasible based on the economic, technological, and practical factors discussed below. The California Clean Air Resources Board (CARB) is the responsible state agency for mandating Medium and Heavy-Duty electrical vehicle (EV) fleet conversions throughout the State of California. As concerns over adequate vehicle charging infrastructure being ready to support the implementation of EV fleets, the State entered into agreements with vehicle manufacturers to roll out this technology by certain timelines (by 2035 and later). CARB is currently responsible for monitoring the vehicle manufacturing industry to ensure heavy duty vehicles become more commercially available in the coming future.

MOA #14 would require all heavy-duty trucks domiciled at a warehouse subject to these standards to be zero-emission vehicles by December 31, 2025, or when commercially available. For medium-duty trucks, the requirement has a more structured phasing requirement, with 80 percent of the domiciled fleet to be zero emission by December 31, 546

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

22 2025, and 100 percent by December 31, 2027. MOA #17 provides requirements for reporting and monitoring compliance with MOA #14. There would be administrative costs for reporting, but these costs would be negligible relative to the costs that affect the financial feasibility of warehouse development and warehouse operations.

Electrifying a commercial fleet requires a significant amount of upfront capital investment. Compared to their diesel counterparts, list prices for Class 6 and Class 7 electric trucks can be anywhere from two to three times as much, depending on the manufacturer. PlaceWorks found that a Class 6 diesel truck (cab and chassis only) can cost between $80,000 and $120,000, whereas the equivalent electric model costs between $225,000 and $280,000. A Class 7 diesel truck (cab and chassis only) can cost between $95,000, whereas $140,000 and their electric equivalent can cost between $250,000 and $320,000. The price difference is larger for Class 8 trucks, primarily driven by the limited options currently available on the market. A Class 8 diesel truck (day cab only) costs between $140,000 and $150,000. The equivalent Class 8 electric truck (day cab only) can cost upwards of $525,000, more than three and a half times as much.

Despite the high sticker prices, incentives from local, state, and regional agencies can make upgrading to an electric fleet more feasible. CARB’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Program (HVIP) offers vouchers worth $85,000 per Class 6 / 7 truck and $120,000 per Class 8 truck through a formal application process. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) administers a Standard Truck Replacement Program that offers up to $180,000 for surrendering an eligible Class 6 or 7 truck and up to $410,000 for surrendering an eligible Class 8 truck. In addition, the HVIP and Valley Air District incentives may be stacked but may not exceed 80% of the new vehicle base cost (excluding taxes and fees) for fleets 10 trucks or smaller, or 50% of the new vehicle base cost (excluding taxes and fees) for fleets with more than 10 trucks.

Based on information from Mack Trucks, the added cost to purchase a Class 6 electric truck in lieu of purchasing a diesel truck would be about $137,000 ($225,000 electric truck cost minus the $87,700 diesel truck cost). With the CARB voucher, the difference declines to $52,000, or about a 59.6 percent increase in cost. Stacking the CARB incentive, $85,000, with the Valley Air District incentive, up to $180,000, would cover up to 80 percent of the cost for a warehouse operator for surrendering a Class 6 diesel truck and replacing it with a new Class 6 electric truck. This would bring the cost of the electric truck to about $45,000 or 33 percent of the cost of a new diesel truck. While this may result in cost benefits on an individual basis, the rebates are not guaranteed, and current state and local funding sources are not sufficient to guarantee fully funded fleets. In addition, many facilities rely on outside vendors for distribution purposes and there is no way to require those vendors to comply with the requirement for the facility.

These outside vendors could be coming from outside the region and state and operate equipment that would violate the requirements of the facility for a 100% EV fleet.

547

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

23 Freightliner indicated that the cost for its Class 8 electric truck starts at $525,000. With the CARB $120,000 voucher, the starting cost, $405,000, would exceed the cost for a comparable diesel truck by $255,000 or 170 percent more expensive than the diesel.

Stacking the CARB incentive, $120,000, with the Valley Air District incentive, up to $410,000, would cover up to 80 percent of the cost for a warehouse operator for surrendering a Class 6 diesel truck and replacing it with a new Class 6 electric truck.

This would bring the cost of the electric truck to about $105,000 or 70 percent of the cost of a new diesel truck.

For both medium duty and light duty trucks, there would be a substantial cost increase to outfit a new warehouse operation with new electric trucks rather than diesel trucks.

The extent of this added cost will vary from one operation to the next depending on how many trucks in their fleet would meet the definition of being domiciled at the warehouse facility; however, PlaceWorks was unable to quantify what an expected average number of domiciled trucks would be to estimate a cost.

For standard #17, the City does not have the technological and staffing resources to monitor or review reporting of warehouse operators’ fleet mixes to determine compliance. Further, the City is not informed when warehouse ownership or tenants change over time which further makes this impractical to monitor.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Since no other viable or comparable alternative could be found, Staff is proposing the following alternative standard that requires conduits to be installed at building construction to provide for future opportunities to direct electrical power to charge heavy duty trucks at docking stations.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed standards in Option B still include enhanced building standards to improve energy efficiency through encouraging alternative fuel use that is either zero or near zero emission vehicles. These improvements help to reduce greenhouse gases and achieve the State’s goal for carbon neutrality.

It is important to note that, absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

MOA# 18 Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs):

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) For qualifying facilities at which cold
storage and associated transport
refrigeration units (TRUs) are proposed or
may be a future use, unless the owner of
the facility records a covenant on the title
Where transport by temperature-
controlled trucks or trailers is proposed,
on-site electrical hookups shall be
provided at loading docks. Idling or use of
auxiliary truck engine power to power
548

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

24 of the underlying property ensuring that
the property cannot be used to provide
cold storage, a conduit shall be installed
during construction of the building shell
from the electrical room to 100% of the
loading dock doors that have potential to
serve the refrigerated space. If tenant
improvement building permits are issued
for any such cold storage space, electric
plug-in units shall be installed at every
dock door servicing the cold storage
space to allow TRUs to plug in and truck
operators a with TRUs shall be required
to utilize the electric plug-in units when at
loading docks serving such refrigerated
space.
climate-control equipment shall be
prohibited.

Analysis:

Feasibility
This MOA Option A standard is deemed infeasible based on the technological and practical factors discussed below. The requirement for electrified TRUs remains, however the requirement to record a covenant on the title of the underlying property to ensure the property cannot be used for cold storage is technologically and practically infeasible for City staff to monitor for warehouse buildings that are not proposing cold storage. Property recordings occur at the County recorder’s office which is independent from the City of Stockton. The County Recorder’s technology does not have the ability to notify the City of recordings that affect properties in the City. As such, City staff would be unaware if any recorded covenant was removed by a subsequent recording performed by the property owner.

Alternative Standards Proposed
The proposed language removes the covenant requirement. The proposed standard would still require all TRUs onsite to be plugged into electricity thus prohibiting gas powered units onsite. The covenant to prohibit future gas powered TRUs would be redundant as the code would not allow it. Further, the addition of the covenant would require more time and money for the applicant and would not significantly help should a code enforcement case arise from unpermitted gas powered TRUs onsite.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
No change in impact as the TRU requirement and prohibition of gas powered TRUs would still be in place. Where transport by temperature-controlled trucks or trailers is proposed, on-site electrical hookups shall be provided at loading docks. Idling or use of auxiliary truck engine power to power climate-control equipment shall be prohibited.

549

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

25 MOA #25: (REMOVE) Development Agreement Monitoring

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) Every development agreement, approved
and executed in conjunction with the
applicable warehouse, shall be subject to
periodic review of the
applicant’s/contracting party’s compliance
with the agreement, by the Commission,
during the full term of the agreement, as
specified in the agreement, but in no case
less frequently than once every 12
months as required per SMC 16.128.110
(Periodic Review). Appropriate fees to
cover the City’s cost(s) to conduct the
periodic reviews in compliance with the
Council’s fee resolution shall be collected
from the applicant/contracting party.

Staff proposes removal. Annual
compliance reviews are already required
by State Law and the Development Code.

Analysis:

Feasibility
Since State regulation and the Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.112.110 requirements already require conducting annual reviews of Development Agreements, it is not necessary to include a redundant regulation in the proposed Warehouse Ordinance.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Option B proposes removal of the MOA standard, since the State regulation and Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.112.110 requirements already require conducting annual reviews of Development Agreements.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
No impact as staff will conduct the annual reviews consistent with the MOA.

MOA #26: (REMOVE) Community Engagement

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) A neighborhood meeting shall be required
for one or more discretionary permits for
qualifying facility(ies) application requiring
Council review. At the discretion of the
Director, a neighborhood meeting may be
required for other applications consistent
with SMC section 16.88.025
(Neighborhood Meetings).

Staff proposes removal. Conflicts with
ministerial reviews and already required
for approvals requiring public hearings
and annexations.

550

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

26 Analysis:

Feasibility
Staff currently requires neighborhood meetings for projects that require Council review and public notices sent to all properties within 300 feet of a project for discretionary actions subject to the Brown Act. All submitted projects are Public Record regardless of Ministerial or Discretionary.

Alternative Standards Proposed?
None needed as the City already conducts outreach and notices for project approvals.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
No impact as staff will conduct neighborhood outreach and noticing consistent with the agreement.

FINDING SUMMARY
The City finds that the Project would have the following environmental and economic benefits:

Feasibility Finding
• Most of the Option A standards have been maintained and included within Option B (Option C discussed in a separate report).
• Option A standards for 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 18 have been revised but maintain original components of the Option A request by the MOA. These revisions will exceed current practices and standards for regulating industrial warehouse design and operation.
• Option B proposes to remove three standards (MOA#17, 25, 26) as they are infeasible, conflict with current practices and/or standards, or are achieved by current standards.
• The remaining measures that do not implement the original MOA Option A standards are still consistent with state, local, and best management practices and will automatically correspond with changes in minimum building requirements (CAL Green) and air quality standards adopted by the state, consistent with State Carbon Neutrality objectives. This includes project reviews, applicable construction standards and practices, and monitoring from regional and state agencies.
• If the following MOA standards are applied, Industrial asking lease rates are projected to increase by 64.8 percent.

