Agenda packet — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, June 3, 2025 (part 8 of 9)

7493-005j
The Project proposes annexation of the Project site located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, and construction of a 184,166 square-foot industrial building for warehouse and office use.

The MND was released for public review on August 30, 2024. The public review and comment period currently ends on September 30, 2024.3 On September 17, 2024, San Joaquin Residents submitted a letter to the City pursuant to CEQA Section 21092(b)(1) requesting immediate access to any and all documents referenced or relied upon 4
Additionally, on September 17, 2024, San Joaquin Residents submitted a separate letter to the City pursuant to California Public Records Act , Government Code §§ 6250, et seq. and Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, any and all public records referring or related to the
Project 5 The MND Request and the PRA Request were sent separately to avoid confusion as to what documents and records were sought.

To date, the City has not acknowledged, nor provided documents in response to, the MND Request nor the PRA Request.

A. CEQA Violations
and the CEQA Guidelines
in a mitigated negative
declaration
6 Further, a CEQA
document may not rely on hidden studies or documents that are not provided to the 3 City of Stockton, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024081317
4 Exhibit A: Letter from ABJC re Request for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (September 17, 2024).
5 Exhibit B: Letter from ABJC re Public Records Act Request South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (September 17, 2024). 6 Pub. Resources Code § 21092(b)(1); 14 C.C.R. § 15072(g)(4); see Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699.

EXHIBIT 1
6 5
4 3
2 1903
September 26, 2024

Page 3 ends

7493-005j
public.7 The City is in violation of these requirements because the City has failed to provide San Joaquin Residents with access to the MND reference documents despite a timely request for access that was made over one week ago.

Without access to these critical MND reference documents during the public comment period on the MND, San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public are precluded from having the meaningful opportunity to comment on the MND that is required by CEQA.
documents available during the entire comment period makes public review documents for significance determinations and mitigation measures to address the Without having access to these documents, San Joaquin Residents and other act
comment on the MND without the referenced documents by the current comment deadline of September 30, 2024.

During review of the MND, San Joaquin Residents have identified a number of documents and files that are referenced and relied upon in the MND which are not accompanied by weblinks and not been
provided access in response to the MND Request. These reference documents are impacts to several critical resource areas, including, in particular, the analysis of ire, and biological impacts. The missing
reference documents include, but are not limited to, the following:

All unlocked, native format, CalEEMOD input files used for Project construction and operational emissions analysis, and any other unlocked emissions modeling input files relied on in Appendix A.

All unlocked, native format, AERMOD and HARP2 input files used for Project construction and operational health risk analysis, and any other unlocked health risk modeling input files relied on in Appendix A. 7 Santiago City Water District v. City of Orange
required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have EXHIBIT 1
10 9
8 7
6 CONT
1904
September 26, 2024

Page 4 ends

7493-005j
City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin. 2020. Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan. August.

San Joaquin County Department of Public Works. 2004. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan. September.

San Joaquin
Metropolitan Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. February.

City of Stockton. June 2012. Emergency Operations Plan.

San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015.

Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2009. Final Draft Staff Report -Climate Change Action Plan: Addressing GHG Emissions Impacts under CEQA. November.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2020. Considerations for Including CRPR 4 Plant Taxa in CEQA Biological. Resource Impact Analysis.

Sacramento, CA. 21 January 2020.

California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). 2019.

State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. April 2, 2019.

Baldwin, B. et al. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California.

Berkeley: University of California Press. County of San Bernardino (Bernardino). 2007 (amended 2015).

Peterson, T.R. 2010. A Field Guide to Birds of Western North America, 4th Edition.

EXHIBIT 1
10 CONT
1905
September 26, 2024

Page 5 ends

7493-005j
Reid, F. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, 4th Edition..

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians.

Third Edition.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

Appendix G, Footnote 4: City email, July 12, 2022.

Appendix G, Footnote 6: City of Stockton staff email, July 12, 2022.

Appendix G, Footnote 9: Email from County staff, February 3, 2023.

The Highway Design Manual, July 1, 2020, Chapter 200 - Geometric Design & Structure Standards, Table 201.1.

Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning, NCHRP 255.

Rodier, Caroline. (2008). A Review of the International Modeling Literature:

Transit, Land Use, and Auto Pricing Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series.

Litman, Todd. (2009). Transportation elasticities: how prices and other factors affect travel behavior. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

The courts have held that the failure to provide even a few pages of a CEQA documents for a portion of the CEQA review period invalidates the entire CEQA process, and that such a failure must be remedied by permitting additional public comment.8 It is also well settled that an MND may not rely on hidden studies or 8 Ultramar v. South Coast Air Quality Man. Dist. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 689, 699.

EXHIBIT 1
12 11
10 CONT
1906
September 26, 2024

Page 6 ends

7493-005j
documents that are not provided to the public.9 By failing to make all documents City is violating the clear procedural mandates of CEQA, to the detriment of San Joaquin Residents and other members of the public who wish to meaningfully review and comment on the MND.

The City must extend the public comment and review period for the MND to allow for meaningful participation by the public and the detailed consideration of Accordingly, we request that:
1) The City immediately provide San Joaquin Residents with access to all MND reference documents relied upon in the MND, including any quality and health risk impacts.
2) The City extend the public review and comment period on the MND for at least 30 days from the date on which the City releases these documents for public review.10 If the missing documents are provided today, we request an extension to October 28, 2024.
3) The City refrain from scheduling any hearings related to the Project until the entire set of reference documents relied on in the MND have been released for public review and comment in compliance with CEQA.

Given the short time before the current comment deadline, please contact me as soon as possible with your response to this request, but no later than Friday, September 27, 2024.
9 Santiago City Water District v. City of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report; what any official might have 10 This Project has a 30-day public comment period, pursuant to 14 CCR § 15105(b).

EXHIBIT 1
17 16
15 14
13 12
CONT
1907
September 26, 2024

Page 7 ends

7493-005j
Please feel free to call or email with any questions: Tel: (650) 589-1660, Email: [email protected]. Thank you for your prompt attention and response to this matter.

Sincerely,

Kevin Carmichael
KTC:ljl
EXHIBIT 1
18 1908

EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT 1
1909
September 17, 2024
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Request for Immediate Access to Documents Referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317)
Dear Ms. Ocasio and Ms. Moore:

We are writing on behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) to request immediate access to any and all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”). This request excludes a copy of the MND and its appendices. This request also excludes any documents that are currently available on the City of Stockton’s website as of today’s date.
1 The proposed Project includes the construction of a 184,166-square foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. The site is currently vacant, previously agricultural, land in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, which would annex the site as part of the project approval. 1 Accessed
https://www.stocktonca.gov/business/planning___engineering/other_projects_environmental.php#coll apse1930b21 on September 16, 2024.

EXHIBIT 1
1910
The site is located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 99. (APN 193-02-034) Our request for immediate access to all documents referenced in the MND is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), which requires that all documents referenced, incorporated by reference, and relied upon in an environmental review document be made available to the public for the entire comment period.2
If the requested documents are in electronic format, please upload them to a file hosting program such as Dropbox, NextRequest or a similar program.

Alternatively, if the electronic documents are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), they may be emailed as attachments. We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.

However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

U.S. Mail
Alex Stukan
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080-7037
Email
[email protected]
If you have any questions, please call me at (650) 589-1660 or email me at the address above. Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,
Alex Stukan
Paralegal
AES:acp
2 See Public Resources Code § 21092(b)(1) (stating that “all documents referenced in the… negative declaration” shall be made “available for review”); 14 Cal. Code Reg. § 15072(g)(4) (stating that all documents incorporated by reference in the MND . . . shall be readily accessible to the public”); see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442, as modified (Apr. 18, 2007) (EIR must transparently incorporate and describe the reference materials relied on in its analysis); Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 818, 831 (“[W]hatever is required to be considered in an EIR must be in that formal report. . .”), internal citations omitted.

EXHIBIT 1
1911

EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT 1
1912
September 17, 2024
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Stephanie Ocasio, Director
Community Development Department
City of Stockton
425 N. El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Stockton
425 N El Dorado St.

Stockton, CA 95202
Email: [email protected]
Via Email Only
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
Email: [email protected]
Re: Public Records Act Request – South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317)
Dear Ms. Ocasio, City Clerk, and Ms. Moore:

We are writing on behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development (“San Joaquin Residents”) to request a copy of any and all public records referring or related to the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) (“Project”) proposed by GO Industrial (“Applicant”). This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all file materials, applications, correspondence, resolutions, memos, notes, analysis, email messages, files, maps, charts, and any other documents related to the Project.

This request is made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 7920.000, et seq.). This request is also made pursuant to Article I, section 3(b) of the California Constitution, which provides a Constitutional right of access to information concerning the conduct of government. Article I, section 3(b) provides that any statutory right to information shall be broadly construed to provide the greatest access to government information and further requires that any statute that limits the right of access to information shall be narrowly construed.

EXHIBIT 1
1913
The proposed Project includes the construction of a 184,166-square foot industrial building for warehouse and office use. The site is currently vacant, previously agricultural, land in San Joaquin County within the sphere of influence of the City of Stockton, which would annex the site as part of the project approval.

The site is located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 and State Route 99. (APN 193-02-034) We request access to the above records in their original form, as maintained by the agency.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 7922.570, if the requested documents are in electronic format, please upload them to a file hosting program such as Dropbox, NextRequest or a similar program. Alternatively, if the electronic documents are 10 MB or less (or can be easily broken into sections of 10 MB or less), they may be emailed to me as attachments.

We will pay for any direct costs of duplication associated with filling this request up to $200.2 However, please contact me with a cost estimate before copying/scanning the materials.

Please use the following contact information for all correspondence:

Sincerely,
Alex Stukan
Paralegal
AES:acp
1 Gov. Code § 7922.570; Sierra Club v. Super. Ct. (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 157, 161-62. 2 Gov. Code §§ 7922.530, 7922.575; North County Parents v. Dept. of Education (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 144; County of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 819, 826.

EXHIBIT 1
1914

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1915
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-3)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-1
The commenter asks for the public review and comment period for the MND to be extended. CEQA requires a minimum public review period for MNDs of 30 days. (Public Resources Code Section [PRC] § 21091(b)). The original public comment period was August 30, 2024 through September 30, 2024.

The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024, for a total public review period of 61 days. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-2
This comment consists of introductory information summarizing the commenter’s understanding of the proposed project. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-3
This comment summarizes the commenter’s understanding of the public comment period. This summary does not raise any environmental issues related to the proposed project and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-4
CEQA makes a distinction between documents cited in an EIR and those specifically incorporated by reference (see El Morro Community Ass'n v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2004) 122 CA4th 1341, n.5.) CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b) requires that documents incorporated by reference in an EIR be available for inspection together with the EIR. All documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-5
All documents requested were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnote. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6
The documents were provided to the commenter and/or were otherwise readily accessible in the appendices and footnotes of the EIR during the public comment period. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-7
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-8
Please refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-6. Additionally, the public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024, allowing additional time to review the Draft IS/MND and prepare public comments.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9
The commenter states that a number of documents cited in the IS/MND were not accompanied by weblinks, and so were not available for review with the IS/MND. Footnotes in the Draft IS/MND refer EXHIBIT 1
1916
to City documents or other agency reports, regulations, policies, etc. For those cited in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses have been provided within the footnote. The commenter requested American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), CalEEMod, and HARP2 input files. The City notes that the commenter’s requests for documents were formally withdrawn on November 8, 2024, with the acknowledgment that relevant documents were located.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-10
The commenter provided the list of specific references that are covered by comment ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9, above. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-11
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally rescinded on November 8, 2024.

The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-12
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally rescinded on November 8, 2024.

The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. The City notes that all studies that were relied upon were available in the appendices of the document. Therefore, the documents were readily available to the public. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-13
The public comment period was extended an additional 30 days, to October 30, 2024.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-14
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-9.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-15
Refer to Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-13.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-16
All documents requested were available for public review pursuant to CEQA requirements.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-17
All relevant documents were available to the public. The commenter’s requests for documents were formally rescinded on November 8, 2024. This comment does not identify any issues pertaining to the proposed project’s environmental effects and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-3-18
This comment is noted.

EXHIBIT 1
1917
EXHIBIT 1
1 2
1918
EXHIBIT 1
2 CONT
4 3
5 1919
EXHIBIT 1
5 CONT
1920
EXHIBIT 1
6 7
8 1921
EXHIBIT 1
12 11
10 9
1922
EXHIBIT 1
13 12
CONT
14 1923
EXHIBIT 1
18 16
15 17
1924
EXHIBIT 1
18 CONT
19 1925
EXHIBIT 1
20 19
CONT
21 22
1926
EXHIBIT 1
25 26
23 24
22 1927
EXHIBIT 1
29 31
28 30
26 CONT
27 1928
EXHIBIT 1
33 32
36 37
35 31
CONT
34 1929
EXHIBIT 1
37 CONT
40 41
39 38
1930
EXHIBIT 1
48 46
45 43
42 41
CONT
47 44
1931
EXHIBIT 1
55 54
52 53
50 48
CONT
51 49
1932
EXHIBIT 1
55 CONT
1933
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
September 25, 2024
Gary Ho
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (SCH No. 2024081317) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the August 2024 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial (“Project”) located in the City of Stockton (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 179,166-square-feet (“SF”) of industrial space, 5,000-SF of office space, and 192 parking stalls on the 11.7-acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Provide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be 1 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide.

EXHIBIT 1
56 57
58 1934
justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are used in calculating the Project’s air pollutant emissions and demonstrate which default values are changed. Justifications are provided for the selected values.

Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality Supporting Information (“AQ Report”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, reveals that the files are incomplete. The “Stockton McKinley Avenue Warehouse” model’s table of contents indicated that the output files include a “User Changes to Default Data” table as its final section (Appendix A, pp. 130). Upon further review of the output files, it was observed that the table is missing. Instead, a series of lines appear in its place (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 170).

Without access to the “User Changes to Default Data”, we are unable to verify where changes were made to the model’s default values. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated, verifiable air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts of Warehouses on Surrounding Communities Upon review of the IS/MND, we have determined that the development of the proposed Project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts warehouse pose on community members living, EXHIBIT 1
61 60
59 58
CONT
1935
working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site. According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”):
“Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.”2

The disproportionate health effects on communities of color are not confined to the SCAQMD jurisdiction, however. A 2024 study published in Nature Communications reveals that this is a nationwide concern, as the expansion of warehouses has significantly increased traffic-related air pollutants in marginalized and minoritized communities across the United States.3 Another study
similarly indicates that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing facilities.” 4 Additionally, a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands states:
“As the warehouse and logistics industry continues to grow and net exponential profits at record rates, more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death. As a result, physicians consider these pollutionburdened areas ‘diesel death zones.’”5 The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) itself admits that it faces significant air quality challenges that affect the numerous disadvantaged communities within its region. 6 It is evident that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge and further contributes to a nationwide trend. However, the acceleration of warehouse development is only increasing despite the consequences on public health. In 2 “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9. 3 “Air pollution impacts from warehousing in the United States uncovered with satellite data.” Gaige Hunter Kerr, et al.; June 2024, available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50000-0. 4 “Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Evidence from four metros in California.” Metro Freight Center of Excellence, January 2018, available at:
https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%201.1g_Location%20of%20warehouses%20and%20environmental %20justice_Final%20Report_021618.pdf, p. 21.
5 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at:
https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4. 6 “2024 Plan for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard.” SJVAPCD, June 2024, available at:
https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/gw5bacvj/2024-pm25-plan.pdf, p. ES-9.

EXHIBIT 1
61 CONT
62 63
1936
Southern California, the Inland Empire alone is adding 10 to 25 million SF of new industrial space each year.7
San Joaquin County, the setting of the proposed Project, has long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden. When using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, we found that the Project’s census tract is in the 99th percentile of communities that are disproportionately affected by various sources of pollution (see excerpt below).8
Additionally, according to CalEnviroScreen’s SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map, the Project site is located in a designated disadvantaged community (see excerpt below).9 7 “2020 North America Industrial Big Box Review & Outlook.” CBRE, 2020, available at: https://www.cbre.com/- /media/project/cbre/shared-site/insights/local-responses/industrial-big-box-report-inland-empire/local-response2020-ibb-inland-empire-overview.pdf, p. 2. 8 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” OEHHA, October 2021, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40, census tract #6071002204. 9 “SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (2022 Update).” California Environmental Protection Agency, available at:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/1c21c53da8de48f1b946f3402fbae55c/page/SB-535-DisadvantagedCommunities/ EXHIBIT 1
64 63
CONT
65 1937
SB 535 provides funding for development projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities.

CalEPA has been given the responsibility for identifying those communities based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.” 10 As the Project site is within a disadvantaged community, and the Project’s census tract exhibits a high cancer risk, the proposed Project would contribute to the disproportionate health impacts warehouses impose on nearby residents.