Amount Percentage
Base Asking Lease Rate $0.71
MOA #10 – Open Space + 0.01 1.4
MOA #10 – Dock Seal Doors + 0.03 4.2
MOA #11 – 300’ Loading Dock Buffer land costs + 0.09 12.7 MOA #12 – 300’ Landscaped Buffer + 0.06 8.5
MOA #13 – Solar/Battery Costs + 0.27 38
Increased Asking Lease Rate ($/sq. ft./month) $1.17 +64.8% 551

ATTACHMENT H
Op�on B Feasibility Analysis

27 Alternative Standards Finding
• The adjusted conditions will provide enhanced mitigation for future project review that will lead to greenhouse gas reduction via more energy efficient buildings. The Project includes enhanced designs standards that reduce future impacts from projects. The standards have been designed to be objective and applied to all applicable projects.
• The proposed standards are more agreeable to the development community as many of the original standards in the MOA included measures that were not quantifiable and had many unforeseen impacts as they involved enforcement of standards that have not been established by the state or its enforcement agencies.

Some of the standards not included in the Option B standards (#7, 10, 13, 14, 17) require the abundant use of technology that is not in common usage or monitoring that exceeds city staff resources and expertise or conflicts with internal review or noticing processes.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts Finding
• Option B standards exceed the City’s current standards and will add enhanced design features to further mitigate future warehouse design and operations. • The proposed measures are consistent with many General Plan policies for environmental review, enhanced design standards, and balance requirements that do not adversely impact existing industries and property owners in the City.

• The proposed standards are consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code and do not conflict with other industrial and zoning standards and would supersede any conflicting measure as they are specific to logistic warehouses of a certain size.
• The adjusted conditions will provide enhanced mitigation for future project review that will lead to greenhouse gas reduction via more energy efficient buildings. The Project includes enhanced designs standards that reduce future impacts from projects. The standards have been designed to be objective and applied to all applicable projects.
• The proposed standards are more agreeable to the development community.

Many of the original standards in the MOA included measures that were not quantifiable and had many unforeseen impacts as they involved enforcement of standards that have not been established by the state or its enforcement agencies.

It also included standards that required technology that is not in common usage or monitoring that exceeded city staff resources and expertise. • The State and Regional Agencies will continue to enforce stricter climate change requirements regarding air quality, water quality, and building standards. All future projects will have to comply with state and local air quality and climate standards.

This includes ministerial projects not subject to CEQA. • Absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

552

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
1 PREPARED BY

The City of Stockton Community Development Department with the assistance from PlaceWorks (Climate, Economics, CEQA).

INTRODUCTION

In 2022, the City Council approved two agreements with the State of California Attorney General (AG) and the Sierra Club, respectively, to improve and facilitate approval of the Mariposa Industrial Park Project in particular, and to promote sustainable warehouse development in general going forward. Per the agreements, a new industrial warehouse ordinance must be presented to the City Council for its consideration by December 31, 2023, including proposed new development standards for qualifying warehouse development projects engaged in logistics uses with a building or buildings totaling 100,000 square feet or larger. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the AG defines qualifying facilities engaged in logistics use as any warehouse or wholesaling and distribution land use which entails facilities to be used for the storage of farm products, furniture, household goods, or other commercial goods of any nature for distribution to wholesalers and/or retails, including cold storage.

Per the Memorandum of Agreement with the AG’s office, if any of the conditions included in Exhibit A to the MOA are not included in the proposed warehouse ordinance, an explanation needs be provided to explain: (1) why such condition is infeasible as defined under CEQA; (2) what alternative conditions are being proposed for inclusion in lieu of any omitted conditions; and (3) how such alternative conditions reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. While the MOA refers to “conditions,” this report herein refers to them as “standards” for the purpose of preparing an ordinance.

To prepare the proposed warehouse ordinance, City staff conducted extensive research and performed outreach with other municipalities that either prepared or are in the process of preparing logistics warehouse development standards (i.e., City of Fontana, City of Irwindale, San Joaquin County, and City of Tracy). Additionally, staff sought input from Stockton residents, local community advocates, industrial developers and their consultants (i.e., architects, environmental professionals), and representatives from State and local regulatory agencies (i.e., California Air Resources Board, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Attorney General’s Office). This was achieved via phone conversations, emails, virtual meetings, Planning Commission workshops, and responses to comments received by staff. A summary of meeting dates is provided below:

• Attorney General’s Representative Meetings: 8/30, 9/13, 9/21, 10/5, 10/19 • Environmental Advisor Meetings
1: 9/11, 9/14, 9/18, 9/21, 9/26, 10/11, 10/16

1 Representa�ves from Sierra Club, Catholic Chari�es of the Diocese of Stockton, and Litle Manila Rising 553

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
2 • Industrial Advisor Meeting2: 9/6, 9/20, 10/5, 10/11 • Meeting with group of Stockton residents expressing interest in the Ordinance3:
9/18, 10/17
• Meeting Climate Specialists (PlaceWorks): 10/3, 10/16 • Meeting with Municipalities with Warehouse Ordinance or Considerations: 9/28, 9/29
• Planning Commission Ad-Hoc Committee Meetings4: 8/30, 9/7, 9/14, 9/21 (9/21 Release of Ad-Hoc Notes)
• Planning Commission Public Study Sessions: 8/10, 8/24, 9/28, 10/12 • Planning Commission Public Hearing: 10/26

In addition, Working Draft standards were emailed to the above groups and posted on the City’s website on 9/15 and 10/12, respectively, for review. This was in addition to drafts presented at the Planning Commission public study sessions.

Project Description
The Project entails a City initiated amendment of the Stockton Municipal Code, Title 16 (Development Code), Chapter 16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) to add a new Section 16.80.390 (Logistic Warehouse) containing development standards for logistics warehouse development. The MOA outlined 26 items as the basis for new development standards to serve as the foundation of a future ordinance. In accordance with Title

16.116, the City Council is the review authority for amendments to the Development Code, based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The process for consideration entails providing public notice of and conducting public hearings, with any decisions needing to be supported by required findings.

Project Objectives
The project objective is to propose an ordinance for adoption that is consistent with the MOA. The proposed ordinance would apply to all qualifying logistics warehouse projects whether discretionary or ministerial and whether CEQA applies or not, and would achieve the following objectives:

• Satisfy obligations of the MOA.
• Reduce potential environmental impacts through enhanced design standards. • Balance the need for high-quality and sustainable design with the project feasibility • Continue to streamline reviews and provide clarity in the development review process.
• Create consistency through objective design standards. • Minimize future legal challenges through enhanced design.

2 Greenlaw Partners (Rob Mitchell, Mike Souza), Dermody Proper�es (George Condon), Lazares Companies (Trevor Smith)
3 Group mee�ngs as well as individual mee�ngs for residents who expressed interest in the effort. 4 Commissioners Gurneel Boparai, Terry Hull, and Rajan Nathaniel 554

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
3 FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES

Staff performed significant research, outreach, and held meetings as summarized above and concluded that certain MOA standards were infeasible. Per the MOA, if certain standards from the MOA are not included in the proposed warehouse ordinance, an explanation needs be provided to explain:

1) Why such condition is infeasible as defined under CEQA 5;
2) What alternative conditions are being proposed for inclusion in lieu of any omitted conditions; and
3) How such alternative conditions reduce potentially significant environmental impacts.

The following provides findings that incorporate feasibility analysis, explanations, responses to comments, and conclusions of staff’s review of all proposed standards that require feasibility consideration consistent with the MOA criteria listed above. This feasibility analysis was prepared by the City with the assistance of outside consultants (PlaceWorks) hired independently by the City.

For this analysis, staff is proposing to incorporate the proposed alternatives into an optional ordinance, referred to in the analysis as "Option C (Industry Standards)” and are herein referred to as the “Project” for the purposes of the feasibility analysis presented in this report. Option C is proposed by members of the industrial development community and has several differences from Option B proposed by staff.

While the Option B feasibility analysis is contained in a separate report, since many of the changes (from MOA measures) in Option C are identical to Option B, a reference to the Option B analysis is provided in sections where the changes were identical. The MOA standards (original MOA Exhibit A language) are considered Option A and are not analyzed as they would accept all of the MOA measures and would not require an alternative.

MOA# 2 Heavy Equipment
6:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) All off-road construction equipment, with
a power rating of less than 19 kilowatts
(e.g., plate compactors, pressure
washers, shall be electric-powered.

The use of electric-powered, battery-
powered, natural gas, or hybrid
Language shortened and simplified for
clarity. Removed the CARB option as it is
unclear what those standards may be as
there does not appear to be a set list to
pull from. Staff will continue to consider
should a CARB list of requirements or
options be established by working

5 "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. [CEQA §15364] 6 The MOA Exhibit A included bullet points and not numbers. For the purposes of tracking changes, those bullet points have been converted to numbers for easier reference. All proposed standards have been kept in the same order.
555

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
4 construction equipment and vehicles are
required during construction if
commercially available meeting the
highest rated California Air Resources
Board (CARB) Tier technology available
at the time of construction may be used.

Subject to all other idling restrictions, off-
road diesel-powered construction
equipment shall not be left in the “on
position” for more than 10 hours per day
professionals or the CARB itself.

Added to Construction Permit Approval
section of new code.

Per discussions with contractors (Teichert
and Knife River), they are not aware of
any large construction equipment, like an
electric scraper being available in the
market today.

Feasibility
Per discussions with contractors (Teichert and Knife River), they are not aware of any large construction equipment, like an electric scraper, being available in the market today. Language removed the CARB option as it is unclear what those standards may be as there does not appear to be a set list to pull from. The developers anticipate significant increases in cost for all electric equipment that is currently available for use in addition to the onsite availability to charge this equipment during the initial construction stages. In addition, since some of the technology may not be readily available, securing equipment to comply with the requirement could lead to delays in construction and securing a tenant due to equipment delays and shortages.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Option C changed the original MOA measure to the use of current state requirements for all logistic warehouses.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed standard is consistent with State, local, and best management practices and will automatically correspond with changes in minimum building requirements (CAL Green) and air quality standards adopted by the state, consistent with State Carbon Neutrality objectives. These standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

MOA# 7 Paint Coating:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) All architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings (e.g., paints)
applied on site shall be consistent with a
VOC content of <10 g/L. Developer or
tenant is not expected to exercise control
over materials painted offsite by a third
party.

Same position as Option B. Architectural
and industrial coatings (e.g., paints)
applied on the qualifying facility(ies) shall
be consistent with the Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) content limits set by
the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District (SJVAPCD) or the current
edition of the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen), whichever
556

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
5 is most restrictive. Developer or tenant is
not required to exercise control over
materials painted offsite.

Analysis:

Same analysis as Option B.

MOA# 10 Building Standards:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) Qualifying facilities shall be constructed in
compliance with the most current edition
of all adopted City building codes,
including the adopted Green Building
Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the applicant/developer
of the qualifying facility(ies) shall
demonstrate (e.g., provide building plans)
that the proposed buildings are designed
and will be built to, at a minimum, meet
the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency
requirements of the Nonresidential
Voluntary Standards of the California
Green Building Standards code, Divisions
A5.1, A5.2 and A5.5, Energy Efficiency as
outlined under Section A5.203.1.2.

Qualifying facilities shall be constructed in
compliance with the most current edition
of all adopted City building codes,
including the adopted Green Building
Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of
building permits, the applicant/developer
of the qualifying facility(ies) shall
demonstrate (e.g., provide building plans)
that the proposed buildings are designed
and will be built.

Analysis:

Feasibility
Same analysis as Option B.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Option C changed the original MOA measure to the use of current state requirements for all logistic warehouses.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed standard is consistent with state, local, and best management practices and will automatically correspond with changes in minimum building requirements (CAL Green) adopted by the State, consistent with State Carbon Neutrality objectives. These standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

557

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
6 MOA #11 Loading Docks:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) Qualifying facilities and their associated
loading docks must be located no closer
than 300 feet from sensitive receptors,
and the City staff should consider the
public health and safety benefits of
requiring a larger buffer, up to 1,000 ft. All
such setbacks will be measured from the
loading dock or any building edge,
whichever is closer to the property line of
any nearby sensitive receptors using the
straight-line method. The setbacks and
buffers required in this ordinance shall
prevail over any less-stringent standards
in the City’s Development Code.

Sensitive receptor shall be defined as any
residence including private homes,
condominiums, apartments, and living
quarters, schools, preschools, daycare
centers, correctional facilities,
parks/recreation facilities, in-home
daycares, and health facilities such as
hospitals, long term care facilities,
retirement and nursing homes.

Loading Dock Door Setback: Unless
determined to be physically impossible,
when adjacent to sensitive receptors, a
loading dock door shall be oriented away
from the sensitive receptor and located a
distance of 300-feet from said receptor,
unless the dock doors are utilized by zero
emission trucks and equipment only.

The building and auto parking can be
located within the 300-foot distance. A
sensitive receptor shall be defined as
schools, health care facilities, libraries,
churches, correctional facilities,
parks/recreational facilities, in home
daycare, health facilities (hospitals, long
term care facilities, retirement and
nursing homes) or more than two directly
contiguous residential units.

Analysis:

Feasibility
Same analysis as Option B.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Option C includes the 300-foot setback for truck dock loading similar to MOA A; however, it does not include the enhanced building setback.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed standard is consistent with State, local, and best management practices.

The new loading standard maintains the intent of the MOA 300-foot buffer and increases the setback distance from the building to the sensitive receptors which will reduce noise, visibility, and possible odor impacts.

558

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
7 MOA# 12 Landscaped Buffer:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) Qualifying facilities must include an onsite
landscape buffer, measured from the
property line of all adjacent sensitive
receptors. The width of the buffer shall be
proportionate to the height of the
warehouse building with specified
minimums as set forth below unless
infeasible. Landscaping shall be installed
at the periphery of the qualifying
facility(ies) site along adjacent rights of
way and the landscaping buffer area shall
not include the right of way itself.

Landscape buffers shall not be required
on interior boundaries of the qualifying
facility(ies).
a) The width of the buffer shall be set at
a 2:1 ratio for all warehouses–for
every 1 foot of building height, the
buffer shall be 2 feet. The landscaping
portion of this buffer shall not be less
than 50% of this buffer, but may
include areas to be used for
bioswales, retention/detention areas
and/or other stormwater and water
quality management areas.
b) The buffer area(s) shall include, at a
minimum, a solid decorative wall(s)
adjacent to sensitive receptors,
natural ground landscaping, and solid
screen buffering trees, as described
below, unless there is an existing solid
block wall. Onsite buffer areas shall
not include deceleration lanes or right-
turn lanes. To the extent allowed by
other applicable City codes, policies,
and regulations the height of the
decorative wall shall be at least 14
feet, except in buffer areas adjacent to
sensitive receptors. For areas
adjacent to sensitive receptors, the
decorative wall shall be a minimum of
14 to 18 feet to the extent otherwise
A 20-foot landscaped planter (buffer) shall
be installed along the property line
adjacent to a sensitive receptor.

The buffer shall be landscaped, and not
be less than 50% of the total buffer size
with two rows of 15-gallon trees planted
along the length of the property line
adjacent to the sensitive receptor.

The buffer landscape can include areas
to be used for bioswales,
retention/detention areas and/or other
stormwater and water quality
management areas in compliance with
SMC Section 16.56 (Landscaping).

The buffer area shall include a minimum
10-foot solid decorative wall(s), or
landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped
berm adjacent to sensitive receptors
unless a noise analysis indicates an
alternative height is needed for sound
attenuation.

All on and off-site landscaping shall
comply with SMC Chapter 16.56
(Landscaping).

All landscaping shall be drought tolerant
and, to the extent feasible, comprised of
species with low biogenic emissions.

Palm trees shall not be utilized.

All landscaping areas shall be properly
irrigated for the life of the facility to allow
for plants and trees to maintain growth
with no undue pruning.

Tree maintenance shall comply with SMC
Section 16.56 as a certified Landscape
Architect must prepare the Preliminary
and Final Landscape plan and certify the
planting is water efficient at the time of
construction permit approval.

Trees shall be installed in automobile
parking areas to provide at least 35%
shade cover of passenger vehicular
parking areas within fifteen years. Trees
shall be planted that can meet this
559

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
8 permitted by city codes, policies, and
regulations.
c) Trees shall be used as part of the
solid screen buffering treatment. Trees
used for this purpose shall be
evergreen, drought tolerant, and shall
be spaced in two rows along the
length of the buffer, with trees in each
row offset, and each tree no greater
than 15 feet on center. Spacing up to
20 feet may be allowed if wide canopy
trees are used sufficient to create wall
of vegetation that filters warehouse
pollution. The property owner, tenant,
operator, and any successors in
interest shall maintain these trees for
the duration of ownership, ensuring
any unhealthy or dead trees are
replaced with a similar tree as soon as
possible.
d) All landscaping shall be drought
tolerant, and to the extent feasible,
species with low biogenic emissions.

Palm trees shall not be utilized.
e) All landscaping areas shall be
properly irrigated for the life of the
qualifying facility(ies) to allow for
plants and trees to maintain growth
with no undue pruning.

requirement. The 35% shade trees
amount can be substituted for solar
canopy upon approval by the Director.

Analysis:

Feasibility
Same analysis as Option B.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Consistent with examples provided by the State Attorney’s Office and other cities within the state, a 20-foot landscape buffer is proposed. A minimum 10-foot sound wall is also proposed unless a noise analysis indicates a taller wall is needed to bring noise levels into compliance with nighttime and daytime standards. In addition, staff added an alternative based on other city examples. That addition requires that trees be installed in automobile parking areas to provide at least 35% shade cover of passenger vehicular parking areas within fifteen years. Trees shall be planted that can meet this requirement; however, parking area trees could be substituted for solar canopies to help provide shade and energy efficiency consistent with current practices in the state.

560

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
9 Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed alternative measure will provide environmental enhancements similar to the MOA standards in regard to landscape and sound wall which will be added and will exceed current local standards. The measure also goes beyond Option A with specific tree types and landscape materials. The increase in landscaping will provide a larger and enhanced buffer between operational uses and the adjacent receptors that will mitigate noise, visual, and potential odor impacts from the facilities.

MOA# 13: Solar, Battery Energy System:

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) Solar Power/Battery Energy Storage
Systems:
a) The building permit application for
qualifying facilities must demonstrate
sufficient solar panels to provide power
for the operation’s base power use at the
start of operations and as base power
use demand increases. The application
shall include analysis of plans to meet (a)
projected power requirements at the start
of operations and as base power demand
increases corresponding to the
implementation of the “clean fleet”
requirements, and (b) generating capacity
of the solar installation.
a) The photovoltaic system(s) shall
include a battery energy storage system
to serve the qualifying facility(ies) in the
event of a power outage to the extent
required by the most current edition of the
California Building Standards Code.
b) Stockton’s Community
Development Department (CDD) shall
verify the size and scope of the solar
project based upon the analysis of the
projected power requirements and
generating capacity as well as the
available solar panel installation space.
c) In the event sufficient space is not
available on the subject lot to
accommodate the needed number of
solar panels to produce the operation’s
base or anticipated power use, the
applicant of the qualifying facility(ies)
shall demonstrate how all available space
Each developer of an individual specific
development proposal shall prepare the
subject building structures in such a way
to accommodate future solar panels
pursuant to applicable Building Code
requirements.

The building permit application for
qualifying facilities must demonstrate that
sufficient power will be provided from
clean energy sources for the operational
base power use at the start of operations.

Developers shall have the following
options, or any combination of options, for
procuring clean energy to meet
operational base power needs for new
building structures. Options may include
1) installing solar panels on the subject
building or building site, and/or 2)
procuring 100% clean energy from AVA
Community Energy, and/or 3)
participating in California’s Community
Solar Program.

Operational base power is defined as the
amount of power required to supply loads
for all ordinary operational uses of the
site. Loads for all ordinary operational
uses of the site include, as non-
exhaustive examples, loads for minimal
heating for fire sprinklers, primary office
space lighting, HVAC, warehouse power,
warehouse lighting, site lighting, minimum
power for dock positions (including
chargers for yard equipment and any
plug-ins for transport refrigeration units),
and the amount of light-duty electric
561

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
10 has been maximized (e.g., roof, parking
areas, etc.) for photovoltaic and battery
energy storage system use. Areas which
provide truck movement may be excluded
from these calculations unless otherwise
deemed acceptable by the supplied
reports and applicable building standards.
d) The owners, operators or tenants,
or qualified solar system contractor
engaged by the developer or tenant, shall
install the system when the City has
approved building permits and the
necessary equipment has arrived. The
tenant/operator of the qualifying
facility(ies) shall commence operation of
the system only when it has received
permission to operate from the utility. The
photovoltaic system owner shall be
responsible for maintaining the system(s)
at not less than 80% of the rated power
for 20 years. At the end of the 20-year
period, the owners, operators, or tenants
shall install a new photovoltaic system
meeting the capacity and operational
requirements of this measure, or continue
to maintain the existing system, for the
life of the qualifying facility(ies).
vehicle supply equipment required by
CalGreen code. Loads for all ordinary
operational uses of the site exclude, as
non-exhaustive examples, loads for
specialized equipment, non-standard
automation or material handling systems,
and chargers for heavy-duty trucks.

The office portion of a building’s rooftop
that is not covered with solar panels or
other utilities shall be constructed with
light colored roofing material with a solar
reflective index of not less than 78.