The proposed Project may exacerbate disproportionate health risks for community members within the immediate area, a concern underscored by the mandates of SB 1000. SB 1000, enacted to address environmental justice considerations, requires local governments to integrate environmental justice elements into their planning processes, particularly focusing on reducing health risks for disadvantaged communities.11
10 “Final Designation of Disadvantaged Communities.” California Environmental Protection Agency, available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/05/Updated-Disadvantaged-Communities-DesignationDAC-May-2022-Eng.a.hp_-1.pdf?emrc=e05e10. 11 “Environmental Justice in Local Land Use Planning.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000.

EXHIBIT 1
66 67
1938
As the Project site is located in an SB 535 disadvantaged community, we recommend reevaluating the Project's cumulative health risks to more effectively align with California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”) guidelines and SB 1000 environmental justice requirements.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicates that ozone, the main ingredient in “smog,” can cause several health problems, which includes aggravating lung diseases and increasing the frequency of asthma attacks. The U.S. EPA states:
“Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their exposure. Children are also more likely than adults to have asthma.”12 Regarding the increased sensitivity of early-life exposures to inhaled pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states:
“Children are often at greater risk from inhaled pollutants, due to the following reasons:

Children have unique activity patterns and behavior. For example, they crawl and play on the ground, amidst dirt and dust that may carry a wide variety of toxicants. They often put their hands, toys, and other items into their mouths, ingesting harmful substances. Compared to adults, children typically spend more time outdoors and are more physically active. Time outdoors coupled with faster breathing during exercise increases children’s relative exposure to air pollution.

Children are physiologically unique. Relative to body size, children eat, breathe, and drink more than adults, and their natural biological defenses are less developed. The protective barrier surrounding the brain is not fully developed, and children’s nasal passages aren’t as effective at filtering out pollutants. Developing lungs, immune, and metabolic systems are also at risk.

Children are particularly susceptible during development. Environmental exposures during fetal development, the first few years of life, and puberty have the greatest potential to influence later growth and development.” 13 A Stanford-led study also reveals that children exposed to high levels of air pollution are more susceptible to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in adulthood. 14 Given that children are more susceptible to the negative health impacts of air pollutants, and that warehouses release more smog12 “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” U.S. EPA, May 2021, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozonepollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. 13 “Children and Air Pollution.” CARB, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/children-and-airpollution. 14 “Air pollution puts children at higher risk of disease in adulthood, according to Stanford researchers and others.” Stanford, February 2021, available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/22/air-pollution-impacts-childrenshealth/.

EXHIBIT 1
70 68
69 71
1939
forming pollution than any other sector, it is necessary to evaluate the specific health risk that warehouses pose to children in the nearby community.

According to the above-mentioned study by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands, a half mile radius is more commonly used for identifying sensitive receptors.

Regarding the proposed Project itself, the IS/MND states:
“The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Manteca Unified School District (MUSD) and the Stockton Unified School District (SUSD). SUSD operates 54 schools with approximately 40,000 students. The closest school to the project site is the French Camp School, located approximately 0.21 mile south of the site at 241 Fourth Street. The second closest school to the project site is Great View Elementary, located 1.65 miles northwest of the site at 4223 McDougald Boulevard” (p. 120).

As discussed, French Camp School is located within half a mile of the Project site. An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project’s contribution to the disproportionate impacts that warehouses pose on the surrounding communities, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. In order to evaluate the cumulative air quality impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site, the analysis should prepare a revised cumulative HRA to quantify the adverse health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract. This recommendation is consistent with guidance provided by SB 1000 and the CA DOJ.15
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact based on a quantified construction Health Risk Analysis (“HRA”). Specifically, the IS/MND estimates that the cumulative maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with construction would be 0.8 in one million, respectively, which would not exceed the SJVAPCD significance threshold of 20 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 48, Table 5). 15 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.

EXHIBIT 1
71 CONT
73 75
74 72
1940
Furthermore, the IS/MND states:
“The General Plan EIR, MM A-5 requires industrial or warehousing land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel powered TRUs per day based on ARB recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses) to coordinate with the SJVAPCD and determine the appropriate level of HRA required in such cases.

Since the proposed project will generate only 20 truck trips per day, it would not be considered to generate substantial diesel truck traffic. Therefore, an HRA and consultation is not required and health risks from operation of the facility, including DPM emissions from trucks, are considered to be less than significant” (p. 49).

The IS/MND declares that an operational HRA is not necessary based on SJVAPCD standards. The IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-thansignificant impact conclusion, however, is unsupported for four reasons.

First, the IS/MND fails to mention or provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as the age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) or time at home factors (“TAH”)/fraction of time at home (“FAH”) values. Until the IS/MND substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRA may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors because of Project construction. Furthermore, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines provided by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard EXHIBIT 1
75 CONT
76 1941
Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the IS/MND’s model should have used the following equation: 16 The IS/MND and associated documents fail to provide a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks. As such, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s HRA is accurate, and the Project’s cancer risks may be underestimated.

Second, the IS/MND relies on guidance provided in the 2005 CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to omit an operational HRA (p. 49). As it is now July 2024, the Project should rely on the most recently updated guidance from the CEQA and the CA DOJ, as demonstrated below.

Third, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with the CEQA requirements to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”17 By failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”18The Project is also inconsistent with the CA DOJ projects prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the OEHHA, the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California.19
According to the IS/MND, operation of the Project is anticipated to generate about 378 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions (p. 41). The IS/MND, however, fails to evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to 16 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-7 Equation 8.2.4. 17 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 18 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 19 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.

EXHIBIT 1
76 CONT
78 77
1942
connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Fourth, while the IS/MND conducts a construction HRA, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together.

According to OEHHA guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location.” 20 The IS/MND fails to sum the total cancer risks in order to evaluate the combined cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is unsubstantiated, and an EIR should be prepared in order to quantify the Project’s total construction and operational cancer risks to compare to the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, as referenced by the HRA Report (p. 48).

Screening-Level Analysis Indicates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In accordance with CEQA, projects are required to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”21 In order to analyze the Project’s potential health risk impacts, we conducted a screening-level risk assessment relying upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.22 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).23, 24 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to approval of the Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM2.5 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod “Stockton McKinley Avenue Warehouse” model’s output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. 25 Subtracting the 266-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 29.27 years, approximately. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that 20 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4. 21 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 22 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/20110411_aerscreen_release_memo.pdf 23 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 24 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.

EXHIBIT 1
78 CONT
80 79
81 1943
operational activities will generate approximately 40 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.

Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation:
=
40 365 ×
453.6
×
1 24 ×
1 3,600 = . /
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000575 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 11.7-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 308- by 154-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Stockton was obtained from U.S. 2022 Census data.26 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The EPA suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures. 27 The IS/MND states that the nearest sensitive receptor is located 440 feet away from the project site (p. 48).

However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 150 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.479 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 150 meters downwind.

Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of

0.0479 µg/m3for Project operation at the MEIR.28
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SJVAPCD.29 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and CARB recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. 26 “Stockton.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0675000. 27 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000F86J.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991+Thru+199 4&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=& QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data %5C91thru94%5CTxt%5C00000014%5C2000F86J.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h %7C-
&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeek Page=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&See kPage=x&ZyPURL.
28 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files.
29 “Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document.” SJVAPCD, May 2015, available at: https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf.

EXHIBIT 1
82 83
81 CONT
1944
The residential exposure parameters utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:

Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)30
Age
Sensitivity
Factor31
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home32
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)33
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:
, = × × × ×
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-
30 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/riskassessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 31 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 32 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7. 33 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.

EXHIBIT 1
83 CONT
1945
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
= × × × ×
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 664-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 1.57 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.43 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16 years) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 0.48 *
Operation 1.52 0.0479 1.02E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.02-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0479 1.25E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0479 1.92E-06
Lifetime 30 2.46E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 150 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 10.2,

12.5, and 1.92 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 24.6 in one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the IS/MND’s construction-related cancer risk of 0.8 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of 25.4 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years).

EXHIBIT 1
83 CONT
84 85
1946
As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SJVAPCD threshold of 20 in one million, and would result in a potentially significant impact.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, the future EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. If the refined analysis similarly concludes that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described below in the “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
The IS/MND is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.

To reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the IS/MND consider several mitigation measures (see list below).

EXHIBIT 1
87 90
88 86
89 1947
The CARB recommends: 34
Require all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits, such that, emission reductions achieved are equal to or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine.

Requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) used during project construction be battery powered.

Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022.

Require all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with all current air quality regulations.

Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable.

Require future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.

Require all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission. A list of commercially available zero-emission trucks can be obtained from the Hybrid and Zero-emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). Additional incentive funds can be obtained from the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program.

Restrict trucks and support equipment from idling longer than two minutes while on site.

Require the installation of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading docks and people living or working nearby.

In addition to recommending similar mitigation as the above-mentioned measures from CARB, the CA DOJ suggests:35
Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.

Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.

Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the 34 “Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers.” CARB, August 2023, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20%20Oak%20Valley%20North%20Project%20DEIR.pdf; Attachment A, p. 5 – 8. 35 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10.

EXHIBIT 1
91 90
CONT
1948
affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.

Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.

Lastly, SCAQMD staff recommends: 36
Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs so that trucks will not travel next to or near sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, daycare centers, etc.).

Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site.

Design the Proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.

Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.

Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”37
As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Projectrelated DPM developed from sources including CARB, the CA DOJ and others. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

An EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as an updated health risk analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is 36 “Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed CADO Menifee Industrial Warehouse Project (Proposed Project).” SCAQMD, April 2024, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/comment-letters/2024/april-2024/RVC240313-05.pdf?sfvrsn=8, p. 3 - 4. 37 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60.

EXHIBIT 1
95 93
94 96
91 CONT
92 1949
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

EXHIBIT 1
96 CONT
1950
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.05 Total DPM (lbs) 72.87671233 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.02 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.273972603 Total DPM (g) 33056.87671 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.109589041 Construction Duration (days) 266 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001438356 Total DPM (lbs) 40 Total DPM (lbs) 72.87671233 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000575342 Total DPM (g) 33056.87671 Total Acreage 11.7 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 4/1/2024 Max Horizontal (meters) 307.73 Total Acreage 11.7 End Date 12/23/2024 Min Horizontal (meters) 153.86 Max Horizontal (meters) 307.73 Construction Days 266 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 153.86 Setting Stockton Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Population 321,819 Setting Stockton
Start Date 4/1/2024 Population 321,819
End Date 12/23/2024
Total Construction Days 266
Total Years of Construction 0.73
Total Years of Operation 29.27
Construction Operation
2024 Total Emission Rate
EXHIBIT 1
1951
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 0.48 * *
Operation 1.52 0.0479 1.02E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 1.02E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0479 1.25E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0479 1.92E-06
Lifetime 30 2.46E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor EXHIBIT 1
1952
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 09/20/24
12:00:18
TITLE: SouthMcKinley, Operational
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.575E 03 g/s 0.457E 02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.122E 07 g/(s m2) 0.964E 07 lb/(hr m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 307.73 meters 1009.61 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 153.86 meters 504.79 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 321819
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE = 5000. meters 16404. feet
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON POINT SOURCES
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters 5000. meters

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1 HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
1* 1.000 0.4788 10 150.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
EXHIBIT 1
1953
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************* MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT

YR MO DY JDY HR
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS

1.30 0.043 9.000 0.020 999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50

HT REF TA HT

10.0 310.0 2.0
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1 HR CONC DIST 1 HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)

1.00 0.3725 2525.00 0.1071E 01
EXHIBIT 1
1954

25.00 0.3954 2550.00 0.1056E 01

50.00 0.4162 2575.00 0.1043E 01

75.00 0.4344 2600.00 0.1029E 01
100.00 0.4506 2625.00 0.1016E 01
125.00 0.4655 2650.00 0.1003E 01
150.00 0.4788 2675.00 0.9900E 02
175.00 0.4389 2700.00 0.9776E 02
200.00 0.3160 2725.00 0.9654E 02
225.00 0.2591 2750.00 0.9535E 02
250.00 0.2254 2775.00 0.9419E 02
275.00 0.2003 2800.01 0.9305E 02
300.00 0.1798 2825.00 0.9193E 02
325.00 0.1625 2850.00 0.9170E 02
350.00 0.1480 2875.00 0.9061E 02
375.00 0.1355 2900.00 0.8954E 02
400.00 0.1247 2925.00 0.8849E 02
425.00 0.1154 2950.00 0.8747E 02
450.00 0.1071 2975.00 0.8646E 02
475.00 0.9987E 01 3000.00 0.8548E 02
500.00 0.9337E 01 3025.00 0.8451E 02
525.00 0.8765E 01 3050.00 0.8357E 02
550.00 0.8247E 01 3075.00 0.8264E 02
575.00 0.7777E 01 3100.00 0.8173E 02
600.00 0.7355E 01 3125.00 0.8083E 02
625.00 0.6971E 01 3150.00 0.7996E 02
650.00 0.6618E 01 3175.00 0.7910E 02
675.00 0.6297E 01 3200.00 0.7825E 02
700.00 0.6004E 01 3225.00 0.7742E 02
725.00 0.5732E 01 3250.00 0.7661E 02
750.00 0.5478E 01 3275.00 0.7581E 02
775.00 0.5243E 01 3300.00 0.7502E 02
800.00 0.5026E 01 3325.00 0.7425E 02
825.00 0.4825E 01 3350.00 0.7350E 02
850.00 0.4639E 01 3375.00 0.7275E 02
875.00 0.4465E 01 3400.00 0.7202E 02
900.00 0.4300E 01 3425.00 0.7130E 02
925.00 0.4145E 01 3450.00 0.7060E 02
950.00 0.4000E 01 3475.00 0.6990E 02
975.00 0.3863E 01 3500.00 0.6922E 02
1000.00 0.3734E 01 3525.00 0.6855E 02
1025.00 0.3613E 01 3550.00 0.6789E 02
1050.00 0.3498E 01 3575.00 0.6724E 02
1075.00 0.3390E 01 3600.00 0.6660E 02
1100.00 0.3288E 01 3625.00 0.6597E 02
1125.00 0.3191E 01 3650.00 0.6536E 02
1150.00 0.3098E 01 3675.00 0.6475E 02
1175.00 0.3009E 01 3700.00 0.6415E 02
1200.00 0.2925E 01 3725.00 0.6356E 02
1225.00 0.2845E 01 3750.00 0.6298E 02
1250.00 0.2769E 01 3775.00 0.6241E 02
EXHIBIT 1
1955
1275.00 0.2697E 01 3800.00 0.6185E 02
1300.00 0.2628E 01 3825.00 0.6130E 02
1325.00 0.2562E 01 3850.00 0.6076E 02
1350.00 0.2498E 01 3875.00 0.6022E 02
1375.00 0.2437E 01 3900.00 0.5969E 02
1400.00 0.2378E 01 3925.00 0.5917E 02
1425.00 0.2322E 01 3950.00 0.5866E 02
1450.00 0.2269E 01 3975.00 0.5816E 02
1475.00 0.2217E 01 4000.00 0.5766E 02
1500.00 0.2168E 01 4025.00 0.5717E 02
1525.00 0.2120E 01 4050.00 0.5669E 02
1550.00 0.2073E 01 4075.00 0.5621E 02
1575.00 0.2029E 01 4100.00 0.5574E 02
1600.00 0.1986E 01 4125.00 0.5528E 02
1625.00 0.1945E 01 4150.00 0.5483E 02
1650.00 0.1905E 01 4175.00 0.5438E 02
1675.00 0.1867E 01 4200.00 0.5394E 02
1700.00 0.1830E 01 4225.00 0.5350E 02
1725.00 0.1794E 01 4250.00 0.5307E 02
1750.00 0.1759E 01 4275.00 0.5265E 02
1775.00 0.1726E 01 4300.00 0.5223E 02
1800.00 0.1693E 01 4325.00 0.5182E 02
1825.00 0.1662E 01 4350.00 0.5141E 02
1850.00 0.1632E 01 4375.00 0.5101E 02
1875.00 0.1603E 01 4400.00 0.5061E 02
1900.00 0.1574E 01 4425.00 0.5022E 02
1925.00 0.1547E 01 4450.00 0.4983E 02
1950.00 0.1520E 01 4475.00 0.4945E 02
1975.00 0.1494E 01 4500.00 0.4908E 02
2000.00 0.1469E 01 4525.00 0.4871E 02
2025.00 0.1445E 01 4550.00 0.4834E 02
2050.00 0.1421E 01 4575.00 0.4798E 02
2075.00 0.1398E 01 4600.00 0.4762E 02
2100.00 0.1375E 01 4625.00 0.4727E 02
2125.00 0.1353E 01 4650.00 0.4693E 02
2150.00 0.1332E 01 4675.00 0.4658E 02
2175.00 0.1311E 01 4700.00 0.4624E 02
2200.00 0.1291E 01 4725.00 0.4591E 02
2225.00 0.1272E 01 4750.00 0.4558E 02
2250.00 0.1253E 01 4775.00 0.4525E 02
2275.00 0.1234E 01 4800.00 0.4493E 02
2300.00 0.1216E 01 4825.00 0.4461E 02
2325.00 0.1198E 01 4850.00 0.4430E 02
2350.00 0.1181E 01 4875.00 0.4399E 02
2375.00 0.1164E 01 4900.00 0.4368E 02
2400.00 0.1147E 01 4925.00 0.4338E 02
2425.00 0.1131E 01 4950.00 0.4308E 02
2450.00 0.1115E 01 4975.00 0.4278E 02
2475.00 0.1100E 01 5000.00 0.4249E 02
2500.00 0.1085E 01
EXHIBIT 1
1956
********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY ********************* 3 hour, 8 hour, and 24 hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1 hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA 454/R 92 019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance

MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1 HOUR 3 HOUR 8 HOUR 24 HOUR ANNUAL

CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
FLAT TERRAIN 0.4820 0.4820 0.4820 0.4820 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 156.99 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 0.3725 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
EXHIBIT 1
1957
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:

Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); EXHIBIT 1
1958
Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:

Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.

Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.

Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.

Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.

Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.

Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.

Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.

Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:

Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.

Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.

Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.

Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.

Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.

EXHIBIT 1
1959
Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi.

Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.

Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:

Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.

Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.

Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:

Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.

Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:

Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.

Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.

Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.

Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:

Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.

Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.

Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.

Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.

Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.

Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nationwide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.

Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:

Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.

Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.

Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff.

Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific EXHIBIT 1
1961
principles into the policy-making process.

Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:

Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.

Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.

Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:

Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.

Conducted aquifer tests.

Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:

At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.

Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.

Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

EXHIBIT 1
1962
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

EXHIBIT 1
1963
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPLcontaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

EXHIBIT 1
1964
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.

EXHIBIT 1
1965
EXHIBIT 1
1966
EXHIBIT 1
1967
EXHIBIT 1
1968
EXHIBIT 1
1969
EXHIBIT 1
1970
EXHIBIT 1
1971
EXHIBIT 1
1972
EXHIBIT 1
1973
EXHIBIT 1
1974
EXHIBIT 1
1975
EXHIBIT 1
1976
EXHIBIT 1
1977
Blum, Collins & Ho LLP (BLUM-1)
Response to BLUM-1-1
The commenter includes a request to be added to the notification list for any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for the proposed project. In response, the commenter will be notified.

Response to BLUM-1-2
This comment consists of introductory information and summarizes the proposed project. No response is required.

Response to BLUM-1-3
The Draft IS/MND includes all elements required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15071. The site plans provided in Exhibit 6 show a building footprint, including square footage of the proposed building, warehouse uses, office uses, and the location of doors and loading docks. Exhibit 6 also shows the location of landscaping, parking, setbacks, building width and length, and internal roadway widths.

As discussed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft IS/MND, air space review is required for objects greater than 100 feet in height. However, the proposed building would not exceed 60 feet in height as required by the IL zoning district.

Response to BLUM-1-4
“Pre-zoning” was analyzed in the revisions to the zoning code. Annexation and Site Plan Review are listed as Required Discretionary approvals in the project description, on page 5 of the Draft IS/MND.

This Draft IS/MND will be used by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to inform their analysis of potential environmental effects of the proposed project and the annexation.

Response to BLUM-1-5
The commenter states that the MND is deficient in the that it does not discuss the City’s Municipal Services review. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) states that reviewers commenting on Draft MNDs should focus on potential environmental effects. Accordingly, comments should focus on:

Identifying the specific effect;
Explaining why the reviewer believes that the effect would occur; and Explaining why the effect would be significant. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b)).

Moreover, the CEQA Guidelines direct commenters to “explain the basis for their comments” by submitting “data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)). A lead agency may reject comments that are not focused as recommended in Section 15204(b). See CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e). This comment does not identify any specific environmental issue or provide any facts in support of a comment regarding the environment and no further discussion is warranted.

Response to BLUM-1-6
The commenter refers to a complete technical commentary and analysis from SWAPE. Responses to the individual comments are provided below.

EXHIBIT 1
1978
Response to BLUM-1-7
The commenter states that the MND does not include meaningful analysis of relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts. The commenter further states that the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution and ranks in the 99th percentile for overall pollution burden according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. The City does not have any CEQA thresholds of significance related to environmental justice. Additionally, CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. Of relevance here, neither the California Air Resources Board (ARB) nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of the same as part of the CEQA process. As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality section of the Draft IS/MND, it utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The MND evaluated potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR3. The Draft IS/MND acknowledged that the project site is adjacent to the existing sensitive receptors identified by the commenter, and therefore the Draft IS/MND identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts.

The commenter listed the public health impacts from exposure to ozone and diesel particulate matter (DPM); these comments are noted. The environmental setting in the Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of the public health impacts from exposure to air pollutants including ozone and diesel PM. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-8
The commenter states that the census tract is severely impacted in several areas that impact water quality; however, the comment does not specifically address the proposed project or the Draft IS/MND. Analysis of the potential impacts to water quality is provided in Section 2.4, Biological Resources and Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, no impacts to water quality were identified.

Response to BLUM-1-9
The commenter states that the census tract ranks 85th percentile for hazardous waste facility impacts, which contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil and can harm the environment as well as people. As noted in Section 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Response to BLUM-1-10
The commenter states that the census tract bears more impacts from cleanup sites than 84 percent of the State, and chemicals in the buildings, soil or water at cleanup sites can move into nearby communities through the air or movement of water. As noted in Section 2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to EXHIBIT 1
1979
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Response to BLUM-1-11
The commenter states that the census tract is a diverse community with a high rate of poverty and is burdened by high levels of pollution. The commenter further states that the community has a high rate of linguistic isolation, and that poverty can cause stress that weakens the immune system.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. This is not a CEQA issue and no further discussion is warranted. As previously stated, CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations or social issues.

Response to BLUM-1-12
The commenter states that the project census tract and the census tracts adjacent to the project site are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, and this indicates that cumulative impacts of development and environmental impacts in the area are disproportionately impacting these communities. The commenter further states that the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts particularly on these disadvantaged communities must be included for analysis in each section of the MND, including cumulative analysis and irreversible environmental effects.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of these issues as part of the CEQA process. As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality section of the MND, the analysis utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The MND evaluated potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR-3. The MND acknowledged that the project site is nearby existing sensitive receptors, and therefore the MND identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-13
The commenter generally asserts that there are three “approved compliance modeling software” (i.e., CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) for nonresidential buildings and purports that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The commenter purports that CalEEMod modeling “does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards” and therefore “under-reports” the proposed project’s significant energy impacts and fuel consumption.

The comment is noted for the record. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact that was not evaluated and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

The basis for the commenter’s assertion that CalEEMod is “not approved” is unclear and unsubstantiated. Additionally, the commenter does not identify any project-specific impact that the MND failed to consider and disclose.

EXHIBIT 1
1980
Use of CalEEMod for purposes of modeling potential air quality and related health risk assessments is appropriate. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform to calculate construction and operational emissions from land use development projects. CalEEMod was developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in collaboration with the California Air Districts. The model is a comprehensive tool for quantifying air quality impacts from land use projects located throughout California and can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary, such as preparing CEQA or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, conducting pre-project planning, and verifying compliance with local air quality rules and regulations. CalEEMod was updated in 2022 and includes the gas and electric utility emissions factors pursuant to the location of the proposed project, as well as building energy zones. The 2022 CalEEMod update generates default electricity and natural gas consumption that consider Title 24 standards.

CBECC software is approved specifically for Title 24 compliance; however, it is used to confirm that a final building design (with detailed information included in its construction drawings) is Title 24 compliant. The final designs and construction drawings are not available for the proposed project and are not typically prepared until after a proposed development project is approved/entitled.

Accordingly, the Draft IS/MND and underlying technical studies correctly use CalEEMod to estimate energy demand based on average intensity factors for similar land use types. Since the occupants of the proposed project’s buildings are unknown at this time, and information about the future building users’ energy use is also not available at this time, it is appropriate to rely upon the CalEEMod default assumptions which have been derived by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. There is no requirement in CEQA or the City’s thresholds of significance to show specific compliance with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards based on conceptual building designs that are proposed at the entitlement stage of a project’s approval process. This will be a requirement pursuant to State law prior to issuance of each building permit and verified by the City’s Building and Safety Department. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-14
The commenter questions the calculation of building occupancy as well as square footage of open space. As stated in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Zone 7a allows for a maximum nonresidential density of 450 persons per acre. Given the 11.7-acre size of the property, that would allow for over 5,000 employees/occupants.

The calculation provided in the Draft IS/MND is based on the California Building Standards Code (CBC) occupancy level of 500 square feet/occupant for the 179,166 square feet of warehouse space (358 occupants) and 100 square feet per occupant for the 5,000 square feet of office use (50 occupants), for a total of 408 occupants. Although this calculation is slightly higher than the 391 reported in the Draft IS/MND, it is still well within the more than 5,000 allowed by the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The proposed project would provide 131,850 square feet of open space, which equates to 25.8 percent, which would exceed the 10 percent requirement of the ALUCP.

EXHIBIT 1
1981
Response to BLUM-1-15
The City and applicant have consulted with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) throughout the CEQA process, as required by Section 3.1.6.1 of the ALUCP. The ALUC did not submit a comment letter on the Draft IS/MND.

Response to BLUM-1-16
The comment is noted. The proposed project does require an amendment to the City’s land use map to incorporate the proposed project into the city limits.

Response to BLUM-1-17
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-15 above.

Response to BLUM-1-18
The proposed project is following the City’s typical process for design review concurrent with CEQA review and prior to issuance of a building permit, based upon City Municipal Code requirements and Citywide Design Guidelines which are incorporated into the Draft IS/MND by reference.

Response to BLUM-1-19
The Draft IS/MND considers General Plan policy consistency and reflects the City’s independent judgment that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan. A finding of consistency does not require strict consistency, or perfect consistency, with every policy or with all aspects of a plan. Courts have consistently recognized that a lead agency has the discretion to find consistency even if a project does not adhere to every policy or regulation. (See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719).

Response to BLUM-1-20
The comment does not identify a potential significant impact or provide any data or facts regarding a potential significant impact as directed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b)-(c). See Response to BLUM-1-6. There is no provision in the Public Resources Code or the CEQA Guidelines requiring the inclusion of a City Services Plan in a MND or an EIR. Additionally, there is no requirement to include a fiscal impact analysis. This principle is reflected in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e) and 15382, which provide that economic and social changes may not be treated as significant effects on the environment. The Draft IS/MND thoroughly evaluates potential impacts on the physical environment Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, a proposed negative declaration must include the following information:

A brief description of the project, including any commonly used name; The project’s location, preferably shown on a map;
The name of the project proponent;
A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; An attached copy of the initial study documenting the reasons for the agency’s finding; and Any mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.

Here, the Draft IS/MND includes all of the required elements.

EXHIBIT 1
1982
Response to BLUM-1-21
Neither CEQA nor this project requires the preparation of a Municipal Services Review (MSR).

Additionally, the comment fails to identify any specific impacts to the physical environment related to public services associated with the proposed project. The proposed project will comply with Municipal Code Section 16-17.260, which requires the project applicant to pay a public facilities fee.

As explained in the Draft IS/MND, payment of these fees would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.

Response to BLUM-1-22
CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. As noted by the comment, preparation of a MSR is conducted by LAFCo and is not indicative of any potentially significant impact. The proposed project will comply with Municipal Code Section 16-17.260, which requires the project applicant to pay a public facilities fee. As explained in the Draft IS/MND, payment of these fees would ensure that impacts related to public services would be less than significant. Additionally, the City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-23
Cumulative impacts are discussed throughout the Draft IS/MND. See, e.g., Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The comment does not include any facts or data that the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-24
The Draft IS/MND notes that upward of 400 jobs may be generated by the proposed project, and it is reasonable to assume that employees would be drawn from the local and surrounding area.

Unemployment in this area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-25
Unemployment in the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Statistical Area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-26
The Draft IS/MND included a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and also includes a robust mitigation measure outlining the requirements for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to further reduce VMT. Based on California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) research, the analysis found that the location of the project site is within an area that is in close proximity to the airport, Downtown Stockton, and the Port of Stockton, in combination with the other industrial centers in the vicinity, could reduce VMT by approximately 13 percent. The total anticipated VMT reduction from this and the other TDM strategies would be 38 percent, as shown in Table 13.

Response to BLUM-1-27
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-26.

EXHIBIT 1
1983
Response to BLUM-1-28
The commenter provides an alternate employment generation rate based on US Energy Administration data. The employment cited in the Draft IS/MND is more conservative (i.e., higher).

To provide a more robust analysis, the City has chosen to use the employment generation rate provided in the Draft IS/MND as a more accurate representation.

Response to BLUM-1-29
As noted in Response to BLUM-1-24 and BLUM-1-25, the proposed project is expected to be served with workers from the Stockton-Lodi area, which has a current unemployment rate of 6.3 percent.

Response to BLUM-1-30
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-24 and BLUM-1-25.

Response to BLUM-1-31
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance.

Response to BLUM-1-32
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation.

Response to BLUM-1-33
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation. The strategies incorporated in MM TRANS-1 are used throughout the State to achieve reductions in VMT.

Response to BLUM-1-34
The strategies incorporated in MM TRANS-1 are used throughout the State to achieve reductions in VMT and have been successfully employed in other projects. The City is committed to enforcing the measures to achieve the VMT reduction, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) lists actions that will be taken to ensure success.

Response to BLUM-1-35
The VMT analysis in the Draft IS/MND is based upon standard methodologies for calculating impacts as well as the effect of TDM mitigation. VMT analyses are required to include an evaluation of passenger cars, not truck trips. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) states “For the purpose of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks, as stated in December 2018 Guidance from the Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA; commercial vehicle VMT is excluded.

Response to BLUM-1-36
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-35.

EXHIBIT 1
1984
Response to BLUM-1-37
An updated Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the City, which includes specific exhibits and reflects a trip generation rate of 486 daily trips. The updated trip generation does not affect the conclusions of the analysis or significance determination.

Response to BLUM-1-38
The deceleration lane is recommended; it is not required for safety. However, the current site plan can accommodate a minimum of 235 feet for a left-turn/deceleration lane for northbound traffic.

Should the City elect to impose a condition requiring creation of such a lane, it could be accomplished through striping in coordination with site development and frontage improvements along the existing right-of-way.

Response to BLUM-1-39
An updated Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the City, which includes exhibits showing turning radius for ingress and egress via the northern driveway. The southern driveway would be restricted to egress only, and would be further restricted to right-turn egress. The City has reviewed the proposed site plan and did not identify any safety hazard concerns.

Response to BLUM-1-40
See responses to BLUM-1-32 through BLUM-1-39.

Response to BLUM-1-41
The City coordinated review by the fire department, and no concern with circulation or safety was identified.

Response to BLUM-1-42
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-41.

Response to BLUM-1-43
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. CEQA does not require a MSR and the comment does not identify any potentially significant impacts related to public services. Note, also, that under CEQA’s definition of environmental impacts, an increase in demands on public facilities, public services, and utilities that may result from a project, are not environmental impacts that must be evaluated. (City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 943). The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-44
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of public services in Section 2.15. As summarized therein, the City would be able to accommodate the proposed project and maintain the provision of all public services.

Response to BLUM-1-45
CEQA does not require consideration of environmental justice considerations. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large.

EXHIBIT 1
1985
Response to BLUM-1-46
The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-47
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-46.

Response to BLUM-1-48
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. CEQA does not require a MSR and the comment does not identify any potentially significant impacts related to public services. Note, also, that under CEQA’s definition of environmental impacts, an increase in demands on public facilities, public services, and utilities that may result from a project, are not environmental impacts that must be evaluated. (City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 943). Additionally, the City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-49
The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. The City continues to work with LAFCo on the completion of the MSR to ensure that provision of public services is maintained at appropriate levels to support forecasted growth within the MSR time horizon.

Response to BLUM-1-50
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-49.

Response to BLUM-1-51
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-48.

Response to BLUM-1-52
The employment cited in the Draft IS/MND is conservative and presents the number of employees anticipated during construction and operation. The Draft IS/MND notes that upward of 400 jobs may be generated by the proposed project, and it is reasonable to assume that employees would be drawn from the local and surrounding area. Unemployment in this area is 6.3 percent as of November 2024.

Response to BLUM-1-53
The Draft IS/MND includes a discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 2.20, Mandatory Findings of Significance. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large. CEQA does not require preparation of a MSR. The comment does not provide any data or facts demonstrating that the proposed project would have any potentially significant impacts related to public services.

EXHIBIT 1
1986
Response to BLUM-1-54
The commenter provides concluding statements related to the foregoing comments. Please refer to Response to BLUM-1-1 through BLUM-1-53.

Response to BLUM-1-55
The City has added Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance to the list of parties requesting notice regarding this project. No further response is required.