Electrical Room Sizing. To ensure that
warehouse electrical rooms are
sufficiently sized to accommodate the
potential need for additional electrical
panels, either a secondary electrical room
shall be provided in the building, or the
primary electrical room shall be sized
25% larger than is required to satisfy the
service requirements of the building or
the electrical gear shall be installed with
the initial construction with 25% excess
demand capacity.

Warehouse Dock Seal Doors. Exterior
loading dock doors that are adjacent to
conditioned or indirectly conditioned
spaces shall have dock seals or dock
shelters installed at the time of permitting.

Onsite Equipment Infrastructure. Project
should provide infrastructure to support
charging of electric power onsite
equipment.

Revised to define base power and add
option for when “clean” energy sources
are available. Removed the compliance
provisions as the City will rely on the state
and responsible agencies to direct staff to
best practices in common usage and
changes to state law. Added to Building
Design section of new code.

562

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
11 Analysis:

Feasibility
Same analysis as Option B.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Option C is very similar to Option B; however, it provides more options for providing that base power though the use of solar, clean energy and other means. The solar and battery requirement remain as staff has added a definition of what “base power” is as it was lacking from the original standards and is not a definition commonly used in planning and building profession. In addition, staff is proposing an option for the use of “clean” energy sources as an alternative to installing solar equipment when they become available for use in projects. Staff is proposing to remove the monitoring component for the upgrades and will rely on changes to state law or projects specific reviews.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed alternative will still result in positive environmental effects on the environment, there are simply more options being provided for the industry to have greater flexibility to determine what is best for their individual project. While energy efficiency is not a required impact under CEQA, it does influence climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases. The proposed standard is consistent with state, local, and best management practices.

MOA# 14/17 EV Fleet and Monitoring

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) #14- The lease agreement should include
requirements for sustainable business
practices, such as the use of trucks from
2014 or newer that transition to zero-
emission vehicles. Clean fleet standards
must be met by all other vehicles on-site.
(SEE MOA FOR FULL TEXT)
To facilitate the installation of future
electric vehicle charging stations for
heavy-heavy duty (HHD) trucks, in
connection with each individual
development proposal, the subject
building improvement plans shall identify
an area for future HHD truck charging
stations and the subject developer shall
install conduit from the power source to
the identified area.
#17- Facilities need to purchase electric
vehicles to comply with clean fleet rules.

Reports are due every two years until
requirements are met. Public hearings will
evaluate compliance. Annual reports are
required if requirements aren't met by
December 31, 2027. After achieving a
100% clean fleet, reports are due every
three years. Display signs prohibiting off-
site parking and truck idling. Report
Same position as Option B. No standard
is recommended since the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) is responsible
for regulating manufacturers of EV heavy
duty and medium duty vehicles and
enforcing state standards for electric
vehicle (EV) heavy duty and medium duty
fleet compliance requirements.
563

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
12 complaints about dust, fumes, odors, and
parking to designated representatives
and the air pollution control district.

Complaints must be addressed within 72
hours. (SEE MOA FOR FULL TEXT)

#14/17
Analysis:

Same analysis as Option B.

MOA #15 E V Charging Facilities

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) Electric charging facilities shall be
provided onsite sufficient to charge all
automobiles, and electric trucks
domiciled on the site.

Provide EV charging stations for automobiles
per building code and provide conduit to a
future designated area for Heavy Duty Truck
Charging Facility.

Analysis:

Feasibility
The development community has indicated it can be very difficult to assess at the time of building permits, how many extra EV spaces or capacity will be needed for future domiciled vehicle demands and if the initial estimate is lesser than demand, it could render future tenants in violation of this ordinance. This unknown would lead to increases in cost due to supplementing EV areas beyond the required parking areas in addition to construction costs for their maintenance.

Alternative Standards Proposed
Option C changed the original MOA measure to the use of current state requirements for all logistic warehouses. Since required parking areas will have EV parking spaces, it will be recommended that the facilities use those current spaces for domicile vehicle outside of normal business hours.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts
The proposed standard is consistent with state, local, and best management practices and will automatically correspond with changes in minimum building requirements (CAL Green) and air quality standards adopted by the state, consistent with State Carbon Neutrality objectives. These standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

MOA# 18 Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs):

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option B) For qualifying facilities at which cold
storage and associated transport
refrigeration units (TRUs) are proposed or
Where transport by temperature-
controlled trucks or trailers is proposed,
on-site electrical hookups shall be
564

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
13 may be a future use, unless the owner of
the facility records a covenant on the title
of the underlying property ensuring that
the property cannot be used to provide
cold storage, a conduit shall be installed
during construction of the building shell
from the electrical room to 100% of the
loading dock doors that have potential to
serve the refrigerated space. If tenant
improvement building permits are issued
for any such cold storage space, electric
plug-in units shall be installed at every
dock door servicing the cold storage
space to allow TRUs to plug in and truck
operators a with TRUs shall be required
to utilize the electric plug-in units when at
loading docks serving such refrigerated
space.
provided at loading docks. Idling or use of
auxiliary truck engine power to power
climate-control equipment shall be
prohibited.

Analysis:

Same analysis as Option B.

MOA #25: (REMOVE) Development Agreement Monitoring

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) Every development agreement, approved
and executed in conjunction with the
applicable warehouse, shall be subject to
periodic review of the
applicant’s/contracting party’s compliance
with the agreement, by the Commission,
during the full term of the agreement, as
specified in the agreement, but in no case
less frequently than once every 12
months as required per SMC 16.128.110
(Periodic Review). Appropriate fees to
cover the City’s cost(s) to conduct the
periodic reviews in compliance with the
Council’s fee resolution shall be collected
from the applicant/contracting party.

Same position as Option B. Annual
compliance reviews are already required
by State Law and the Development Code.

Analysis:

Same analysis as Option B.

565

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
14 MOA #26: (REMOVE) Community Engagement

MOA Original Language (Option A) Proposed Alternative (Option C) A neighborhood meeting shall be required
for one or more discretionary permits for
qualifying facility(ies) application requiring
Council review. At the discretion of the
Director, a neighborhood meeting may be
required for other applications consistent
with SMC section 16.88.025
(Neighborhood Meetings).

Same position as Option B. Conflicts with
ministerial reviews and already required
for approvals requiring public hearings
and annexations.

Analysis:

Same analysis as Option B.

FINDING SUMMARY
The City finds that the Project would have the following environmental and economic benefits:

Feasibility Finding

• Most of the Option A standards have been maintained and included within Option B (discussed in a separate report) and Option C.
• Option A standards for 11, 12, 13, and 14 have been revised but maintain original components of the Option A request by the MOA. These revisions will exceed current practices and standards for regulating industrial warehouse design and operation.
• The remaining measures that do not implement the original MOA Option A standards are still consistent with state, local, and best management practices and will automatically correspond with changes in minimum building requirements (CAL Green) and air quality standards adopted by the state, consistent with State Carbon Neutrality objectives. This includes project reviews, applicable construction standards and practices, and monitoring from regional and state agencies.
• If the following MOA standards are applied, Industrial asking lease rates are projected to increase by 64.8 Percent.

Amount Percentage
Base Asking Lease Rate $0.71
MOA #10 – Open Space + 0.01 1.4
MOA #10 – Dock Seal Doors + 0.03 4.2
MOA #11 – 300’ Loading Dock Buffer land costs + 0.09 12.7 MOA #12 – 300’ Landscaped Buffer + 0.06 8.5
MOA #13 – Solar/Battery Costs + 0.27 38
Increased Asking Lease Rate ($/sq. ft./month) $1.17 64.8%

566

ATTACHMENT I
Op�on C Feasibility Analysis
15 Alternative Standards Finding

• The adjusted conditions will provide enhanced mitigation for future project review that will lead to greenhouse gas reduction via more energy efficient buildings. The Project includes enhanced designs standards that reduce future impacts from projects. The standards have been designed to be objective and applied to all applicable projects.
• The proposed standards are more agreeable to the development community as many of the original standards in the MOA included measures that were not quantifiable and had many unforeseen impacts as they involved enforcement of standards that have not been established by the state or its enforcement agencies.

Some of the standards not included in the Option B standards (#7,10,13, 14, 17) require the abundant use of technology that is not in common usage or monitoring that exceeds city staff resources and expertise or conflicts with internal review or noticing processes.

Reduction of Environmental Impacts Finding

• Option C standards exceed the City’s current standards and will add enhanced design features to further mitigate future warehouse design and operations. • The proposed measures are consistent with many General Plan policies for environmental review, enhanced design standards, and balance requirements that do not adversely impact existing industries and property owners in the City. • The proposed standards are consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code and do not conflict with other industrial and zoning standards and would supersede any conflicting measure as they are specific to logistic warehouses of a certain size.
• The adjusted conditions will provide enhanced mitigation for future project review that will lead to greenhouse gas reduction via more energy efficient buildings. The Project includes enhanced designs standards that reduce future impacts from projects. The standards have been designed to be objective and applied to all applicable projects.
• The State and Regional Agencies will continue to enforce stricter climate change requirements regarding air quality, water quality, and building standards. All future projects will have to comply with state and local air quality and climate standards.

This includes ministerial projects not subject to CEQA. • Absent adoption of the ordinance, ministerial projects would not be required to exceed minimum standards, therefore, these standards will lessen environmental impacts for all future projects and align with the state’s objectives on reducing greenhouse gases.

567
Resolution No.2O23-1O-26-O5O3

STOCKTON PLANNING COMMISSION

RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL FIND NO FURTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE STOCKTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW

INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
In 2022, the City Council approved two agreements with the State of California Attorney General (AG) and the Sierra Club (respectively) to promote responsible industrial development. Per the agreements, a new industrial warehouse ordinance must be presented to the Council for their consideration by December 31, 2023, including new zoning standards for qualifying warehouse development over 100,000 square feet; and Since the City's current Development Code Overhaul may not meet the deadline, the proposed standards are being presented as a separate ordinance to be added to Title 16 of the Stockton Municipal Code; and
The Planning Commission conducted study sessions on the matter on August 10th, August 24th, September 28th, and October 12th. In addition to the study session, a Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee was formed and met weekly to discuss the standards while staff conducted over twenty meetings with industry and environmental advisors, residents, stakeholders, cities in the state with similar ordinances, and numerous consultants working on this issue throughout the state; and At the conclusion of the October 12th study session, the Commission directed staff to prepare options so that it could consider and make a recommendation to Council; and On October 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 16.116.040(0), to consider the proposed Amendments, at which all times all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission expressed their preference for recommending the City Council adopt Attachment ji_ (Option Q; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON, AS FOLLOWS:

1. Pursuant to SMC Section 16.116.050(8), the Planning Commission makes the following Mandatory Findings of Fact for the Development Code Amendments:
a. Finding #1: The proposed amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with general land uses, objectives, policies, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan on balance and would not create any inconsistencies with this Development Code.

ATTACHMENT J
568
Evidence: The proposed amendments to Title 16 are needed for consistency with General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents. b. Finding #2: The proposed amendment will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City.

Evidence: The purpose of the proposed amendments is to comply with the General Plan policies to proactively mitigate potential impacts. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.
c. Finding #3: The proposed amendment complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines.

Evidence: The proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061 (b)(3), (Common Sense Exemption) and that no future environmental review is required for proposed code amendments pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan and Community Plan).

For Section 15061(b)(3) Exemption (General Rule "Common Sense'J CEQA requires the analysis of agency approvals for discretionary actions that could lead to a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed Project involves discretionary amendments to the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) but is exempt from CEQA review as it would not significantly impact the environment. The zoning code amendments would amend the City's zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistic warehouses. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by­ case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. The Project is exempt from CEQA because it would not significantly affect the environment.

For Section 15183 (General Plan Consistency) Exemption
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council as part of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan process (SCH# 2017052062). The proposed code amendments would amend the City's zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistic

ATTACHMENT J
569
warehouses. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the GPEIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required per CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan or Community Plan).
d. Finding #4 (Development Code Amendments): The proposed amendment would be internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development Code.

Evidence: The proposed amendments are needed to implement General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

2. The Planning Commission herby approves a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Stockton Development Code (Exhibit 1), based on the findings and evidence detailed above.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED __ O=-c=-=t=ob=-=e:....:...r-=2..:::...6,L....::2=-=0=2..:::...3 __ ATTEST:

MltaHAEt MCD�WELL, SECRETARY
City of Stockton Planning Commission

WAQAR IZVI, CHAIR
City of Stockton Planning

ATTACHMENT J
570
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE STOCKTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STOCKTON AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I: FINDINGS AND INTENT
The City Council is authorized by section 16.212.030 of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) to adopt amendments to Title 16 (Development Code) based on the Mandatory Findings of Fact for Development Code Amendments per SMC 16.116.050.

1. Finding #1: The proposed amendment ensures and maintains internal consistency with general land uses, objectives, policies, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan on balance and would not create any inconsistencies with this Development Code.

Evidence: The proposed amendments to Title 16 are needed for consistency with General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents.

2. Finding #2: The proposed amendment will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the City.

Evidence: The purpose of the proposed amendments is to comply with the General Plan policies to proactively mitigate potential impacts. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

3. Finding #3: The proposed amendment complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines.

Evidence: The proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b)(3), (Common Sense Exemption) and that no future environmental review is required for proposed code amendments pursuant to CEQA Section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan and Community Plan).

For Section 15061(b)(3) Exemption (General Rule “Common Sense”) CEQA requires the analysis of agency approvals for discretionary actions that

ATTACHMENT J
571
could lead to a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed Project involves discretionary amendments to the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) but is exempt from CEQA review as it would not significantly impact the environment. The zoning code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistic warehouses.

These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. The Project is exempt from CEQA because it would not significantly affect the environment.

For Section 15183 (General Plan Consistency) Exemption
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council as part of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan process (SCH# 2017052062). The proposed code amendments would amend the City’s zoning standards to add enhanced development standards to logistic warehouses. These amendments are consistent with General Plan policies to enhance project reviews, environmental protections, and balance changes to encourage a strong industrial and goods movement market. The amendment would not result in a physical change to the environment as future projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for this consistency to Federal, State, General Plan, zoning, and developmental standards. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the GPEIR. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required per CEQA Guidelines section 15183 (Consistency with General Plan or Community Plan).

4. Finding #4 (Development Code Amendments): The proposed amendment would be internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Development Code.

Evidence: The proposed amendments are needed to implement General Plan policies to provide enhanced development measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts from future projects. These amendments are internally consistent with all policy and supportive regulatory documents. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City as they will not result in a physical change in the environment. Future proposals will be reviewed for their compliance with all federal, state, and local standards.

SECTION II: AMENDMENT OF CODE

ATTACHMENT J
572
Title 16, Chapter 16.80 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) is amended to add a new Section 16.80.390 (Logistic Warehouses) to read, as follows:

16.80.390 Industrial Warehouse Standards
This section establishes standards for logistic warehouses in zoning districts where they are allowed in compliance with the provisions of Division 2 (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zone-Specific Standards).

A. Applicability. The standards will apply to the following applications:

1. These standards shall apply to logistic warehouses 100,000 square feet in size or greater.

B. Development Standards.

1. Site Plan Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (site plan), grading and improvement plans, and construction permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistic Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. Cool Surfaces. Cool surface treatments shall be added to all drive aisles and parking areas, or such areas shall be constructed with a solar reflective cool pavement such as concrete or other materials used in common construction practices.
b. Unless determined to be physically infeasible, when adjacent to sensitive receptors, a loading dock door shall be oriented away from the sensitive receptor and located a distance of 300-foot feet from said receptor, unless the dock doors are utilized by zero emission trucks and equipment only. The building and auto parking can be located within the 300-foot distance.
c. A 20-foot landscaped planter shall be install along the property line and the receptor buffer.
d. The buffer shall be landscaped not be less than 50 percent of the total buffer size with two rows of 15-gallon trees planted along the length of the entire buffer.
e. The buffer landscape can include areas to be used for bioswales, retention/detention areas and/or other stormwater and water quality management areas in compliance with SMC Section 16.56 (Landscaping).
f. The buffer area shall include a minimum 10-foot solid decorative wall(s), or landscaped berm and wall, or landscaped berm adjacent to sensitive receptors unless a noise analysis indicates an alternative height is needed for sound attenuation.
g. All on and off-site landscaping shall comply with SMC Chapter

16.56 (Landscaping).

ATTACHMENT J
573
h. All landscaping shall be drought tolerant and, to the extent feasible, comprised of species with low biogenic emissions. Palm trees shall not be utilized.
i. All landscaping areas shall be properly irrigated for the life of the facility to allow for plants and trees to maintain growth with no undue pruning.
j. Tree maintenance shall comply with SMC Section 16.56 as a certified Landscape Architect must prepare the Preliminary and Final Landscape plan and certify the planting is water efficient at the time of construction permit approval.
k. Trees shall be installed in automobile parking areas to provide at least 35% shade cover of passenger vehicular parking areas within fifteen years. Trees shall be planted that can meet this requirement.
l. To facilitate the installation of future electric vehicle charging stations for heavy-heavy duty (HHD) trucks, in connection with each individual development proposal, the subject building improvement plans shall identify an area for future HHD truck charging stations and the subject developer shall install conduit from the power source to the identified area.
m. Provide EV charging stations for automobiles per building code and provide conduit to a future designated area for Heavy Duty Turck Charging Facility.
n. All truck turning movements at entrances, exits, and street intersections shall be located on local industrial, collector or arterial streets and all vehicle entries shall be designed to prevent truck access to local and back-up residential collector streets. o. All trucks and commercial vehicles serving the facility shall occur in compliance with the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map in SMC 10.08.030 and Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) Truck Route Map.
p. Off-street loading shall comply with Section 16.64.110 Off-street loading space standards.
q. Signs shall be posted inside and outside of the building and facility indicating all off-site parking is prohibited for adjacent street that do not permit parking.
r. All truck driveway exits shall include signs directing truck drivers to the truck routes identified in the City of Stockton Truck Traffic Route Map and State Highway System designations.
s. Upon commencement of operations, the tenant/operator of the facility shall be required to restrict truck idling on site to a maximum of three (3) minutes, subject to exceptions defined by CARB’s commercial vehicle idling requirements.

2. Building Design. The following standards shall apply to all entitlement reviews (design review), grading and improvement plans, and construction

ATTACHMENT J
574
permit reviews associated with facilities subject to the Logistic Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. Architectural and industrial coatings (e.g. paints) applied on the qualifying facility(ies) shall be consistent with the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content limits set by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) or the current edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen),
whichever is most restrictive. Developer or tenant is not required to exercise control over materials painted offsite.
b. Qualifying facilities shall be constructed in compliance with the most current edition of all adopted City building codes, including the adopted Green Building Standards Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer of the qualifying facility(ies) shall demonstrate (e.g., provide building plans) that the proposed buildings are designed and will be built. c. Each developer of an individual specific development proposal shall prepare the subject building structures in such a way to accommodate future solar panels pursuant to applicable Building Code requirements.
d. The office portion of a building’s rooftop that is not covered with solar panels or other utilities shall be constructed with light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index of not less than 78.
e. As soon as reasonably practicable, after the State of California allows formal submittal of applications tied to the California’s Community Solar Program, each developer shall apply for entry into California’s Community Solar Program and provide evidence to the Community Development Director of such submittal. If allowed by law, after the Community Solar program sells 51% of its power to low-income residents in Stockton, the building owner or solar producer may allocate a percentage of the building’s remaining Community Solar power to occupants of the subject buildings. If the formal submittal is denied by the State of California, one additional good faith effort to re-apply shall be attempted. If accepted or denied twice, this measure is considered satisfied as it relates to California’s Community Solar program.
f. The developer shall include a provision in each lease that requires tenants to purchase clean power from East Bay
Community Energy.
g. Electrical Room Sizing. To ensure that warehouse electrical rooms are sufficiently sized to accommodate the potential need for additional electrical panels, either a secondary electrical room shall be provided in the building, or the primary electrical room

ATTACHMENT J
575
shall be sized 25% larger than is required to satisfy the service requirements of the building or the electrical gear shall be installed with the initial construction with 25% excess demand capacity.
h. Warehouse Dock Seal Doors. Exterior loading dock doors that are adjacent to conditioned or indirectly conditioned spaces shall have dock seals or dock shelters installed at the time of permitting. (CALGreen Tier 2)
i. Onsite Equipment Infrastructure. Project should provide infrastructure to support charging of electric power onsite equipment.
j. Demonstration of compliance with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review) is required prior to obtaining any building permit for a qualifying facility.
k. Property owner shall provide facility operator with information on incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Program and voucher incentive program and shall require all facility operators to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
SmartWay Program.