SWAPE Technical Memorandum Attachment
Response to BLUM-1-56
The comment summarizes project information. No response is required.

Response to BLUM-1-57
Refer to Responses to BLUM-1-58 through BLUM-1-111.

Response to BLUM-1-58
The commenter states that land use development projects under CEQA typically evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using CalEEMod. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information; if more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values an input project-specific values, those changes should be noted and substantiated and disclosed to the reader.

The comment is noted and no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-59
The commenter states that review of the proposed project’s CalEEMod output files reveals that the files are incomplete, and are missing a table under CalEEMod Section 7.6 Health & Equity Custom Measures. The commenter further states that without access to the “User Changes to Default Data,” verification of the model’s default values is not possible.

The City disagrees. The CalEEMod output files are contained in the Draft IS/MND. The notes regarding project-specific data used in the CalEEMod modeling are shown as Page 1 of the Appendix A of the Air Quality report. The Air Quality report is included as Appendix A of the Draft IS/MND.

Therefore, the analysis properly disclosed project-specific data used to override CalEEMod default assumptions. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-60
The commenter states that without access to the “User Changes to Default Data,” they are unable to verify where the changes were made to the model’s default values, and as a result an EIR should be prepared to include an updated, verifiable air quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files.

As stated in Response to BLUM-1-59, the complete CalEEMod output files are contained in the Draft IS/MND. As shown in the screenshot presented by the commenter in BLUM-1-59, under the header in CalEEMod Section 7.6 Health & Equity Custom Measures is the text: No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. No default values were changed under this section of CalEEMod, and there is no associated table. No further response is needed.

EXHIBIT 1
1987
Response to BLUM-1-61
The commenter states development of the proposed project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts warehouses pose on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the project site.

The commenter did not substantiate or provide analysis or evidence to support the assertions that the proposed project may contribute to the disproportionate health risk impacts within the immediate area of the project site. No further response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1-62
The commenter references three studies which pertain to warehouse development and the associated traffic-related air pollutants.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-63
The commenter notes that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) itself admits that it faces significant air quality challenges that affect the numerous disadvantaged communities within its region. The commenter asserts that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-64
The commenter notes that, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA’s) screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the project’s census tract is in the 99th percentile of communities that are disproportionately affected by various sources of pollution.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-65
The commenter notes that according to CalEnviroScreen’s SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map, the project site is located in a designated disadvantaged community.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-66
The commenter states that the project site is within a disadvantaged community, and the project’s census tract exhibits a high cancer risk, and therefore the proposed project would contribute to the disproportionate health impacts that warehouses impose on nearby residents.

The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

EXHIBIT 1
1988
Response to BLUM-1-67
SB 1000 directs cities and counties to incorporate environmental justice into the General Plan update process when two or more elements are being updated. SB 1000 does not apply to the preparation of an IS/MND when the current General Plan does not contain an Environmental Justice Element and no policies have been adopted to direct the analysis of potential impacts.

Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of these issues as part of the CEQA process. The conclusions of the Draft IS/MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large.

Response to BLUM-1-68
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-67.

Response to BLUM-1-69
The commenter provides general information about ozone and smog, citing text from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Comments BLUM-1-69 through BLUM-1-74 provide generalized information from various sources.

The City must “consider” public comments on a negative declaration but is not required to prepare responses to such comments. (PRC § 21091(d), (f); CEQA Guidelines § 15074(b)). Nonetheless, the City has chosen to provide responses to significant environmental comments for this project. These comments do not raise issues in regard to environmental issues presented. The Draft IS/MND provided and disclosed an analysis of potential air quality impacts and potential impacts to the climate from greenhouse gas emissions.

Response to BLUM-1-70
The commenter provides general information from ARB regarding inhaled pollutants and effects on children. The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-71
The commenter provides general information from a Stanford study related to air pollution and effects upon adults. The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

Response to BLUM-1-72
The commenter provides general information from a University of Redlands study related to identifying sensitive receptors. The comments are noted for the record. To the extent the comment raises only generalized concerns and does not identify a project-specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary.

EXHIBIT 1
1989
Response to BLUM-1-73
The commenter provides general information from a University of Redlands study related to identifying sensitive receptors. The comments are noted for the record. The Draft IS/MND Section

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, acknowledges the location of French Camp School and also notes that the warehouse is not intended to store hazardous materials or wastes. As such, the proposed project would not pose a potential impact to the French Camp School.

Response to BLUM-1-74
Refer to Response to BLUM-1-73.

Response to BLUM-1-75
The commenter summarizes the Draft IS/MND construction Health Risk Analysis (HRA) results, which showed less than significant health risk impacts (0.8 risks in a million compared to the Valley Air District significance threshold of 20 in a million).

The commenter then provides an excerpt from Draft IS/MND Section 2.3 Air Quality (p. 49), which cites the City’s General Plan EIR MM A-5 requiring coordination with the Valley Air District and determination of the appropriate level of HRA for projects with truck trips that would generate substantial truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered TRUs per day based on ARB recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses). The excerpted analysis then states that Valley Air District and an Operational HRA were not required based on the proposed 20 truck trips per day not exceeding the substantial diesel truck traffic levels and that DPM emissions from trucks are considered to be less than significant.

The commenter claims the Draft IS/MND’s evaluation of the proposed project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less than significant impact conclusion, however, is unsupported for four reasons.

This comment provides introductory statements to the four claims that the proposed project’s less than significant health risk impact is allegedly unsubstantiated. No specific issues are raised in this comment. No response is needed.

Responses to the four claims are provided in Responses to BLUM-1-76 through BLUM-1-79 along with each assertion.

Response to BLUM-1- 76
This comment is the first of the four reasons listed in BLUM-1- 75.

The commenter states that the construction HRA prepared for the proposed project fails to provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as age sensitivity factors (ASF) and fraction of time at home (FAH) for nearby sensitive receptors and that until the Draft IS/MND substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRA may underestimate the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors during project construction. The commenter further provides a dose and risk equation from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines claiming that because the HRA and associated documents failed to provide the equation, the proposed project’s HRA cannot be verified as accurate.

EXHIBIT 1
1990
The construction HRA was prepared and followed the methodologies prescribed in the Cal/EPA OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines–Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015). The HRA methodology is summarized in the Draft IS/MND and provides generalized dose and risk equations that include mentions of both ASF and FAH factors, as well as a reference to OEHHA methodology for the calculations. Detailed HRA assumptions and results are provided in Appendix B of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Report included as Appendix A of the Draft IS/MND.

Moreover, the ARB Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) was used to automatically calculate the health risk for the proposed project. Use of the HARP2 program ensures that the calculational procedures for cancer and non-cancer risk follow the OEHHA 2015 Guidelines and that ASF and FAH parameters are applied correctly. The HARP2 input and output files which are included in Appendix B, Health Risk Appendix Supporting Information of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analysis Report (Draft IS/MND Appendix A) detail how the HARP2 model was applied and document the appropriate HRA parameters for ASF and FAH for exposure. As set forth therein, the ASF appropriately started in the third trimester for residential receptors and the FAH was set to 100 percent for residential receptors.

Therefore, the Draft IS/MND and related technical appendices adequately disclosed all assumptions and methodologies utilized in the HRA, including, among others, the ASF and FAH, and accurately evaluated and disclosed the proposed project’s potential health risk impacts. Based on the information presented above, the lead agency is of the opinion that project impacts related to air quality have been fully disclosed, adequately analyzed and appropriately mitigated to the extent feasible under CEQA; therefore, no further analysis or revisions are required.

Response to BLUM-1- 77
This comment is the second of the four reasons listed in BLUM-1-75.

The commenter states that the Draft IS/MND relies on guidance provided in the 2005 ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook and asserts that it should instead rely on guidance from CEQA and California Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance.

The commenter did not provide justification or evidence as to why the 2005 ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook is inappropriate for purposes of the analysis, nor did the commenter provide justification outlining why the DOJ document is more appropriate for purposes of the analysis. No further response is required.

Response to BLUM-1- 78
This comment is the third of the four reasons listed in Response to BLUM-1- 75.

The commenter asserts that by failing to prepare a quantified Operational HRA, the proposed project is inconsistent with CEQA requirements to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” The commenters’ assertions are unsubstantiated. First, the Draft IS/MND does include an analysis of the proposed project’s potential health risks from project operation. The analysis in the Draft EXHIBIT 1
1991
IS/MND is based upon ARB guidance and recommendations and found that potential operationalrelated health risks would be less than significant, which represents a connection to the proposed project’s air quality impacts and likely health consequences.

Second, as noted in Response to BLUM-1- 80-88, the HRA conducted for the proposed project fully analyzed all construction-related impacts and followed OEHHA guidance, including an exposure duration of 30 years to estimate individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR). The Draft IS/MND followed recommendations and guidance by the ARB in reaching this conclusion. There are no requirements set forth by OEHHA to assess the potential health risks from warehouse projects.

The commenter stated that the proposed project would generate about 378 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and exposure to nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions; and that the Draft IS/MND fails to evaluate the toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions associated with the proposed project’s operation. The commenter further stated that the Draft IS/MND did not make a reasonable effort to connect the proposed project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, and therefore the proposed project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

The ARB, in the Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) provides guidance, standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses and was used extensively in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the proposed project.

For purposes of the proposed project, the Draft IS/MND followed the guidance issued by the ARB in the Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) that states, “avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).” The ARB recommendation is based on distance-related findings that demonstrate that cancer risks decrease to acceptable levels with distance based on truck volumes in the range of 100 per day.

While the proposed project would generate in total 486 vehicle trips, the majority of these trips are passenger vehicle trips, which are primarily gasoline or Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) and are not significant sources of DPM or other toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the Draft IS/MND appropriately analyzed and disclosed the proposed project’s construction and operational health risk impacts.

Response to BLUM-1-79
Finally, as the fourth point, the commenter asserts that the Draft IS/MND fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby receptors as a result of project construction and operation together.

The proposed project did consider both the health effects of construction and operation, but concluded, based on ARB guidance that the health risks from emissions for 20 truck trips per day were not significant, and therefore they were not quantified or added to the lifetime construction EXHIBIT 1
1992
risks. If they were quantified, they would be insignificant and not represent any appreciable additional risk (see Response to BLUM-1-88).

Response to BLUM-1-80
Here the commenter reiterates CEQA’s requirement to make a “reasonable” effort to substantially connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences” and share that they conducted a screening level HRA in an attempt to analyze the proposed project’s potential health risks. The commenter introduces that a Level 2 health risk screening assessment utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information and generates maximum downwind concentration such that if the screening determines unacceptable levels, a more refined approach should be conducted.

This comment is an introductory paragraph. No claims or concerns related to environmental impacts of the proposed project or related to the Draft IS/MND are included. No response is needed.

Response to BLUM-1- 81
The commenter presents a screening level HRA prepared using AERSCREEN, a screening level air quality dispersion model. However, the screening level HRA presented by the commenter is flawed and as such does not represent the proposed project’s air quality impacts. The following summarizes the commenter’s approach with findings related to errors in representing both the project emissions and in conducting the exposure assessment.

The commenter presents their approach for their screening HRA utilizing assumptions from the Draft IS/MND by dividing the annual DPM emissions (40 pounds) as determined by the PM10 exhaust emissions from CalEEMod divided by 365 days per year to get an average emission rate for the screening dispersion model AERSCREEN. The commenter calculates the length of the operational exposure period by subtracting the construction period from 30-year lifetime exposure period and dividing it by 11.7 acres to represent emissions from the site. They also document other AERSCREEN inputs such as population, urban meteorological setting, and plume release characteristics.

In response to this analysis, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) has the following assessment:

The modeling parameters for the AERSCREEN source characteristics (release height and initial dispersion parameter, area, urban dispersion) are appropriate.

The census data and urban dispersion parameters for AERSCREEN are also appropriate.

The modeling parameters for the operational exposure duration (29.27 years) used by the commenter are not consistent with those required by Valley Air District guidelines, revealing the commenter’s lack of familiarity with the Valley Air District HRA guidelines, which requires a lifetime exposure of 70-years for all residential receptors to be compared to a threshold risk of 20 in a million excess cancer cases. A proper HRA would be based on 69.27 years of residential exposure.

The annual modeled emission amount used in the HRA (40 pounds) is inappropriate and does not represent the emissions of DPM that would occur on and near the site, but rather represents the emissions from all vehicles over 50 miles and includes PM10 exhaust that is from gasoline vehicles as well as diesel trucks.

EXHIBIT 1
1993
Response to BLUM-1 82
The commenter continues their analysis with the AERSCREEN results, scaling the maximum 1-hour concentration to an annual average using a factor of 0.1 or 10 percent, appropriately. The model predicts the maximum impact at 150 meters away or at the distance corresponding to the nearest residential sensitive receptor or the MEIR. This value is presented as 0.0479 µg/m3.

While a screening HRA is known to be conservative and overpredict potential health risks (see BLUM-1- 87), the screening HRA itself is flawed for several reasons. The primary flaw is that the emissions utilized in the screening HRA (40 pounds of DPM annually) are based on emissions from the full truck trip length of 50 miles from the project site and are used inappropriately as a localized HRA with emissions all modeled from the project site. These full emissions should not be utilized in an HRA because, unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.

Valley Air District requires that local impact assessments consider emissions within 0.25 mile of a project site.

Therefore, the HRSA provided by the commenter is flawed because it does not accurately reflect the localized emissions that should be evaluated in a health risk assessment. Because the HRSA is inaccurate, it does not constitute substantial evidence of the proposed project’s effects, nor does it provide substantial evidence that a more refined HRA should be prepared to assess potential operational-related health impacts.

Response to BLUM-1- 83
The commenter continues their analysis showing step-by step exposure assumptions for residential cancer risk, showing OEHHA assumptions as recommended by Valley Air District.

In response to this analysis, FCS has the following assessment:

The tables do follow OEHHA assumptions as stated by the commenter, but do not follow Valley Air District HRA Guidance APR-1906 Framework for Preparing Health Risk Assessments, and do not present a proper HRA procedure for the Valley Air District.

Valley Air District policies ( https://ww2.valleyair.org/media/0shm0mlk/apr-1906.pdf) specifies an OEHHA-derived Method exposure assessment and an exposure period of 70-years. In cancer risk assessments, the OEHHA-derived method uses the high-end point estimate (i.e., 95th percentile) for the two driving (dominant) exposure pathways and the mean point estimate for the remaining pathways.

The exposure assumptions provided in the commenter’s table appears to use the 95 percent point approach for ages 2 and younger, but the 80th percentile for ages greater than age 2.

The OEHHA-derived approach, which utilizes the 95 percent estimate for all age-bins would correspond to 745 L/kg BW-day for 2<16 years and 290 L/kg BW-day for 16-70 years (Table 5.8 of the OEHHA 2015 Guidelines). This does not match the commentors table.

The Valley Air District does not allow the use of adjustments to the “time away from home” without justification and Valley Air District review and approval prior to use. So, the assessment should have EXHIBIT 1
1994
used 100 percent time at home for all ages, up to age 70 years. Again, parameters in the commenter’s table for the HRA are not correct.

Response to BLUM-1- 84
The commenter presents their results for the operational exposure over infancy, childhood and adulthood (up to 30 years of age) as 24.6 in a million excess cancer cases.

As previously discussed, these results are based on faulty use of truck trip length emissions, and do not follow Valley Air District Risk Assessment Guidelines.

Response to BLUM-1- 85
The commenter sums their Operational HRA analysis results as 24.6 in a million with the proposed project’s construction health risk of 0.8 in a million for a total predicted excess cancer risk of 25.4 in a million over a residential lifetime of 30 years. FCS demonstrated in Response to BLUM-1-81 through BLUM-1-84 above that the commenter’s HRA analysis is flawed in two major respects, both in terms of the project emissions modeled and the Valley Air District HRA protocols.

Response to BLUM-1- 86
The commenter compares the resulting combined construction and operational project risk of 25.4 in a million to the Valley Air District threshold of 20 in a million and claims that the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact.

As previously discussed, these results are based on faulty use of truck trip length emissions, and do not follow Valley Air District Risk Assessment Guidelines.

Response to BLUM-1- 87
The commenter adds informational information that their analysis represents a screening level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts.

No response is needed, as this comment is informational in nature.

Response to BLUM-1- 88
Finally, following up on BLUM-1-87 and BLUM-1-88, the commentors conclude that analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach since it demonstrated that the proposed project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact. The commenter also asserts that the future EIR should be prepared to include a refined HRA which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both project construction and operation.

FCS demonstrated that the screening level HRA provided by the commenter was flawed on several fronts and that the original conclusions in the Draft IS/MND were correct. No additional HRA is necessary and an EIR is not necessary to provide additional information regarding operational health risk from the proposed project.

Response to BLUM-1-89
The commenter cited CEQA Guidelines Section 15096(g)(2) and asserts that the proposed project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. None of EXHIBIT 1
1995
the information provided by commenter demonstrates a potential significant impact or the need for mitigation. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not result in significant health risk impacts that would require mitigation.