3. Construction Permit Approval. The following standards shall apply to all construction related activity associated with facilities subject to the Logistic Warehouse standards. A copy of these standards shall be included on the approved (issued) construction plan and kept on-site during all phases of construction.
a. Qualifying facilities shall comply with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) requirements prior to beginning construction.
b. All off-road construction equipment, with a power rating of less than 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers, shall be electric-powered.
c. Subject to all other idling restrictions, off-road diesel-powered construction equipment shall not be left in the “on position” for more than 10 hours per day.
d. Temporary electrical hookups to all construction yards and associated work areas shall be required.
e. Temporary signage shall be posted throughout the construction site indicating truck idling lasting more than five (5) minutes is prohibited. The signs shall include all idling and restrictions in additional to contact information for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s for those interested in filing a complaint.
f. The construction contractor(s) shall maintain on the construction site an inventory of construction equipment, maintenance records,

ATTACHMENT J
576
and datasheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
g. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to establish one or more locations for food or catering truck service to construction workers and to cooperate with food service providers to provide consistent food service.
h. The facilities shall require the construction contractor to provide transit and ridesharing information for construction workers.

C. On-Going Operations: The following standards shall be implemented during all on-going business.

1. All forklifts, yard trucks, and other equipment used for on-site movement of trucks, trailers and warehoused goods, as well as landscaping maintenance equipment used on the site, shall be electrically powered or zero-emission unless new technology is determined to be commercially unavailable.

2. Where transport by temperature-controlled trucks or trailers is proposed, on-site electrical hookups shall be provided at loading docks. Idling or use of auxiliary truck engine power to power climate-control equipment shall be prohibited.

3. Consistent with the General Plan, a Traffic Demand transportation demand management program (TDM) to indicate truck movement and parking consistent with state and local standards.

4. Employers shall provide employees with transit route and schedule information on systems serving the facility area and coordinate ridesharing amongst employees.

5. Employers shall provide on-site locations for food or catering truck service and cooperate with food service providers to accommodate food service to operations employees.

6. All outdoor areas allowing smoking shall be located at least 25 feet from the nearest property line.

7. All trucks, supportive vehicles and equipment shall be kept onsite in all loading, storage, and parking areas, and kept behind locked gates during nonbusiness hours.

8. Truck queuing, idling, or circling of vehicles, onsite or on public streets adjacent to the facility is prohibited.

9. Periodic yard and parking area sweeping shall be provided to minimize dust generation.

10. Diesel Generators are prohibited, except in emergency situations and during construction when establishing the facility’s new electrical service connection. In those temporary cases, all generators shall have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that meets CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards.

SECTION III. SEVERABILITY

ATTACHMENT J
577
If any part of this Ordinance is held invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.

SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its passage.

ADOPTED:

EFFECTIVE:

KEVIN J. LINCOLN II
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton

ATTACHMENT J
578
From: Jonathan Pruitt
To: Matt Diaz; Michael McDowell; Stephanie Ocasio; Tristan Osborn Cc: patricia barrett; Margo Praus; Alicia Valenzuela; Esperanza Vielma; Ector Olivares; Gloria Alonso; Eliza Garza; Eric Parfrey
Subject: Re: Our Option D for the Stockton Warehouse Ordinance update Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:30:40 PM
Attachments: Stockton Warehouse Ordinance Comparison Table with Option D_updated_ (1).pdf Stockton Warehouse Ordinance Update Option D Recommendation_.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

Hello again!
I wanted to share an updated version of the previous documents I shared with you in the email chain. The updated ones provide clarity on what Option D is which are attached below.

For clarity, Option D covers the measures we’d like to see amended (#10 - 11, 13 - 15) from the comparison table. We are okay with measure #s 0 - 9, 12, 16 - 24 as stated in Option B.

We ask if we can have this included in your staff report and as an attachment for the specific agenda item.

Thank you,
Jonathan Alexander Pruitt
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 4:56ௗPM Jonathan Pruitt <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello all!
I realized that we haven't officially shared the Stockton EJ Coalition's Option D with City Staff. Attached are our Option D recommendation documents. It would be great if this was incorporated as part of the agenda item attachments and part of the staff report.

Thank you,
Jonathan Alexander Pruitt
Master's in Public Health Candidate
Johns Hopkins University
[email protected]
Attachment K
579
Stockton Warehouse Ordinance Update
Stockton Environmental Justice Coalition Recommendation (OPTION D) Below is the Stockton Environmental Justice Coalition’s recommendation for Stockton Warehouse Ordinance Update, referred to as Option D. Option D covers the measures we’d like to see amended (#10 - 11, 13 - 15). We are okay with measure #s 0 - 9, 12, 16 - 24 as stated in Option B.

Measures:
#10 Building
Standards
Recommended amendment language: Logistic warehouses 250,000 square feet and greater shall meet the Tier 1 energy efficient standards of the CALGreen Code Divisions A5.1, A5.2, and A5.5.

Justification: Tier 1 for warehouses 250,000 sq feet and greater is a good medium compared to Option B.
#11
Setbacks
Recommended amendment language: Building Setbacks: 2:1 ratio of building setback to building height. Loading Dock Setback: When adjacent to sensitive receptors, a 300-foot buffer shall separate all truck loading docks . Loading docks shall be oriented away from nearby sensitive receptors. Loading docks, truck entries, and truck drive aisles shall not abut adjacent sensitive receptors.

Justification: In all three options, A, B, and C, what is missing are the truck entries and truck drive aisles (the aisles for the trucks to take when on the lot). The City of Fontana (a city that the City of Stockton has relied on as an advisor to this warehouse ordinance update process) is updating its own warehouse ordinance on setbacks where there are no contingencies to orienting loading docks, truck drive aisles, and truck entries next to sensitive receptors. Refer to their planning commission resolution (also screenshot below). The City of Stockton staff’s option B for the setbacks states: “Loading Dock Setback: Unless determined to be physically infeasible, when adjacent to sensitive receptors, a 300-foot buffer shall separate all truck loading docks unless the areas within the 300-foot buffer utilize zero-emission trucks and equipment.” However, the City of Fontana has actually recognized that it is physically and feasibly possible to provide setbacks away from sensitive receptors. Therefore, the City of Stockton should follow and not place contingencies on the setback.

City of Stockton’s Option B language:
(Compared to)
City of Fontana’s Setback language
Attachment K
580
#13 Solar Recommended amendment language:

All facilities shall be designed to accommodate enough space for all solar panels and batteries.

On buildings over 250,000 square feet and greater, prior to issuance of a business license, the City shall ensure solar panels are installed and operated in such a manner that they will supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the facility including the parking areas.

Operational base power is defined as the amount of power required to supply loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site. Loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site includes, as non-exhaustive examples, loads for minimal heating for fire sprinklers, primary office space lighting, HVAC, warehouse power, warehouse lighting, site lighting, minimum power for dock positions (including chargers for yard equipment, and any plug-ins for transport refrigeration units), and the amount of light-duty electric vehicle supply equipment required by CalGreen. Loads for all ordinary operational uses of the site exclude, as non-exhaustive examples, loads for specialized equipment, non-standard automation or material handling systems, and chargers for heavy-duty trucks.

The energy storage systems shall have enough battery capacity for 48 hours to serve the photovoltaic system in the event of a blackout. Augmented by green energy (PG&E and/or East Bay Community Energy)
The solar system installation should be done by owners, operators, tenants, or a qualified solar system contractor. Operation should begin after receiving permission from the utility.

The owner is responsible for maintaining the system at 80% of rated power for 20 years.

After 20 years, install a new system or maintain the existing one for the life of the facility.

Justification: The City of Fontana has an ordinance that ensures that solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100% of the power of the facility. Here’s the direct link to the ordinance.

Attachment K
581
#14 EV
Fleets
Recommended amendment language:

Add to Option B Ordinance the following Option A requirements with underlined change
C. On-Going Operations: The following standards shall be implemented during all on-going business.

1. All forklifts, yard trucks, and other equipment used for on-site movement of trucks, trailers and warehoused goods, as well as landscaping maintenance equipment used on the site, shall be electrically powered or zero-emission.

2. All facilities shall maintain a zero emission vehicles/trucks required to meet the "clean fleet" requirements above as set forth by the California Air Resources Board’s “Advanced Clean Fleets” rule adopted in April 2023. The rule requires Electric Vehicle (EV) fleets in accordance with the following schedule:
- 20% of medium-duty fleet electric by 2025
- 50% of heavy-duty (Class 8) fleet electric or ZEV by 2030 - 100% of all fleet electric or ZEV by 2040

3. Within 30 days of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, the tenant/operator shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of CDD staff that the applicable clean fleet requirements are being met. Any extension of time granted to implement this condition shall be limited to the shortest period necessary to allow for 100% electrification under the clean fleet requirements.

4. The tenant/operator shall submit similar reports every two years thereafter until full compliance with the applicable clean fleet requirements is achieved.

5. If the tenant/operator has not met each 100% clean fleet requirement by December 31, 2027, then the tenant/operator shall submit reports annually until the 100% clean fleet requirement is implemented.

6. After the 100% clean fleet requirement has been implemented, the tenant/operator shall submit to the CDD an on-going compliance report every three years containing all necessary documentation to verify that the clean fleet requirements are being met.

7. Each subsequent on-going compliance report shall be due within 30 days of, but not later than, the three-year anniversary of the preceding due date.

8. Refrigeration Units: proposed cold storage and associated transport refrigerated units (TRUs) shall include electric plug-in units at loading docks serving such refrigerated space.

Justification:

Ensures installation of electric vehicle charging stations, especially for heavy-duty trucks while being conscious of market. Medium-duty and heavy-duty electric vehicles are commercially available through these sites https://californiahvip.org/vehicles/ and https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti/
2021 Catalog of EV availability Guide from SDG&E
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/2021_sdge_electric_vehicle_availability_guide_1. pdf
ZEV grants are available today:
https://fleets.pge.com/
Attachment K
582
#15 Electric
Charging
Add to Option C (industry group)
Provide EV charging stations onsite sufficient to charge all for automobiles and electric trucks domiciled on the site per to meet the Tier 1 energy efficient standards of the CALGreen Code, and provide a conduit to a future designated area for Heavy Duty Truck Charging Facility. Conduit should be provided on the site to serve 50% of the number of truck docking stations. Location of conduit is at discretion of the developer (e.g., truck trailer parking spaces or docking stations).

Attachment K
583
Stockton Warehouse Ordinance Update
Stockton Environmental Justice Coalition Recommendation (OPTION D) BelowistheStocktonEnvironmentalJusticeCoalition’srecommendationforStocktonWarehouseOrdinanceUpdate,referredtoasOptionD.OptionDcoversthemeasureswe’dliketosee amended(#10-11,13-15).Weareokaywithmeasure#s0-9,12,16-24asstatedinOptionB.