Response to BLUM-1-90
The commenter includes a list of measures from the ARB that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Impacts to air quality are fully mitigated and reduced to below a level of significance. The mitigation measures proposed by the commenter are neither necessary nor required. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-91
The commenter includes an additional list of measures from the ARB that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-92
The commenter includes a list of measures from the South Coast Air Quality Management District– an air district with jurisdiction in Southern California and not the air district that governs air quality in the project area–that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions.

Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-93
The commenter includes a list of measures from the CalEEMod User’s Guide that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-94
The commenter asserts that they have provided several mitigation measures that could reduce DPM emissions. As demonstrated above, the proposed project would not have a significant health risk impact caused by the proposed project’s DPM emissions. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-95
As demonstrated above, the commenter has not provided substantial evidence that the proposed project would result in significant air quality impacts. In contrast, the proposed project’s potential air quality and health risk impacts are thoroughly analyzed and disclosed in Section 2.3, Air Quality, of the Draft IS/MND. All air quality and health risk impacts are shown to be less than significant and do not require mitigation. Therefore, no additional analysis is necessary. No changes to the Draft IS/MND are required.

Response to BLUM-1-96
The commenter provides a disclaimer and does not raise any specific environmental issues. No response is needed.

EXHIBIT 1
1996

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
1997
P: (626) 314-3821
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M.

Law Firm
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
September 30, 2024
Nicole Moore, Contract Planner
City of Stockton Permit Center
345 N El Dorado St.

City of Stockton, CA 95202
Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project IS/MND (SCH# 2024081317)
Dear Nicole Moore,
On behalf of the Carpenters Local Union #152 (Local 152), our Office is submitting these comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City of Stocktons (City) South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (Project).

The Citys IS/MND describes the project as follows:

The proposed project would result in the annexation of the site into the City of Stockton and the development of a 184,166-square-foot building containing 179,166 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space . . .The building would include 27 dock doors and a loading area along the west side of the building. Parking spaces would be provided on the east, south, and west sides of the building. There would be a 30- foot setback at the front of the building along South McKinley Avenue.

Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the parking lot, with trees and shrubs to provide canopy. All landscaping would be lowmaintenance with water-efficient native species. All landscaping equipment used at the facility would be electric or battery powered. The design of the building would provide for outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.
1 of 277
1 2
EXHIBIT 1
1998
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 2 of 17 ends

In addition, the project would require a 4-foot-deep trench for a new sewer line in South McKinley Avenue, extending approximately 2,400 feet north of the site, near the intersection of Sperry Road . . . A sewer lift station would be constructed within the project site. (IS/MND, p. 23.) Local 152 is a labor union that represents thousands of union carpenters who live and work in San Joaquin County, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

Individual members of Local 152 live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Projects environmental impacts.

Local 152 expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project.

Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also
(1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.

Local 152 incorporates by reference all comments related to the Project or its CEQA review, including the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. See (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the projects environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, Local 152 requests that the City provide of any upcoming hearings, as well as for any and all notices referring or related to the Project, as required by the Municipal Code, as well as under the California Environmental Quality Act ( ) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 ), and the California Planning and Zoning Law ( ) (Gov. Code, §§ 6500065010).

California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agencys governing body. We request that such notice be mailed and e-mailed to us.

The City should require the Project to be built by contractors who participate in a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California and make a commitment to hiring a local workforce.
2 CONT
3 4
5 6
7 EXHIBIT 1
1999
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 3 of 17 ends

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a costand investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling Californias workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an areas jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the [u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program can result in air pollutant reductions.2 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 Warehouse Indirect Source Rule Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve 8 9
10 EXHIBIT 1
2000
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 4 of 17 ends

Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The citys First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, Supporting Budget Actions, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobshousing.pdf 4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: JobsHousing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT825.pdf. 11 12
13 EXHIBIT 1
2001
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 5 of 17 ends

otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 ( ). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.

II.

A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations ( ), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).5 At its core, its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions they are made. (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.

B. Background Concerning Environmental Impact Reports
CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also
(2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354;
(1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; , 47 Cal.3d at p. 400. The EIR
serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are 5 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq , are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.
13 CONT
14 EXHIBIT 1
2002
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 6 of 17 ends

acceptable due to overriding concerns specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).

While the courts review an EIR using an abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court is not to rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. , 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting , 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. . Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQAs information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102,
131. As the court stated in , prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).

The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome.
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIRs function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. . For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. .

A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA.

This presumption is reflected in what is known as the fair argument standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602;
. v. (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.

The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. PRC, § 21151; 14 CONT
15 EXHIBIT 1
2003
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 7 of 17 ends

see (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord
(2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §§ 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), (f)(1).

An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (2013) 222
Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063 (b)(2), 15064(f)(3).
Significant effect upon the environment is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. PRC, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, § 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact , 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1); see (2005) 127
Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.

This standard sets a low threshold for preparation of an EIR. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; (2010)
190 Cal.App.4th 252; (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903,
928; (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580;
(1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; , 202 Cal.App.3d at p.
310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 886;
(2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183;
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150;
(1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; , 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1).
15 CONT
16 17
EXHIBIT 1
2004
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 8 of 17 ends

C. Background Concerning Initial Studies, Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations
CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when an MND may be used. A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subds. (f)(1)-(2), 15063; , 13 Cal.3d at p. 75;
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112.

Essentially, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (f)(1)-(2); see , 13 Cal.3d at p. 75 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Substantial evidence includes enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached. CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a).

The fair argument standard is a low threshold test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. , , 13 Cal.3d at p. 84;
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579. It requires the preparation of an EIR where there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial[.] , , 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1)).

A lead agency may adopt an MND only if there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines, § 15074(b).

Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905. Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agencys determination is not appropriate[.] , 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579 (quoting
(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).
18 19
EXHIBIT 1
2005
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 9 of 17 ends

Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data. , 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 311. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences. ; see also (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record).

Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed.
(2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486 (internal citations and
quotations omitted). The remedy for this deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate.

Both the review for failure to follow CEQAs procedures and the fair argument test are questions of law, thus, the de novo standard of review applies. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
Whether the agencys record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a question of law. , 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 207; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76.

In an MND context, courts give no deference to the agency. Additionally, the agency or the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of such evidencethis is one of the EIRs functions. As stated in :

Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared, neither the lead agency nor a court may weigh conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance.

Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. Thus, as itself recognized, [c]onsideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration.
20 21
22 EXHIBIT 1
2006
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 10 of 17 ends

(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires erring on the side of a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332. The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.

The Project, individually and taken together with the operation of other industrial development within the City, will expose the nearby City community to increased air pollution and requires respective studies and mitigation.

According to the California Air Resources Board ( ), industrial development, including warehouse projects, can lead to the increase in daily volumes of heavy-duty truck traffic and the operation of on-site equipment that emits toxic diesel, thus contributing to both regional air pollution and climate change.6 This is especially detrimental to disadvantaged communities located within the vicinity of these warehouse projects.

Accordingly, to address the disproportionate impacts of air pollution and particularly such impacts on disadvantaged communities, the State has passed some key pieces of legislation that focus on clean air investment, pollution, mitigation, and environmental regulation.
a) Senate Bill 535
Senate Bill 535, passed in 2012, authorized the California Environmental Protection Agency ( ) to identify disadvantaged communities in order to target a share of the investment of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds to these communities.7 The 6 CARB Comment Letter ( ) (Apr. 28, 2023) (p. 1),
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20Mariposa%20Industrial%20Park%20%232%20DEIR%20- %204.28.2023.pdf (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
7 Sen. Bill No. 535, approved by Governor, Sept. 30, 2012, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB535 22 CONT
23 24
EXHIBIT 1
2007
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 11 of 17 ends

bill requires that funds be allocated for the benefit of disadvantaged communities while recognizing the potential vulnerability of these communities to poor air quality.8 CalEPA defines a disadvantaged communities as the top 25% highest scoring census tracts in what was then the most current version of CalEnviroScreen, Version

3.0, along with the census tracts that scored in the highest 5% of CalEnviroSceens Pollution Burden indicator but did not have an overall CalEnviroScreen score. 9 In its May 2022 final designation, CalEPA has decided to formally designate as disadvantaged communities (DACs) the four categories of tracts proposed for designation in the Preliminary Designation; i.e.: (1) census tracts with the highest 25 percent of CalEnviroScreen overall scores; (2) census tracts lacking overall scores due to data gaps, but with the highest 5 percent of CalEnviroScreen Pollution Burden scores; (3) census tracts recognized as disadvantaged in CalEPAs most recent SB 535 designation, made in 2017; and (4) areas under the control of federally recognized Tribes.10
Based on these four criteria, CalEPA provided an interactive map of DACs,11 which shows that the Project is near disadvantaged communities.

Accordingly, the City should ensure that the Project will not have an adverse impact on nearby disadvantaged communities.
b) Senate Bill 1000
Senate Bill 1000, passed in 2016, requires local governments to include environmental justice elements into their general plans where local governments have identified disadvantaged communities when the government will next adopt or revise two (2) or more elements concurrently on or after January 1, 2018.12 SB 1000 requires that these 8 at Section 1(b).
9 CalEPA, (Oct.
2021), p. 1, https://calepa.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2021/10/2021_CalEPA_Prelim_DAC_1018_English_a.pdf (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
10 CalEPAs 535, May 2022 -
https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2022/05/Updated-DisadvantagedCommunities-Designation-DAC-May-2022-Eng.a.hp_-1.pdf ; 11 See, CalEPAs Final Designation interactive map:
https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/ghginvest/
12 Sen. Bill No. 1000, approved by Governor Sept. 24, 2016, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000 (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
24 CONT
25 26
EXHIBIT 1
2008
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 12 of 17 ends

environmental justice elements set forth objectives and policies intended to reduce health risks in disadvantaged communities and include policies aimed at reducing community pollution exposure by improving air quality.13 The purpose is to ensure environmental justice principles are incorporated into the planning process so that disadvantaged community needs are addressed and improvements and programs are prioritized.
c) Assembly Bill 617
Assembly Bill 617 is aimed at developing a new community focused program to more effectively reduce to [sic] air pollution and preserve public health and directs [CARB] and all local air districts, . . . to take measures to protect communities disproportionately impacted by air pollution.14 As a result, CARB, in conjunction with local air districts, created the Community Air Protection Program.15 The foregoing three (3) bills should be evaluated and included in the Projects environmental analysis in order to address and mitigate any potential negative impacts that the Project may have on air quality and the communities nearby.

Since the Project Site is located near a community already burdened by various sources of air pollution, the City should revise the health risk assessment ( ) for the Project to account for all potential health risks from the Project. According to CARB, an HRA should account for all potential operational health risks from Project-related diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emission sources, including, but not limited to, 13 at Section 65302(h)(A).
14 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, , https://www.airquality.org/air-quality-health/community-air-protection/ab-617- background (accessed on May 19, 2023); Assem. Bill No. 617, approved by Governor July 26, 2017,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB617 (accessed on May 19, 2023.)
15 California Air Resources Board,
(accessed on May 19, 2023), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/community-air-protection-incentives/ab-617-community-air-protectionincentives#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20AB%20617%20directed%20CARB,variety%20of% 20strategies%20including%20incentives.
26 CONT
27 EXHIBIT 1
2009
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 13 of 17 ends

back-up generators, on-site diesel-powered equipment, locomotives, and heavy-duty trucks.16
In addition, the HRA should evaluate whether the Projects operation, considered together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would cause a cumulative cancer risk impact on neighboring communities. 17 Therefore, the City should include all air pollution reduction measures listed in Attachment A of the CARB Letter.18
Assuming that the proposed industrial land uses here would be used for cold storage, it is possible that the trucks and trailers visiting the Project Site could be equipped with Transport Refrigeration Units ( ).19 According to CARB, TRUs can emit a significant amount of diesel exhaust while operating near the Project Site, which would expose nearby residences and other sensitive receptors to diesel exhaust emissions, thereby posing a significant cancer risk to the nearby community.20 Thus, if the Project will be used for cold storage, the City should model air pollutant emissions from onsite TRUs in the environmental study and account for the potential cancer risks that the on-site TRUs may pose in the Projects HRA.

If, however, the Projects use of TRUs is unclear or if the Project at this time is proposed with no TRUs and the Project site will not be used for cold storage or TRU trucks, then the City should ensure that any future use of TRUs will be duly accounted for and its impacts mitigation. To do so, the City should include at least one of the following design measures and approval conditions:

A Project design measure requiring contractual language in tenant lease agreements that prohibits tenants from operating TRUs within the Project-site; or
16 CARB Letter, , at p. 2.
17 18 at p. 8, Attachment A.
19 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/cold-storage/coldstorage1.htm#:~:text=TRUs%20are%20currently%20defined%20as,trailers%2C%20railcar s%20and%20shipping%20containers (Dec. 18, 2018) (TRUs are defined as refrigeration systems that are powered by internal combustion engines (inside the unit housing). They control the environment of temperature-sensitive products that are transported in refrigerated trucks, trailers, railcars and shipping containers.) (accessed on May 19, 2023.) 20 CARB Letter, , at p. 2.
27 CONT
28 29
30 EXHIBIT 1
2010
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 14 of 17 ends

A condition requiring a restrictive covenant over the parcel that prohibits the applicants use of TRUs on the property unless the applicant seeks and receives an amendment to its conditional use permit allowing such use.21 In addition to the potential health risks discussed above, the Projects air quality studies or findings and the Projects HRA should also include health risks associated with construction diesel particulate matter emissions. The Projects construction activities would cause short-term diesel particulate matter emissions both from onroad and off-road diesel equipment.22 Since the Projects construction activities will likely take place for more than two (2) months, the Projects HRA should discuss the health risks posed for existing residences located near the Project Site while the Projects construction takes place.23
In addition, the HRA should analyze all diesel particulate matter emission sources pertaining to Project construction and evaluate the cancer risks based on the most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments guidance and CARBs HARP2 model.24
In sum, City must address, study, and mitigate the Projects reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts, including the localized air pollutant exposure at the neighborhood level, as well as the Projects regional air quality impacts, through a revised HRA. 25 CEQA mitigation measures proposed and adopted into an environmental impact report are required to describe what actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing 21 at p. 2.
22 at p. 3.
23 24
25 As stated in the CARB letter, With regard to greenhouse gas emissions from this project, CARB has been clear that local governments and project proponents have a responsibility to properly mitigate these impacts. CARBs guidance, set out in detail in the Scoping Plan issued in 2017, makes clear that in CARBs expert view, local mitigation is critical to achieving climate goals and reducing greenhouse gases below levels of significance. at p. 1. As noted in the CARB Letter ( ), the noted concerns are for both the localized air pollutant exposure at the neighborhood level, as well as the Projects regional air quality impacts. 30 CONT
31 33
32 EXHIBIT 1
2011
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 15 of 17 ends

[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.].) While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, but such exception is narrowly proscribed to situations where measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way. (Id.) Courts have also recognized a similar exception to the general rule against deferral of mitigation measures where the performance criteria for each mitigation measure is identified and described in the EIR. (Sacramento Old City Assn v.

City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011.)
Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms but the agency fails to commit itself to specific performance standards. (Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 [city improperly deferred mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its management]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 671 [EIR failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or standard of performance for mitigating impacts to biological habitats]; see also Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 442 [generalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards]; California Clean Energy Comm. v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 195 [agency could not rely on a future report on urban decay with no standards for determining whether mitigation required]; POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 740 [agency could not rely on future rulemaking to establish specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would be achieved]; Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1119 [rejecting mitigation measure requiring replacement water to be provided to neighboring landowners because it identified a general goal for mitigation rather than specific performance standard]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 [requiring report without established standards is impermissible delay].)
The Air Quality Mitigation Measures for the Project results in deferred mitigation by not adequately analyzing the applicability of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Districts ( ) Rule 9510. While the IS/MND states that the air quality 15 of 277
33 CONT
34 EXHIBIT 1
2012
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 16 of 17 ends

assessment included in Appendix A fulfills the requirements of the majority of the mitigation measures, measure MM AQ-4b is left to be assessed by the applicant prior to the Projects discretionary approval. (IS/MND, p. 51.) This requirement, however, lacks necessary enforcements mechanisms to ensure the assessment is performed and available to the public to any approvals. Further, the mitigation measure itself requires the creation of future, unknown mitigation measures to reduce impacts as necessary. These mitigations must also be made available for public comment to ensure compliance with CEQA.

As the currently air quality mitigations are speculative in nature, there is a fair argument that there will be a significant air quality impact requiring the preparation of an EIR.

5. There Is a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Biological Impacts Mandatory Findings of Signficance and an EIR.

The IS/MND fails to outline all mitigation measures necessary to support a finding of no significant impact. As the Project site is located within the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) area, the applicant will be required to obtain an incidental take permit and implement further mitigation requirements as defined by the San Joquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). The City of Stockton, as a Plan Participant, agreed to the terms of the plan. Further mitigations required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board are also expected due to the Projects impacts on the nearby French Camp Slough.

However, the potential mitigations have not been included in the IS/MND and no clear description of the performance standards was included in the existing mitigation measures. As such, the biological impact mitigations also engage in impermissible deferred mitigation.

As written, the IS/MND relies on compliance alone to support its findings of no significant impacts on biological resources. However, as explained above, this compliance is completely speculative as the measures required for actual compliance have not been created. Further, the process currently described by the IS/MND is with the requirements of the SJMSCP. The Plan states that Plan Participants shall forward Advisory Agency Notices to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), as required by Section 8.1.3.2,
. (SJMSCP, p. 5-16)(Emphasis added.) If the JPA
determines that the project will require mitigation measures, the JPA shall list the applicable Incidental Take Minimization Measures in the written response. (Id.) 16 of 277
34 CONT
35 36
37 EXHIBIT 1
2013
City of Stockton South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project September 30, 2024

Page 17 of 17 ends

Further, any mitigation measures required by the JPA are to be . (Id.) The IS/MND has failed to clarify whether or
not the incidental take permit process has even been initiated.

As the requirements of the SJMSCP have not been met, the Citys conclusion that there will be no significant impacts on biological resources is entirely unsupported by evidence, and there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant biological resources impacts, necessitating the preparation of an EIR.

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the City should deny the Projects proposed entitlements and require that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared pursuant to CEQA, consistent with the comments and issues identified in this comment letter.

Sincerely,
____________________________
Grace Holbrook
Attorneys for Carpenters
Local Union #152
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C).

G H lb k
17 of 277
38 39
40 EXHIBIT 1
2014
EXHIBIT 1
2015
1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101
Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 California Emissions Estimator Model. CAPCOA, 2017 http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 California Emissions Estimator Model. CAPCOA, 2017 http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 CalEEMod Users Guide. CAPCOA, November 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34.

EXHIBIT 1
2016
2 VMTd = (Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input projectspecific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8
The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 CalEEMod Users Guide. CAPCOA, November 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9.

Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):

EXHIBIT 1
2017
3 [B]ased on the and selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were . Each district (or county) also
assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
er Trip th
l n
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
9 CalEEMod Users Guide. CAPCOA, November 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 Appendix D Default Data Tables. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 D-86. number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:

EXHIBIT 1
2018
4 Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the projects urbanization level and location.
14 Appendix D Default Data Tables. CAPCOA, October 2017, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85.

As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (Project) located in the City of Claremont (City). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Projects construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

EXHIBIT 1
2019
5 SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

EXHIBIT 1
2020
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco 10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras 16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado 16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa 16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino 16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay 16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern 16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
EXHIBIT 1
2021
Air District San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo 13 13
Air District Santa Barbara 8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County 16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
EXHIBIT 1
2022
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino- 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino- 19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara- 8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
EXHIBIT 1
2023
r al
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
r
EXHIBIT 1
2024
EXHIBIT 1
2025
EXHIBIT 1
2026
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 30 of 277 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM EXHIBIT 1 2027
EXHIBIT 1
2028
EXHIBIT 1
2029
EXHIBIT 1
2030
EXHIBIT 1
2031
EXHIBIT 1
2032
EXHIBIT 1
2033
EXHIBIT 1
2034
EXHIBIT 1
2035
EXHIBIT 1
2036
EXHIBIT 1
2037
EXHIBIT 1
2038
EXHIBIT 1
2039
EXHIBIT 1
2040
EXHIBIT 1
2041
EXHIBIT 1
2042
EXHIBIT 1
2043
EXHIBIT 1
2044
EXHIBIT 1
2045
EXHIBIT 1
2046
EXHIBIT 1
2047
EXHIBIT 1
2048
EXHIBIT 1
2049
EXHIBIT 1
2050
EXHIBIT 1
2051
EXHIBIT 1
2052
EXHIBIT 1
2053
EXHIBIT 1
2054
EXHIBIT 1
2055
EXHIBIT 1
2056
EXHIBIT 1
2057
EXHIBIT 1
2058
EXHIBIT 1
2059
EXHIBIT 1
2060
EXHIBIT 1
2061
EXHIBIT 1
2062
EXHIBIT 1
2063
EXHIBIT 1
2064
EXHIBIT 1
2065
EXHIBIT 1
2066
EXHIBIT 1
2067
EXHIBIT 1
2068
EXHIBIT 1
2069
EXHIBIT 1
2070
EXHIBIT 1
2071
EXHIBIT 1
2072
EXHIBIT 1
2073
EXHIBIT 1
2074
EXHIBIT 1
2075
EXHIBIT 1
2076
EXHIBIT 1
2077
EXHIBIT 1
2078
EXHIBIT 1
2079
EXHIBIT 1
2080
EXHIBIT 1
2081
EXHIBIT 1
2082
EXHIBIT 1
2083
EXHIBIT 1
2084
EXHIBIT 1
2085
EXHIBIT 1
2086
EXHIBIT 1
2087
EXHIBIT 1
2088
EXHIBIT 1
2089
EXHIBIT 1
2090
EXHIBIT 1
2091
EXHIBIT 1
2092
EXHIBIT 1
2093
EXHIBIT 1
2094
EXHIBIT 1
2095
EXHIBIT 1
2096
EXHIBIT 1
2097
EXHIBIT 1
2098
EXHIBIT 1
2099
EXHIBIT 1
2100
EXHIBIT 1
2101
EXHIBIT 1
2102
EXHIBIT 1
2103
EXHIBIT 1
2104
EXHIBIT 1
2105
EXHIBIT 1
2106
EXHIBIT 1
2107
EXHIBIT 1
2108
EXHIBIT 1
2109
EXHIBIT 1
2110
EXHIBIT 1
2111
EXHIBIT 1
2112
EXHIBIT 1
2113
EXHIBIT 1
2114
EXHIBIT 1
2115
EXHIBIT 1
2116
EXHIBIT 1
2117
EXHIBIT 1
2118
EXHIBIT 1
2119
EXHIBIT 1
2120
EXHIBIT 1
2121
EXHIBIT 1
2122
EXHIBIT 1
2123
EXHIBIT 1
2124
EXHIBIT 1
2125
EXHIBIT 1
2126
EXHIBIT 1
2127
EXHIBIT 1
2128
EXHIBIT 1
2129
EXHIBIT 1
2130
EXHIBIT 1
2131
EXHIBIT 1
2132
EXHIBIT 1
2133
EXHIBIT 1
2134
EXHIBIT 1
2135
EXHIBIT 1
2136
EXHIBIT 1
2137
EXHIBIT 1
2138
EXHIBIT 1
2139
EXHIBIT 1
2140
EXHIBIT 1
2141
EXHIBIT 1
2142
EXHIBIT 1
2143
EXHIBIT 1
2144
EXHIBIT 1
2145
EXHIBIT 1
2146
EXHIBIT 1
2147
EXHIBIT 1
2148
EXHIBIT 1
2149
EXHIBIT 1
2150
EXHIBIT 1
2151
EXHIBIT 1
2152
EXHIBIT 1
2153
EXHIBIT 1
2154
EXHIBIT 1
2155
EXHIBIT 1
2156
EXHIBIT 1
2157
EXHIBIT 1
2158
EXHIBIT 1
2159
EXHIBIT 1
2160
EXHIBIT 1
2161
EXHIBIT 1
2162
EXHIBIT 1
2163
EXHIBIT 1
2164
EXHIBIT 1
2165
EXHIBIT 1
2166
EXHIBIT 1
2167
EXHIBIT 1
2168
EXHIBIT 1
2169
EXHIBIT 1
2170
EXHIBIT 1
2171
EXHIBIT 1
2172
EXHIBIT 1
2173
EXHIBIT 1
2174
EXHIBIT 1
2175
EXHIBIT 1
2176
EXHIBIT 1
2177
EXHIBIT 1
2178
EXHIBIT 1
2179
EXHIBIT 1
2180
EXHIBIT 1
2181
EXHIBIT 1
2182
EXHIBIT 1
2183
EXHIBIT 1
2184
EXHIBIT 1
2185
EXHIBIT 1
2186
EXHIBIT 1
2187
EXHIBIT 1
2188
EXHIBIT 1
2189
EXHIBIT 1
2190
EXHIBIT 1
2191
EXHIBIT 1
2192
EXHIBIT 1
2193
EXHIBIT 1
2194
EXHIBIT 1
2195
EXHIBIT 1
2196
EXHIBIT 1
2197
EXHIBIT 1
2198
EXHIBIT 1
2199
EXHIBIT 1
2200
EXHIBIT 1
2201
EXHIBIT 1
2202
EXHIBIT 1
2203
EXHIBIT 1
2204
EXHIBIT 1
2205
EXHIBIT 1
2206
EXHIBIT 1
2207
EXHIBIT 1
2208
EXHIBIT 1
2209
EXHIBIT 1
2210
EXHIBIT 1
2211
EXHIBIT 1
2212
EXHIBIT 1
2213
EXHIBIT 1
2214
EXHIBIT 1
2215
EXHIBIT 1
2216
EXHIBIT 1
2217
EXHIBIT 1
2218
EXHIBIT 1
2219
EXHIBIT 1
2220
EXHIBIT 1
2221
EXHIBIT 1
2222
EXHIBIT 1
2223
EXHIBIT 1
2224
EXHIBIT 1
2225
EXHIBIT 1
2226
EXHIBIT 1
2227
EXHIBIT 1
2228
EXHIBIT 1
2229
EXHIBIT 1
2230
EXHIBIT 1
2231
EXHIBIT 1
2232
EXHIBIT 1
2233
EXHIBIT 1
2234
EXHIBIT 1
2235
EXHIBIT 1
2236
EXHIBIT 1
2237
EXHIBIT 1
2238
EXHIBIT 1
2239
EXHIBIT 1
2240
EXHIBIT 1
2241
EXHIBIT 1
2242
EXHIBIT 1
2243
EXHIBIT 1
2244
EXHIBIT 1
2245
EXHIBIT 1
2246
EXHIBIT 1
2247
EXHIBIT 1
2248
EXHIBIT 1
2249
EXHIBIT 1
2250
EXHIBIT 1
2251
EXHIBIT 1
2252
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 120.77
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized (MT CO2e/year) 100.80
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
EXHIBIT 1
2253
EXHIBIT 1
2254

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources.

EXHIBIT 1
2255
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

EXHIBIT 1
2256
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federations Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

EXHIBIT 1
2257
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

EXHIBIT 1
2258
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealeys C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealeys Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

EXHIBIT 1
2259
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

EXHIBIT 1
2260
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
EXHIBIT 1
2261
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS Conti Perdido Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
EXHIBIT 1
2262
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.

Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
EXHIBIT 1
2263
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.

Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
EXHIBIT 1
2264
EXHIBIT 1
2265
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887-9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPAs Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.

Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.

Positions Matt has held include:

Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 present); Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 2 4;
Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); EXHIBIT 1
2266
Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 2004);
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989 1998);
Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 2000); Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 1998);
Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 1995); Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 1998); and
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matts responsibilities have included:

Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.

Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities.

Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.

Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.

Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.

Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.

Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.

Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation.

Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school.

Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matts duties included the following:

Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.

Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.

Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.

Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 EXHIBIT 1
2267
Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi.

Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 EXHIBIT 1
2268
Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

Hydrogeology:

Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.

Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.

Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.

Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 EXHIBIT 1
2269
Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:

Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.

Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.

Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.

Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractors investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:

Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.

Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.

Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.

Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.

Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.

Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:

Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.

Shaped EPAs national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.

Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff.

Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the regions 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process.

Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 EXHIBIT 1
2270
Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:

Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.

Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.

Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.

Conducted aquifer tests.

Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:

At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.

Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.

Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 EXHIBIT 1
2271
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 EXHIBIT 1
2272
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z ati o n and Cl e an up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPLcontaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 EXHIBIT 1
2273
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011.
9 EXHIBIT 1
2274

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
2275
Tsai (TSAI-1)
Response to TSAI-1-1
The commenter provides introductory remarks. No response is required.

Response to TSAI-1-2
The commenter summarizes project details. No response is required.

Response to TSAI-1-3
The commenters describes their membership. No response is required.

Response to TSAI-1-4
The commenter provides introductory remarks. No response is required.

Response toTSAI-1-5
The commenter incorporates other comments submitted on the Draft IS/MND. No response is required.

Response to TSAI-1-6
The commenter requests notice for any upcoming hearing. The comment is noted. No further response is required.

Response to TSAI-1-7
The commenter requests that a local workforce be used to construct the proposed project. This comment is beyond the purview of CEQA, although the document acknowledges that the proposed project would provide employment opportunities for local residents and that the unemployment rate in the Stockton-Lodi Metropolitan Area would provide a substantial number of available workers for hire.

Response to TSAI-1-8
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-7.

Response to TSAI-1-9
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-7.

Response toTSAI-1-10
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-7.

Response to TSAI-1-11
Refer to response to TSAI-1-7.

Response to TSAI-1-12
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-7.

Response to TSAI-1-13
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-7.

EXHIBIT 1
2276
Response to TSAI-1-14
The Draft IS/MND confirms that the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; accordingly, preparation of an EIR including analysis of project alternatives is not warranted under CEQA.

Response toTSAI-1-15
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response to TSAI-1-16
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response to TSAI-1-17
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response to TSAI-1-18
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response to TSAI-1-19
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response toTSAI-1-20
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response to TSAI-1-21
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response to TSAI-1-22
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-14.

Response to TSAI-1-23
The commenters asserts that the proposed project would have a cumulatively significant air quality impact on disadvantaged communities located within the project vicinity. The Draft IS/MND demonstrates that the proposed project would not have any significant impacts. See Response to BLUM-1-7 related to project impacts to nearby disadvantaged communities.

Response to TSAI-1-24
The commenter provides background information on SB 535, identification of disadvantaged communities. The commenter states that the proposed project is near disadvantaged communities.

The comment does not raise any specific environmental issue in the Draft IS/MND. No response is needed.

Response toTSAI-1-25
The commenter states that the City should ensure that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on nearby disadvantaged communities. The proposed project’s impact on nearby sensitive receptors, which are disadvantaged communities, is appropriately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft IS/MND. See Response to BLUM-1-8.

EXHIBIT 1
2277
Response to TSAI-1-26
SB 1000 directs cities and counties to incorporate environmental justice into the General Plan update process when two or more elements are being updated. SB 1000 does not apply to the preparation of an IS/MND when the current General Plan does not contain an Environmental Justice Element and no policies have been adopted to direct the analysis of potential impacts.

Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for environmental justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of the same as part of the CEQA process. The conclusions of the MND confirm that the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts to any local community or the public at large.

Response to TSAI-1-27
The commenter asserts that the City should prepare an HRA that includes all potential operational health risks from project-related diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emission sources, including, but not limited to, backup generators, on-site diesel-powered equipment, locomotives, and heavyduty trucks. The proposed project’s operation health risk impacts are appropriately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft IS/MND. See Response to BLUM-1-82 through BLUM-1-86. No further analysis is needed.

Response to TSAI-1-28
The commenter states that the HRA should evaluate whether the proposed project’s operation, considered together with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would cause a cumulative cancer risk impact on neighboring communities, and therefore include all air pollution reduction measures listed in Attachment A of the ARB letter.

As stated, the proposed project’s operational health risk impacts are appropriately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft IS/MND. See Response to BLUM1-82 through BLUM-1-86. No further analysis or response is needed.

Response to TSAI-1-29
The commenter states that “if the project will be used for cold storage, the City should model air pollutant emissions from on-site TRUs.”
The proposed project does not include cold storage. MM GHG-1e expressly limits the project use to dry storage only. As previously stated, the proposed project’s health risk impacts are appropriately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft IS/MND within the HRA, which was conducted according to the latest OEHHA guidance and takes into account the proposed project’s attributes. See Response to BLUM-1-82 through BLUM-1-86. No further analysis or response is needed.

Response to TSAI-1-30
The commenter states that if TRUs will not be utilized then the City should ensure that any future use of TRUs will be prevented by use of restrictive covenant as a part of the conditions of approval.

As previously stated, the proposed project’s health risk impacts are appropriately analyzed and disclosed in the Draft IS/MND within the HRA, which was conducted according to the latest OEHHA guidance and includes the use of the HARP2 model. See Response to BLUM-1-82 through BLUM-1- 86, and Response to TSAI-1-29. No further analysis or response is needed.

EXHIBIT 1
2278
Response to TSAI-1-31
The commenter asserts that the proposed project’s HRA should also include health risks associated with construction diesel particulate matter emissions and should follow OEHHA guidance and utilize the HARP2 model when calculating potential health risks. As demonstrated in Section 2.3, Air Quality, Impact c) (page 44 to 49) of the Draft IS/MND, the proposed project’s construction health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors were appropriately analyzed and disclosed. The proposed project’s construction health risk impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no further analysis or response is needed.