OTHER -- ZONING CHANGE
The City shall amend the Stockton Municipal Code to require discretionary approval of all large warehouse projects. The Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) currently allows the construction of “Warehouses” and “Wholesaling and distribution” uses by right, with no requirement of a discretionary use permit with environmental review and public notice and hearings.

Section 16.20.020 of the SMC must be amended to require conditional use permit approval for all warehouse and distribution center uses over (250,000) square feet in size. Table 2.2 (“Allowable Land Uses and Permit Requirements”) in Sec.16.20.020 must be amended to show that “Warehouses” and “Wholesaling and distribution” uses shall be listed as “C” (conditional) not “P” (permitted by right) for the IL, IG, and PT zoning districts. See https://library.qcode.us/lib/stockton_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_16-division_2-chapter_16_20-16_20_020.

Measure
#
Option A- Proposed MOA Ordinance
Standards
Option B- Adjust MOA Ordinance Standards Option C- Proposed Industry Ordinance Standards
Option D - Proposed
Community EJ Standards
10 Allbuildingsshallbeconstructedconsistent
withtheCalifornia(CAL)GreenBuilding
Tier2StandardsEnergyEfficientStandard
Section5.1,5.2,5.5.

Logisticwarehouses400,000squarefeetandgreater
shallmeettheTier1energyefficientstandardsofthe
CALGreenCodeDivisionsA5.1,A5.2,andA5.5.

Qualifyingfacilitiesshallbeconstructedin
compliancewiththemostcurrenteditionofall
adoptedCitybuildingcodes,includingthe
adoptedGreenBuildingStandardsCode.

Priortotheissuanceofbuildingpermits,the
applicant/developerofthequalifying
facility(ies)shalldemonstrate(e.g.,provide
buildingplans)thattheproposedbuildings
aredesignedandwillbebuilt.

Logisticwarehouses250,000
squarefeetandgreatershall
meettheTier1energyefficient
standardsofthe CALGreenCode
DivisionsA5.1,A5.2,andA5.5.
11 Allloadingdocksshallbelocatedno
closerthan300feetfromallsensitive
receptorgroups.Thedistanceshallbe
measuredfromtheloadingdockorany
buildingedge,whicheverisclosertothe
propertylineofanynearbysensitive
receptordefinedasanyresidence,
includingprivatehomes,condominiums,
apartments,livingquarters,schools,
● BuildingSetbacks:2:1ratioofbuildingheightto
buildingsetback.
● LoadingDockSetback:

Unlessdeterminedtobephysicallyinfeasible
whenadjacenttosensitivereceptors,a300-foot
buffershallseparatealltruckloadingdocks
unlesstheareaswithinthe300-footbuffer
utilizezero-emissiontrucksandEquipment.
● Forthepurposesofdefiningreceptorsforthe
LoadingDockDoorSetback:

Unlessdeterminedtobe
physicallyinfeasible,whenadjacentto
sensitivereceptors,aloadingdockdoorshall
beorientedawayfromthesensitivereceptor
andlocatedadistanceof300-footfeetfrom
said
receptorunlessthedockdoorsareutilizedby
zero-emissiontrucksandequipmentonly.The
BuildingSetbacks:2:1ratioof
buildingsetbacktobuilding
height.Loadingdocks,truck
entries,andtruckdriveaisles
shallnotabutadjacentsensitive
receptors.LoadingDockSetback:

Whenadjacenttosensitive
receptors,a300-footbuffershall
separatealltruckloadingdocks.

Attachment K
584
preschools,daycarecenters,in-home
daycares,healthfacilitiessuchas
hospitals,longtermcarefacilities,
retirementandnursinghomes,community
centers,placesofworship,parks
(excludingtrails),prisons,and
dormitories.
300-footbufferrequirements,receptorsshall
includeallschools,healthcarefacilities,
libraries,churches,correctionalfacilities,
parks/recreationalfacilities,in-homedaycare,
healthfacilities(hospital,long-termcare
facilities,retirement,andnursinghomes),or
morethantwodirectlycontiguousresidential
units.
buildingandautoparkingcanbelocated
withinthe300-footdistance
Loadingdocksshallbeoriented
awayfromnearbysensitive
receptors.

Justification:TheCityofFontana
(acitythattheCityofStockton
hasrelieduponasanadvisorto
thiswarehouseordinanceupdate
process)isupdatingitsown
warehouseordinanceon
setbackswherethereareno
contingenciestoorientingloading
docks,truckdriveaisles,and
truckentriesnexttosensitive
receptors.Refertotheir planning
commissionresolution.TheCity
ofFontanahasactually
recognizedthatitisphysically
andfeasiblypossibletoprovide
setbacksawayfromsensitive
receptors.

CityofRiversidehasa800foot
setbackfor100ksqfeet
warehouse
12 ● Alllandscapingadjacentto
residentialorinstitutionzoning
designationsorusesshallinstallan
onsitelandscapebuffer.Thebuffer
shallextendthepropertyline
● A40-footlandscapedplanter(buffer)shallbe
installedalongthepropertylineadjacentto
sensitivereceptors.
● Thelandscapeplantershallincludetworowsof
15-gallontreesplantedalongthelengthofthe
OptionB,lastbullet:Useofconcreteinareas
thatcanbeasphaltwillhavesignificantcost
implications.Thesecondtolastbullet(shade
treesinparkingareas)willmitigateheat
islands.

OkaywithaddingOptionC
recommendationforMeasure12
buthavingOptionAthebase.

Attachment K
585
abuttingthosedesignationsand
usesandbesizedata2:1ratiofor
theclosestwarehouse
building(s)–foreveryone(1)footof
buildingheight,thebuffershallbe
two(2)footminimumunless
approvedbytheDirectorifthe
depthisinfeasible.Thebuffershall
belandscapednotbelessthan50
percentofthetotalbuffersize,with
tworowsof15-gallontreesplanted
alongthelengthoftheentirebuffer.
● Thebufferlandscapecaninclude
areastobeusedforbioswales,
retention/detentionareas,and/or
otherstormwaterandwaterquality
managementareasincompliance
withSMCSection16.56
(Landscaping).
● Thebufferareashallincludea
minimum14-footsoliddecorative
wall(s),orlandscapedbermand
wall,orlandscapedbermadjacent
tosensitivereceptorsunlessa
noiseanalysisindicatesan
alternativeheightisneededfor
soundattenuation.
● Allonandoff-sitelandscapingshall
complywithSMCChapter16.56
(Landscaping).
● Alllandscapingshallbedrought
tolerantand,totheextentfeasible,
comprisedofspecieswithlow
biogenicemissions.Palmtrees
shallnotbeutilized.
● Alllandscapingareasshallbe
properlyirrigatedforthelifeofthe
facilitytoallowforplantsandtrees
tomaintaingrowthwithnoundue
pruning.
● Treemaintenanceshallcomplywith
SMCSection16.56asacertified
LandscapeArchitectmustprepare
thePreliminaryandFinal
Landscapeplanandcertifythe
plantingiswaterefficientatthetime
ofconstructionpermitapproval.
landscapebuffer.
● Thebufferlandscapecanincludeareastobe
usedforbioswales,retention/detentionareas,
and/orotherstormwaterandwaterquality
managementareasincompliancewithSMC
Section16.56(Landscaping).
● Thebufferareashallincludeaminimum10-foot
soliddecorativewall(s),orlandscapedberm
andwall,orlandscapedbermadjacentto
sensitivereceptorsunlessanoiseanalysis
indicatesanalternativeheightisneededfor
soundattenuation.
● Allonandoff-sitelandscapingshallcomplywith
SMCChapter16.56(Landscaping).
● Alllandscapingshallbedroughttolerantand,to
theextentfeasible,comprisedofspecieswith
lowbiogenicemissions.Palmtreesshallnotbe
utilized.
● Alllandscapingareasshallbeproperlyirrigated
forthelifeofthefacilitytoallowforplantsand
treestomaintaingrowthwithnounduepruning.
● TreemaintenanceshallcomplywithSMC
Section16.56asacertifiedLandscape
ArchitectmustpreparethePreliminaryand
FinalLandscapeplanandcertifytheplantingis
waterefficientatthetimeofconstructionpermit
approval.
● Treesshallbeinstalledinautomobileparking
areastoprovideatleast35%shadecoverof
passengervehicularparkingareaswithinfifteen
years.Treesshallbeplantedthatcanmeetthis
requirement.The35%shadetreesamountcan
besubstitutedforsolarcanopyuponapproval
bytheDirector.

Attachment K
586
13 ● Allbuildingsshallbeconstructed
withSolarPowerandEnergy
Systemslargeenoughto
accommodatethebuildingand
operation’sbasepoweruse
demandatthestartofoperation
andasthebasepowerdemand
increasestoaccommodatean
electricfleet.
● Theenergystoragesystemsshall
haveenoughbatterycapacityto
servethephotovoltaicsysteminthe
eventofablackout.
● Allfacilitiesshallbedesignedto
accommodateenoughspaceforall
solarpanelsandbatteries.
● Thesolarsysteminstallationshould
bedonebyowners,operators,
tenants,oraqualifiedsolarsystem
contractor.Operationshouldbegin
afterreceivingpermissionfromthe
utility.Theownerisresponsiblefor
maintainingthesystemat80%of
ratedpowerfor20years.After20
years,installanewsystemor
maintaintheexistingoneforthelife
ofthefacility.
● Thebuildingpermitapplicationforqualifying
facilitiesmustdemonstratesufficientsolar
panelstoprovidepowerfortheoperational
basepoweruseatthestartofoperations.