Response to TSAI-1-32
The commenter states that the City must address, study and mitigate the proposed project’s reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts, including the localized air pollutant exposure at the neighborhood level, as well as the proposed project’s regional air quality impacts, through a revised HRA.

As previously stated, the Draft IS/MND properly addressed and studied the proposed project’s reasonably foreseeable air quality impacts according to guidance and recommendations set forth by the Valley Air District, including for localized air pollutant exposures at the neighborhood level. The analysis in the Draft IS/MND includes an HRA which was conducted pursuant to the most current OEHHA guidance. No further response or analysis is needed.

Response to TSAI-1-33
The commenter summarizes CEQA requirements and case laws related to mitigation measures and deferral of mitigation. This comment does not raise any project-specific environmental issues, no response is needed.

Response to TSAI-1-34
The commenter asserts that MM AQ-4b is deferred mitigation because it lacks necessary enforcement mechanisms to ensure the assessment is performed and available to the public prior to project approval. The City disagrees. General Plan MM AQ-4b requires the applicant to comply with Valley Air District Rule 9510 which requires air impact assessment and fee payment (if necessary) based on Valley Air District Indirect Source Review thresholds. These thresholds are distinct from the air emission thresholds set forth by the Valley Air District for the purpose of CEQA analysis. The proposed project’s emissions are appropriately compared to the Valley Air District CEQA thresholds as shown in Section 2.3 Air Quality of the Draft IS/MND. The proposed project would not exceed any emission thresholds as shown in Tables 1 through 5 in the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, although General Plan MM AQ-4b (compliance with Valley Air District Rule 9510) is applicable to the proposed project because it applies to all development projects subject to CEQA, it is not needed to reduce an air quality impact. See Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 CA4th 884, 906 (“a condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.”) Furthermore, in accordance with MM AQ-4b, the applicant has assessed the proposed project and submitted the Indirect Source Review application package to the Valley Air District in accordance with Rule 9510. On December 20, 2024, the Valley Air District approved the application package and EXHIBIT 1
2279
deemed that no additional fees or mitigation is needed. Thus, the requirements in MM AQ-4b have been met.

No further analysis is necessary.

Response to TSAI-1-35
The commenter states that “As the currently air quality mitigations are speculative in nature, there is a fair argument that there will be a significant air quality impact requiring the preparation of an EIR.” As demonstrated above, the proposed project’s environmental impacts have been appropriately analyzed and disclosed. The proposed project would not result in any significant impact that would not be reduced by implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, no additional analysis or preparation of EIR is necessary.

Response to TSAI-1-36
Section 2.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft IS/MND includes a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts and also identifies MM BIO 1 through MM BIO-6 to ensure that impacts are avoided or minimized to the greatest extent possible
Response to TSAI-1-37
Refer to Response to TSA- 1-36.

Response to TSAI-1-38
As stated in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, of the Draft IS/MND, the SJCOG offers compensatory mitigation for loss of Valley Oak Woodland and Forest through the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) permitting process. Potential impacts to valley oak woodland are typically addressed through the payment of fees or purchase of banking credits prior to or at the time of issuance of building permits. Per communication with the SJCOG in April 2022, no permanent setback is required to avoid impacts on the riparian corridor. The proposed project would implement all water quality protection measures imposed by the SJCOG and the RWQCB, and therefore any potential indirect impacts on aquatic special-status species would be reduced to less than significant.

Response to TSAI-1-39
Refer to Response to TSAI-1-36 and TSAI-1-38.

Response to TSAI-1-40
The comment in opposition to the proposed project is noted and will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their consideration.

EXHIBIT 1
2280

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
2281
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE STOCKTON MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE “ZONING MAP,” IN SECTION 16.16.030 OF THE STOCKTON

MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PREZONE AND ZONE PROPERTIES TO INDUSTRIAL, LIMITED (IL) LOCATED AT 6505 SOUTH MCKINLEY AVENUE (APN 193-020-34) (APPLICATION NO. P23-0125)
On November 19, 2023, the applicant, Anil Yadav, submitted a request to Prezone Assessor’s Parcel Number APN 193-020-34 to Industrial, Limited (IL) Zone for the purposes of future industrial development; The legal parcel is approximately 7.88 acres and would be developed with an industrial warehouse building; and On April 10, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application, in compliance with SMC Section 16.88.040, at which point all persons wishing to be heard were provided such opportunity, and the Planning Commission voted 6-0 in support of the Project; and
On May 15, 2025, a public notice for the subject application was published in the local newspaper in accordance with the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section

16.88.030; and
On June 3, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the application, in compliance with SMC Section 16.88.040, at which point all persons wishing to be heard were provided such opportunity; now, therefore,

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND INTENT
The City Council of the City of Stockton finds, pursuant to SMC section 16.116.050(B), that:

A. The proposed Prezone action ensures and maintains internal consistency with the general land uses, objectives, policies, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan on balance. The 2040 General Plan Land Use Map designates the subject site Industrial. Pursuant to Table 2-1 (General Plan Relationship to Development Code) of the General Plan, the IL Zone is compatible with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of Industrial.

B. The proposed Prezone action would not create any inconsistencies with SMC Title 16 (Development Code) since it pertains to the Zoning Map only. The text of Title 16 (Development Code) would remain unchanged under this action. 2282
C. The proposed Prezone action would further the following General Plan policies:
i. Goal LU-4: Attract and retain companies that offer high-quality jobs with wages that are competitive with the region and state.
ii. Policy LU-4.2: Attract employment- and tax-generating businesses that support the economic diversity of the city.
iii. Policy LU-6.2: Prioritize development and redevelopment of vacant, underutilized, and blighted infill areas.

D. The proposed Prezone action 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 because the IL Zone designation will, as noted above, be compatible with General Plan Land Use Map designation applicable to the site.

E. The proposed Prezone action complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines, because a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and the analysis included therein demonstrates where feasible, application of mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant, from either the Prezone action or other related actions constituting the project.

F. Based on the information included in the accompanying MND, the subject site would be physically suitable (including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested zoning designation and anticipated land use development.

SECTION II. PREZONING AND ZONING CLASSIFICATION
G. That the Zoning Map, attached as Exhibit 1, particularly referred to in SMC section 16.16.030, and by reference made a part hereof, said Code is hereby amended to provide an Industrial, Limited (IL) Zone designation for Assessor’s Parcel Number 193- 020-34 immediately.

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
2283
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its passage.

ADOPTED:

EFFECTIVE:

CHRISTINA FUGAZI
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

KATHERINE ROLAND, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
2284
APN # : 19302034
CURRENT JURISDICTION : SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY CITY PLANNING AREA : STOCKTONGENERAL PLAN : I/LZONING : AU-20PROPOSED JURISDICTION : CITY OF STOCKTON PROPOSED ZONING : IL

PROJECTSITE
EXHIBIT 1
2285
C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g
J u n e 3 , 2 0 2 5
A g e n d a I t e m 1 6 . 2

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
& PREZONING REQUESTS FOR A

PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 6505 SOUTH
MCKINLEY AVENUE (APN 193-020-34)
2286

LOCATION
The Project site is
located just south of
Arch Airport Road, due
west of I-5.
6505 S McKINLEY AVE
Project
Site
2287
No current zoning. Site will be pre-zoned to Industrial, Limited (IL) zoning.

GENERAL PLAN & ZONING
Designation of Industrial, which supports Industrial land uses.

GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project
Site
Low Density Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Institutional
Open Space/Agricultural
Project
Site
Industrial, Limited (IL)
Lands in the County
Lands in the County
2288
PC Approval
Design Review Approval for
New Construction
PC Recommendations to City
Council for Annexation and
CEQA Document
3/27/25 PC Hearing
4/10/25 Approved
with Conditions of Approval
City Council Consideration
CEQA Document
Pre-Zoning of Site to IL
City Services Plan and Filing
Application for Annexation into
City
LAFCo
Consideration
LAFCo Hearing
Site is Annexed into City of
Stockton

PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
2289

PREZONING

PROJECT SITE HAS NO CITY ZONING

PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN

PC RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
Proposal is for Industrial, Limited (IL) Zoning
General Plan designation is Industrial, and IL Zoning is consistent with this designation.

The PC recommended approval. With Council’s
approval, the application can be submitted to
LAFCo for annexation to Stockton
2290
EVALUATES IMPACTS SUCH AS:
+ Biological Resources
+ Cultural Resources
+ Geology & Soils
+ Noise, etc.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT
+ Ran from August 30, 2024, through September 29, 2024
+ 3 Public Comments received.
2291

SITE PLAN
Includes:
+ 9.5 Acre Site
+ 184,166 SF Warehouse Building
+ 151 Parking Stalls (Guest & Employee)
+ 42 Truck Trailer Parking Stalls
+ Landscaping throughout
2292

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
2293

PUBLIC COMMENTS

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
3/27/2025 Public Hearing
+ Commission spoke to adopted Warehouse Ordinance
applicability, applicability with AB 98, and additional mitigation measures
4/10/2025 Public Hearing
+ Project approved with added conditions for perimeter trees and truck idling

CEQA PROCESS

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT
+ posted from August 30, 2024 through September 29, 2024 + 3 Public Comments received

NOTICING
Noticed in the Record and mailers – 5/15/2025
2294
Adopt an
Ordinance
Adopt a
Resolution
Adopt a
Resolution
Authorize
the City
Manager
Certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project For the Prezoning of Assessors Parcel Number 193-020-34 to Industrial, Limited (IL)
Authorizing the filing of an annexation application with the San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission
To take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the approved resolutions and ordinance.

RECOMMENDATION
2295
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 25-0441, Version: 1
PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY 2024 ANNUAL REPORT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the Economic Development Subsidy 2024 Annual Report, which includes all subsidies the City has provided for economic development purposes over $100,000.

Summary
California Government Code Section 53083 (Attachment A) requires local governments to report any economic development subsidy exceeding $100,000, and to provide specific information to the public before approving any economic development subsidy of $100,000 or more. The City is compliant with these requirements and provides information to the public through reports to the City Council on a per-project and annual basis The City provided $5,037,074.83 in eligible subsidies for the 2024 calendar year.

DISCUSSION
Background
Effective January 1, 2014, Government Code Section 53083 requires local governments to report on any economic development subsidy over $100,000. The term “economic development subsidy” is defined as any expenditure of public funds or loss of revenue to a local agency in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, for the purpose of stimulating economic development within the jurisdiction of a local agency, including, but not limited to, bonds, grants, loans, loan guarantees, enterprise zone or empowerment zone incentives, fee waivers, land price subsidies, matching funds, tax abatements, tax exemptions, and tax credits. Affordable housing projects do not require economic development subsidy reporting.

The following information is required by California Government Code Section 53083:

Before approval of subsidy:

1. The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.

2. The start and end dates and schedule, if applicable, for the economic development subsidy

3. A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of City of Stockton Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2296
File #: 25-0441, Version: 1
the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.

4. A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy.

5. Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.

6. Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by fulltime, part-time, and temporary positions.

This information is provided to the public through reports to the City Council on a per-project basis.

Within five years after granting subsidy:

1. The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.

2. The start and end dates and schedule for the economic development subsidy.

3. A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.

4. The net tax revenue accruing to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.

5. The net number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by fulltime, part-time, and temporary positions.

This information is provided to the public through the annual Economic Development Subsidy Report.

Present Situation
Local agencies are required to provide an annual report of all economic development subsidies no later than five (5) years after the action granting an economic development subsidy. The City has prepared the 2024 Annual Report (Attachment B) to meet statutory requirements.

The 2024 Annual Report indicates that the City provided $5,037,074.83 in economic subsidies for “qualifying” criteria, which includes projects that received over $100,000 in economic development subsidy and are either bonds, grants, loans, loan guarantees, enterprise zone or empowerment zone incentives, fee waivers, land price subsidies, matching funds, tax abatement, tax exemptions, and tax credits.

The City programs that require annual AB 562 reporting in 2024 are:
· Stockton Economic Stimulus Program (SESP)
· Public Facility Fee Reduction to Non-Residential Projects City of Stockton Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2297
File #: 25-0441, Version: 1
· Office and Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program
Public Notice
A public hearing notice was published in the Stockton Record on May 19, 2025. To date, no comments have been received.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Total 2024 subsidies are as follows:

Program Eligible Subsidies
Stockton Economic Stimulus Program (SESP) $2,410,272.81 (Single -family)
Public Facility Fee (PFF) Reduction for Nonresidential Projects (part of SESP)$563,054.02 City-Wide Affordable Housing Development Public
Facilities Fee Exemption Program
$ 1,913,474.88
Office and Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program $2,063,748.00 TOTAL $6,949,549.71
There is no financial impact from filing of the Economic Development Subsidy 2024 Annual Report.

However, during the 2024 calendar year, the City provided $6,949,549.71 in eligible subsidies.

Attachment A - Government Code Section 53083
Attachment B - Economic Development Subsidy 2024 Annual Report City of Stockton Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2298
State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 53083
53083. (a) On and after January 1, 2014, each local agency shall, before approving any economic development subsidy within its jurisdiction, provide all of the following information in written form available to the public, and through its Internet Web site, if applicable:
(1) The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.
(2) The start and end dates and schedule, if applicable, for the economic development subsidy.
(3) A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy. (4) A statement of the public purposes for the economic development subsidy. (5) Projected tax revenue to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.
(6) Estimated number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by full-time, part-time, and temporary positions.
(b) Before granting an economic development subsidy, each local agency shall provide public notice and a hearing regarding the economic development subsidy. A public hearing and notice under this subdivision is not required if a hearing and notice regarding the economic development subsidy is otherwise required by law. (c) The information required to be provided in subdivision (a) shall remain available to the public under existing state and federal law and be posted on the local agency’s Internet Web site, if applicable, for the entire term of the economic development subsidy.
(d) The local agency, within the term of the economic development subsidy but not later than five years after the action granting an economic development subsidy, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (g), shall issue a report for each economic development subsidy. The report shall contain the information described in subdivision (a). The local agency shall make the report available to the public and through its Internet Web site, if applicable. The report shall also contain the following information, if applicable:
(1) The name and address of all corporations or any other business entities, except for sole proprietorships, that are the beneficiary of the economic development subsidy, if applicable.
(2) The start and end dates and schedule for the economic development subsidy.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL

ATTACHMENT A
2299
(3) A description of the economic development subsidy, including the estimated total amount of the expenditure of public funds by, or of revenue lost to, the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy. (4) The net tax revenue accruing to the local agency as a result of the economic development subsidy.
(5) The net number of jobs created by the economic development subsidy, broken down by full-time, part-time, and temporary positions.
(e) (1) The local agency, within the term of the economic development subsidy but no later than five years after the action granting an economic development subsidy, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (g), shall hold a public hearing to consider any written or oral comments on the information contained in the report prepared pursuant to subdivision (d).
(2) For an economic development subsidy, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (g), with a term of 10 years or more, the local agency shall hold a public hearing at the conclusion of each economic development subsidy that shall contain the information described in subdivision (d), in written form available to the public, and through its Internet Web site, if applicable.
(f) Each public hearing required by this section shall be consolidated with a local agency’s regularly scheduled hearing.
(g) As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) “Economic development subsidy” means any expenditure of public funds or loss of revenue to a local agency in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, for the purpose of stimulating economic development within the jurisdiction of a local agency, including, but not limited to, bonds, grants, loans, loan guarantees, enterprise zone or empowerment zone incentives, fee waivers, land price subsidies, matching funds, tax abatements, tax exemptions, and tax credits. “Economic development subsidy” shall not include expenditures of public funds by, or loss of revenue to, the local agency for the purpose of providing housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) “Local agency” means a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county.
(Added by Stats. 2013, Ch. 740, Sec. 1. (AB 562) Effective January 1, 2014.)

ATTACHMENT A
2300
Attachment B

ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

SUBSIDY
ANNUAL REPORT 2024
MAY 2025

CITY OF STOCKTON

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
2301
Attachment B
2 | P a g e
2024 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY ANNUAL REPORT
The purpose of the Economic Development Subsidy Report is to fulfill the annual reporting requirements as outlined in California Government Code Section 53083 (Assembly Bill 562), . which requires local agencies to annually report subsidies for economic development purposes.

Government Code §53083 requires the report to include identifiable information (name and address) of each business entity that is a beneficiary of a subsidy, a description of each program, and the total amount of the expenditure of public funds or of revenue lost as a result of the subsidy, statement of public purpose of the subsidy, net tax revenue as a result of the subsidy, and estimated number of jobs created by the subsidy.

An “economic development subsidy” is defined as any expenditure of public funds or loss of revenue to a local agency in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, for the purpose of stimulating economic development within the jurisdiction of a local agency, including, but not limited to, bonds, grants, loans, loan guarantees, enterprise zone or empowerment zone incentives, fee waivers, land price subsidies, matching funds, tax abatements, tax exemptions, and tax credits.