Whenavailable,applicantswillbepermittedto
utilize“cleanenergy”sourcesinlieuof
providingonsiteenergyproduction.“Clean
Energy”sourcesincludeprogramssuchas,but
notlimitedto,EastBayCommunityEnergy
(EBCE).
● Operationalbasepowerisdefinedasthe
amountofpowerrequiredtosupplyloadsforall
ordinaryoperationalusesofthesite.Loadsfor
allordinaryoperationalusesofthesiteinclude,
asnon-exhaustiveexamples,loadsforminimal
heatingforfiresprinklers,primaryofficespace
lighting,HVAC,warehousepower,warehouse
lighting,sitelighting,minimumpowerfordock
positions(includingchargersforyard
equipmentandanyplug-insfortransport
refrigerationunits),andtheamountoflight-duty
electricvehiclesupplyequipmentrequiredby
CalGreen.Loadsforallordinaryoperational
usesofthesiteexclude,asnon-exhaustive
examples,loadsforspecializedequipment,
non-standardautomationormaterialhandling
systems,andchargersforheavy-dutytrucks.
● Projectsshallbeallowedtoutilizealternative
energymeansthatachievecomparableenergy
orgreenhousegasoffsets.ThisincludesNear
ZeroEmission(NZE)technologywhen
commerciallyavailable.
● Eachdeveloperofanindividual
specificdevelopmentproposalshall
preparethesubjectbuildingstructures
insuchawaytoaccommodatefuture
solarpanelspursuanttoapplicable
BuildingCoderequirements.
● Theofficeportionofabuilding’s
rooftopthatisnotcoveredwithsolar
panelsorotherutilitiesshallbe
constructedwithlight-coloredroofing
materialwithasolarreflectiveindexof
notlessthan78.Assoonas
reasonablypracticable,aftertheState
ofCaliforniaallowsformalsubmittalof
applicationstiedtoCalifornia’s
CommunitySolarProgram,each
developershallapplyforentryinto
California’sCommunitySolarProgram
andprovideevidencetothe
CommunityDevelopmentDirectorof
suchsubmittal.Ifallowedbylaw,after
theCommunitySolarprogramsells
51%ofitspowertolow-income
residentsinStockton,thebuilding
ownerorsolarproducermayallocate
apercentageofthebuilding’s
remainingCommunitySolarpowerto
occupantsofthesubjectbuildings.If
theformalsubmittalisdeniedbythe
StateofCalifornia,oneadditional
good-faithefforttore-applyshallbe
attempted.Ifacceptedordenied
twice,thismeasureisconsidered
satisfiedasitrelatestoCalifornia’s
CommunitySolarprogram.
● AsanalternativetoCalifornia’s
CommunitySolarProgram,the
developershallincludeaprovisionin
eachleasethatrequirestenantsto
purchasecleanpowerfromEastBay
CommunityEnergy.
● ElectricalRoomSizing.Toensurethat
warehouseelectricalroomsare
● Allfacilitiesshallbe
designedtoaccommodate
enoughspaceforallsolar
panelsandbatteries.
● Onbuildingsover250,000
squarefeetandgreater,
priortoissuanceofa
businesslicense,theCity
shallensuresolarpanels
areinstalledandoperated
insuchamannerthat
theywillsupply100%of
thepowerneededto
operateall
non-refrigeratedportions
ofthefacilityincludingthe
parkingareas.
(Reference)
● Operationalbasepoweris
definedastheamountof
powerrequiredtosupply
loadsforallordinary
operationalusesofthe
site.Loadsforallordinary
operationalusesofthe
siteincludes,as
non-exhaustiveexamples,
loadsforminimalheating
forfiresprinklers,primary
officespacelighting,
HVAC,warehousepower,
warehouselighting,site
lighting,minimumpower
fordockpositions
(includingchargersfor
yardequipment,andany
plug-insfortransport
refrigerationunits),and
theamountoflight-duty
electricvehiclesupply
equipmentrequiredby
CalGreen.Loadsforall
Attachment K
587
sufficientlysizedtoaccommodatethe
potentialneedforadditionalelectrical
panels,eitherasecondaryelectrical
roomshallbeprovidedinthebuilding,
ortheprimaryelectricalroomshallbe
sized25%largerthanisrequiredto
satisfytheservicerequirementsofthe
buildingortheelectricalgearshallbe
installedwiththeinitialconstruction
with25%excessdemandcapacity.
● WarehouseDockSealDoors.Exterior
loadingdockdoorsthatareadjacent
toconditionedorindirectlyconditioned
spacesshallhavedocksealsordock
sheltersinstalledatthetimeof
permitting.(CALGreenTier2)
● OnsiteEquipmentInfrastructure.The
projectshouldprovideinfrastructureto
supportthechargingofelectricpower
onsiteequipment.
ordinaryoperationaluses
ofthesiteexclude,as
non-exhaustiveexamples,
loadsforspecialized
equipment,non-standard
automationormaterial
handlingsystems,and
chargersforheavy-duty
trucks.
● Theenergystorage
systemsshallhave
enoughbatterycapacity
for48hourstoservethe
photovoltaicsysteminthe
eventofablackout.

Augmentedbygreen
energy(PG&Eand/or
EastBayCommunity
Energy)
● Thesolarsystem
installationshouldbe
donebyowners,
operators,tenants,ora
qualifiedsolarsystem
contractor. Operation
shouldbeginafter
receivingpermissionfrom
theutility.Theowneris
responsiblefor
maintainingthesystemat
80%ofratedpowerfor20
years.After20years,
installanewsystemor
maintaintheexistingone
forthelifeofthefacility.

Justification:TheCityofFontana
hasanordinancethatensures
thatsolarpanelsareinstalledand
operatedtosupply100%ofthe
powerofthefacility.Here’sthe
directlinktotheordinance
Attachment K
588
14 Allapplicablefacilitiesshallmaintain
ElectricVehicle(EV)fleetsinaccordance
withthefollowing:
● Heavy-DutyTrucks:allheavy-duty
trucks(Class7and8)domiciledon
sitearemodelyear2014orlater
fromstartofoperationsandshall
expediteatransitionto
zero-emissionvehicles,withthe
fleetfullyzeroemissionby
December31,2025,orwhen
commerciallyavailableforthe
intendedapplication,whichever
dateislater.
● Medium-DutyVehicles:
vehicles/deliveryvans/trucks(Class
2through6)on-siteshallapply:(i)
33%ofthefleetwillbe
zero-emissionvehiclesatthestart
ofoperations,(ii)65%ofthefleet
willbezero-emissionvehiclesby
December31,2023,(iii)80%ofthe
fleetwillbezero-emissionvehicles
byDecember31,2025,and(iv)
100%ofthefleetwillbe
zero-emissionvehiclesby
December31,2027.
● "Domiciledon-site":appliesto
vehiclesparkedorkeptovernightat
thequalifyingfacility(ies)morethan
70%ofthecalendaryearor
dedicatedtothequalifying
facility(ies)site(definedasmore
than70%ofthetruckroutesduring
thecalendaryearthatstartatthe
qualifyingfacility(ies)siteevenif
parkedorkeptelsewhere).The
tenant/operatorofthequalifying
facility(ies)shallnotberesponsible
tomeet"cleanfleet"requirements
forvehiclesusedbycommon
carriersoperatingundertheirown
authoritythatprovidedelivery
servicestoorfromthequalifying
facility(ies)site.

ElectricVehicleChargersStations(EVCS)
InfrastructureforTrucks:provideconduitsto
provideEVCStomeetfutureneeds.Conduitshouldbe
providedonthesitetoserve50%ofthenumberof
truckdockingstations.Locationofconduitisat
discretionofthedeveloper(e.g.,trucktrailerparking
spacesordockingstations).

Tofacilitatetheinstallationoffutureelectric
vehiclechargingstationsforheavy-heavy
duty
(HHD)trucks,inconnectionwitheach
individual
developmentproposal,thesubjectbuilding
improvementplansshallidentifyanareafor
futureHHDtruckchargingstations,andthe
subjectdevelopershallinstallconduitfrom
thepowersourcetotheidentifiedarea.

Add to Option B Ordinance the
following Option A
requirements with underlined
change
● C.On-GoingOperations:

Thefollowingstandards
shallbeimplemented
duringallon-going
business.
● 1.Allforklifts,yardtrucks,
andotherequipmentused
foron-sitemovementof
trucks,trailersand
warehousedgoods,as
wellaslandscaping
maintenanceequipment
usedonthesite,shallbe
electricallypoweredor
zero-emission.
● 2.Allfacilitiesshall
maintainazeroemission
vehicles/trucksrequiredto
meetthe"cleanfleet"
requirementsaboveas
setforthbytheCalifornia
AirResourcesBoard’s
“AdvancedCleanFleets”
ruleadoptedinApril2023.

TherulerequiresElectric
Vehicle(EV)fleetsin
accordancewiththe
followingschedule:
○ 20%of
medium-dutyfleet
electricby2025
○ 50%ofheavy-duty
(Class8)fleet
electricorZEVby
2030
○ 100%ofallfleet
electricorZEVby
Attachment K
589
● Zeroemissionvehiclesthatrequire
maintenancecanbetemporarily
replacedwithalternativevehicles.
● IfanEVfleetisnotcommercially
viable,documentationfroma
minimumofthree(3)EVdealers
identifiedonthecaliforniahvip.org
websitemustbesubmittedpriorto
issuanceofabuildingpermitforthe
newbuildingdemonstratingthe
inabilitytoobtaintherequiredEVs
orequipmentneededwithin6
months.
● Ifaqualifyingfacilityfailstomeet
the"cleanfleet"requirement,the
tenant/operatormustimplementa
VoluntaryEmissionsReduction
Agreement(VERA)thatmitigates
emissionsthroughemission
reductionprojects.TheAirDistrict
willverifythemitigationeffort.The
tenant/operatormustcontinueto
fundtheVERAuntilfullycompliant
withthecleanfleetrequirements.
2040
● 3.Within30daysof
issuanceofthefinal
certificateofoccupancy,
thetenant/operatorshall
demonstratetothe
satisfactionofCDDstaff
thattheapplicableclean
fleetrequirementsare
beingmet.Anyextension
oftimegrantedto
implementthiscondition
shallbelimitedtothe
shortestperiodnecessary
toallowfor100%
electrificationunderthe
cleanfleetrequirements.
● 4.Thetenant/operator
shallsubmitsimilar
reportseverytwoyears
thereafteruntilfull
compliancewiththe
applicablecleanfleet
requirementsisachieved.
● 5.Ifthetenant/operator
hasnotmeteach100%
cleanfleetrequirementby
December31,2027,then
thetenant/operatorshall
submitreportsannually
untilthe100%cleanfleet
requirementis
implemented.
● 6.Afterthe100%clean
fleetrequirementhas
beenimplemented,the
tenant/operatorshall
submittotheCDDan
on-goingcompliance
reporteverythreeyears
containingallnecessary
documentationtoverify
thatthecleanfleet
Attachment K
590
requirementsarebeing
met.
● 7.Eachsubsequent
on-goingcompliance
reportshallbeduewithin
30daysof,butnotlater
than,thethree-year
anniversaryofthe
precedingduedate.
● 8.RefrigerationUnits:
proposedcoldstorage
andassociatedtransport
refrigeratedunits(TRUs)
shallincludeelectric
plug-inunitsatloading
docksservingsuch
refrigeratedspace.