Furthermore, “economic development subsidy” shall not include expenditures of public funds by, or loss of revenue to, the local agency for the purpose of providing housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code. This report provides the necessary information for the qualifying programs to remain in compliance with CGC §53083.

QUALIFYING CITY PROGRAMS
City Programs that provided “economic development subsidies” in 2024 as defined by CGC §53083 include:

1. Stockton Economic Stimulus Program (SESP)

2. Public Facility Fee (PFF) Reduction for Non-residential Projects (part of SESP)

3. City-Wide Affordable Housing Development Public Facilities Fee Exemption Program

4. Office and Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program
2302
Attachment B
3 | P a g e

STOCKTON ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAM (SESP)
In November of 2015, City Council adopted Resolution 2015-11-17-1602 – Stockton Economic Stimulus Program (SESP), superseding all but two existing PFF reduction programs for residential and non-residential development projects. The program launched in January 2016 to reduce eligible Public Facility Fees (PFFs) on the following development types, subject to program requirements:

1. Single-Family Residential (SFR),

2. Multi-Family Residential (MFR), and

3. Commercial And Industrial Projects
The SESP was originally slated to sunset in 2018 but was extended in 2018 and 2019. The current program will not sunset until new PFF fee amounts are adopted (as a result of an updated PFF Nexus Study). SESP eliminates/waives the following PFF categories for eligible projects:

PFF Category Residential
100% Reduction
Commercial / Industrial
50% Reduction
City Office Space  
Community Recreation Centers  
Fire Stations  
Libraries  
Parkland 
Police Stations  
Street Improvements  
Waived Amount
(per unit)
Waived Amount
(per 1,000 SF)
PFF Category Single Family
Residential*
Multi-Family
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Office Retail
City Office Space $467.00 $391.00 $43.75 $22.50 $25.50
Community Recreation
Centers $481.00 $405.00 $39.50 $20.25 $23.25
Fire Stations $781.00 $658.00 $118.50 $61.00 $54.00
Library $902.00 $761.00 $94.50 $48.50 $56.00
Parkland $2,798.00 $1,712.00 N/A N/A N/A
Police Stations $591.00 $497.00 $105.50 $54.00 $62.00
Street Improvements $13,226.00 $9,656.00 $2,412.00 $3,177.00 $931.50

3.5% Administrative Fee† $673.61 $492.80 $98.48 $118.41 $40.33 TOTAL $ WAIVED $19,919.61 $14,572.80 $2,912.23 $3,501.66 $1,192.58 *A maximum of $19,997 per unit, or 100%, whichever is less † Administrative Fee waived/reduced in accordance with the PFF reduction amount 2303
Attachment B
4 | P a g e
For single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential (commercial/industrial) permits issued citywide, builders/developers must agree to and comply with all program terms and conditions to receive the incentives of the program for development. Only new single-family residential (SFR) units within the existing City limits, as described in the 2008 General Plan Settlement Agreement, are eligible for fee waivers under SESP. Participation in the SFR component of SESP also requires a developer to comply with local hire and disadvantaged individual requirements. Multi-family residential (MFR) development must comply with disadvantaged requirements but is exempt from the local hire requirement (per Motion 2019-08-20-1405). The commercial/industrial component, formerly known as the Public Facilities Fee Reduction Program (established in 2010), was incorporated into the SESP program in 2015; reporting of local hiring is not a requirement. The SESP program will remain in place until the City conducts a nexus study for the Public Facility Fees (Development Impact Fee) program and adopts new fees per motion 2019- 08-20-1405.

1. SFR SESP Recipients that received fee waivers of $100,000 or greater in 2024:

Recipients AMOUNT
KB Home
4830 Business Center Dr., Suite 150
Fairfield, CA 94534
$ 1,015,900.11
Florsheim Homes
1701 W. March Lane, Suite D
Stockton, CA 95207
$ 298,794.15
Orchard Homes
1025 Creekside Ridge Dr., Suite 240
Roseville, CA 95678
$ 139,437.27
Richmond American Homes of Maryland Inc.
1 Harbor Ctr., Ste 100
Suisun City, CA 94585
$ 956,141.28
TOTAL $ 2,410,272.81
Net Tax Revenue Accrued as a Result of Subsidy – Not applicable.

Total Number of Jobs Created by Subsidy: 478
42%
12% 6%
40%
SESP - SINGLE-FAMILY FEES WAIVED 2024
KB HOME NORTH BAY LLC.

FLORSHEIM HOMES

ORCHARD HOMES

RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF
MARYLAND, INC.
2304
Attachment B
5 | P a g e

2. MFR SESP participants did not exceed the $100,000 threshold; therefore, no reporting is required per AB 562.

3. On September 14, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-0308, which authorized the reduction of fees for residential and non-residential projects (known as the PFF Reduction Program). The program was extended and absorbed by the SESP in 2019.

Recipients that received $100,000 or greater in 2024:

Recipients Amount
First American Title Insurance Co.

National Commercial Services
333 W Santa Clara St., Ste 220
San Jose, CA 95113-1714
$ 307,562.02
Gospel Center Rescue Mission Inc.
445 S San Joaquin St.

Stockton, CA 95205
$ 255,492.00
TOTAL $ 563,054.02
Net Tax Revenue Accrued as a Result of Subsidy: Not applicable.

Number of Jobs Created by Subsidy: Not applicable.
2305
Attachment B
6 | P a g e
City-Wide Affordable Housing Development Public Facilities Fee Exemption Program
In February 2018, City Council adopted Resolution 2018-02-06-0504 – City-Wide Affordable Housing Development Public Facilities Fee (PFF) Exemption Program, expanding the existing Greater Downtown Stockton PFF Exemption Program to apply city-wide for qualifying affordable housing developments. The program was created to incentivize the development of new affordable housing units throughout Stockton by exempting select Public Facilities Fees for eligible projects.

Affordable housing developments, as defined by the program, include residential projects with recorded regulatory agreements requiring that units be rented or sold to low-income households (defined as those earning at or below 80% of the area median income). The following PFF categories are waived for eligible developments:
• City Office Space
• Community Recreation Centers
• Libraries
• Police Stations
• Street Improvements
• Fire Stations
• Parkland
Recipients Amount
St. Mary's Community Services
545 W. Sonora St.

Stockton, CA 95203 $ 1,170,262.08
Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin
2575 Grand Canal Blvd Ste 200
Stockton, CA 95207 $ 743,212.80
TOTAL $ 1,913,474.88
The program will sunset upon City Council’s adoption of new PFF fee amounts, as outlined in the upcoming Development Impact Fee Nexus Study.
2306
Attachment B
7 | P a g e

OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL SALES TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM
The Office and Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program provides an annual sales tax rebate to new or expanding office and industrial businesses located within Stockton City limits. Examples of the types of office and industrial businesses that would have been eligible under the program include eCommerce businesses, fuel distributors, high-tech equipment manufacturers or software developers, medical device manufacturers, and business-to-business sales. To qualify for the program, the business must have met the following criteria:

1. Generate net new annual gross taxable sales of $25 million or more.

2. Generate sales tax to the City corresponding with the gross sales tax amount.

3. Create a minimum of ten full-time equivalent jobs.

4. Make a capital investment of $50,000 or more.

The sales tax rebate is based on the annual net new sales tax revenue received by the City and is restricted to the Bradley-Burns tax. The rebate amount is based on the following tiers:

Net New Sales Tax
Revenue
% of Sales Tax
Revenue Rebated
to the Business
% of Sales Tax
Revenue Retained
by the City
Less than $250,000 0% 100%
$250,000 - $500,000 50% 50%
More than $500,000 65% 35%
Qualifying businesses must have executed an agreement with the City, which required Council approval. The term of the agreement is ten (10) years, with options to extend for up to an additional ten (10) years.

This program was approved by Council on June 24, 2014, and sunset in June 2019 for new applications. During 2024, two companies continued to receive subsidies under prior agreements.

The 2024 subsidies for each company are as follows:

Recipients Amount (2024)
Valley Pacific Petroleum
152 Frank W Circle, Ste 100
Stockton, CA 95206
$952,011.00
Diesel Direct West
3861 Duck Creek Dr.

Stockton, CA 95215
$1,111,737.00
TOTAL $2,063,748.00
In 2024, the City rebated $2,063,748 in net new sales tax revenue as a result of the Office and Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program. A minimum of 40 full-time equivalent new jobs were created as a result of this program.
2307
Attachment B
8 | P a g e

SUMMARY
City Programs that provided “economic development subsidies” in 2024 are as follows:

Program Eligible
Subsidies
Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP): Single-Family Residential $2,410,272.81 SESP: Public Facility Fee (PFF) Reduction for Non-residential Projects $563,054.02
City-Wide Affordable Housing Development Public Facilities Fee Exemption Program $ 1,913,474.88
Office & Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program $2,063,748.00 TOTAL $ 6,949,549.71
42%
12%
6%
40%
2024 Economic Development Subsidies
Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP)
Non-Residential Public Facility Fee
Reductions (also SESP)
Affordable Housing Development Public
Facilities Fee Exemption Program
Office & Industrial Sales Tax Incentive
Program
2308

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY
2024 Annual Report
City Council Meeting
June 3, 2025
Agenda Item 16.3
2309
Background
AB 562 effective January 1, 2014
Requires local governments report economic
development subsidies over $100,000
Current Reporting Period – 2024 Calendar Year
Comprehensive report of all qualifying
programs within 5 years of economic subsidy
2310
Qualifying Programs (≥ $100,000 Subsidy)

1. Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP)

2. Public Facility Fee (PFF) Reduction for Nonresidential Projects (part of SESP)

3. City-Wide Affordable Housing Development
Public Facilities Fee Exemption Program

4. Office & Industrial Sales Tax Incentive Program
2311
Subsidy Amounts
GRAND TOTAL FOR ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS = $ 6 , 9 5 0 , 5 5 0 $2,410,273
$563,054
$1,913,475
$2,063,748
$-
$500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00

SESP PFF NON-RESIDENTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING SALES TAX MILLIONS 2312
2024 Employment Tracking

SESP RECIPIENTS

REQUIRED TO HIRE
AT LEAST 50%

STOCKTON

RESIDENTS

OFFICE AND

INDUSTRIAL SALES

TAX INCENTIVE

PROGRAM
Number of Jobs Created: 478 Number of Jobs Created: 40
(Create or retain a minimum of 10 full-time
equivalent (FTE) jobs)
2313
Staff Recommends
By Motion, Accept the
Economic Development
Subsidy 2024 Annual Report
2314
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1

STOCKTON ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAM (SESP) UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF

POTENTIAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council receive a program update and consider information regarding program performance to determine what, if any, amendments are warranted and act accordingly.

Summary
Stockton established a Public Facility Fee (PFF) program in 1988 to fund mitigation efforts associated with new development and to provide the public amenities (i.e. infrastructure) required to serve new development. In 2010, City Council adopted the program’s first fee waiver program to provide an incentive to develop the “Greater Downtown Stockton Area” and single-family residential projects citywide. The Stockton Economic Stimulus Program (SESP) was introduced in 2015 by the Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley (BIA) and championed by then Mayor Silva.

The original goal of SESP was to accelerate the development of 1,000 single-family homes and 500 multi-family residential units throughout the City, subject to specific terms. The residential permit component of SESP was originally set to run for 36 months from the date of City Council adoption, with a review by the Council within 18 months of the program adoption. SESP was extended in 2018 and again in 2019. The current iteration of SESP is in effect until the Council adopts and implements new fees as outlined in an updated Public Facility Fee Nexus Report.

Since its inception in January of 2016 to December 31, 2024 (9 years), 3,461 single-family and 548 multi-family units were issued fee waivers under the SESP program. Further, 737,036 square feet of Commercial and 17,191,291 square feet of Industrial development also received fee waivers.

As a part of SESP adoption, the BIA forecasted (via a UOP Study - Attachment A) that the construction of 1,000 single-family homes would lead to 3,700 jobs, with more than 2,138 attributable to the direct effect of construction. Based on submitted SESP recipient self-certifications, the unduplicated count of individuals employed by SESP-assisted projects is 5,525, 2,883 residing in Stockton.

Over the 9 years of SESP, an average of 385 single-family units constructed and 614 unduplicated jobs reported (of which 320 were Stockton residents) were reported annually. Compared to the UOP study ratio of 2.138 construction jobs per single-family unit, job creation projections were not met.

Based on said ratio that average should be approximately 823 jobs, based on SESP’s construction average of 385 single-family units per year (2016 - 2024).

Part of the rationale for the SESP program was that City Council recognized that the Envision City of Stockton Page 1 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2315
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
Stockton 2040 General Plan Update would be different from the 2035 General Plan in effect at the time of SESP creation. The 2035 General Plan was prepared at a time of rapid growth under different conditions. The 2040 General Plan (adopted in 2018) encourages infill and focuses on smart growth to achieve public health and Climate Action Plan goals. This revised approach was forecasted to result in reduced mitigation requirements and different PFF fee amounts.

SESP reduced certain PFFs to provide an incentive to accelerate residential building in hopes of increasing local employment and economic growth. Additionally, SESP was approved in part because developers believed existing fees were too high and ultimately would be lowered as a result of an updated PFF program (i.e. Nexus Study) reflecting the 2040 General Plan. An updated nexus study and new PFF program is presently being drafted, and public drafts will be released this calendar year for stakeholder comment and input.

As of December 31, 2024, the total amount of fees waived by SESP is $94,009,668 million, resulting in reduced revenues for police stations, fire stations, street improvements, parks, libraries, recreation centers, city facilities, and repayment of prior PFF loans. A breakdown of said waivers by land use is itemized in the following tables:

City of Stockton Page 2 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2316
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
Council has the option to maintain, extend or otherwise modify the existing SESP program. Council does not have the option to add or increase fees at this time as the public hearing notice did not include information pertaining to new or increased fees.

DISCUSSION
Background
Legal Framework for PFF
Public Facilities Fees provide revenue to implement the goals and objectives of the City of Stockton General Plan and to mitigate impacts as a result of new development within the City. The fees ensure that new development projects pay their fair share of public amenities (i.e. infrastructure) required to mitigate development and serve Stockton residents. Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 66000 et seq. (Mitigation Fee Act) of the California Government Code provides that Public Facilities Fees may be enacted and imposed on development projects. In 1988, the City of Stockton found and determined that new development projects cause the need for construction, expansion, or improvement of public facilities within the City and create new permanent spending obligations. PFFs are established as new development causes the need for construction, expansion or improvement of public facilities within the City of Stockton. In some jurisdictions, PFFs are known as Impact Fees or Development Impact Fees.

Utilization of a PFF program allows for the allocation of improvement costs across development projects. Absent a city-wide PFF program, improvement costs would not be apportioned, and the full cost of mitigation improvements would be borne by the first project that established the need for the improvement. Such an approach would be a barrier to development given the disproportionate costs to early development projects.

City of Stockton Page 3 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2317
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
If the fees collected for construction, expansion, or improvement of Public Facilities to accommodate the increased demands of new development are waived, the requirement to mitigate the impact of development does not go away. To elaborate, under AB 602 (2021), said waived funds must be supplanted by alternate city funding sources. If PFFs are waived, installation of public amenities could be indefinitely delayed absent another funding source and the result could be inadequate Public Facilities within the City and noncompliance with State law.

Complete or partial waivers of PFFs effectively eliminate/reduce the benefits of the cost allocation model described above and delay public facility development. In other cases, it could violate City contractual obligations or fail to meet California Environmental Quality Act requirements (i.e. mitigations) - creating significant new issues. The PFF program enables individual projects to move at their own pace based on the proportionate cost and allows for incremental development.

Prior to a city approving new or increased development impact fees or establishing or increasing other fees which have no specific statutory notice requirement, a city is required to hold at least one public hearing with appropriate legal notice published at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. A waiver, reduction or elimination of a fee does not require a public hearing.

Program Adoption
On August 18, 2015, former Mayor Silva introduced the Stockton Economic Stimulus Program (SESP) for City Council consideration. Sponsored by the BIA, SESP is an incentive-based program to promote economic development through residential construction through the reduction of certain Public Facilities Fees (PFF). At the time, the hope was that the economic benefits of home construction would offset lost PFF revenues.

The City of Stockton uses PFF revenues to provide community benefit through the completion of capital projects required to serve or mitigate new development. SESP was not the first incentive program implemented in Stockton. In September 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No.10- 0308 to authorize a reduction program providing incentives for development in the Greater Downtown Area, and non-residential development and residential development citywide. A multi-family housing PFF reduction program was added in October 2010.

On November 17, 2015, the City Council adopted the SESP program (Attachment B-Resolution No. 2015-11-17-1602). The adopted program reduced certain PFFs by 100 percent for applicants that comply with program requirements. Fees totaling more than $57,000 were reduced by almost $20,000. SESP was not expected to overcome prevailing economic forces because the existing 2010 fee reduction program had not resulted in a notable increase in development. There was hope that SESP could accelerate planned residential development and stimulate economic activity in the City.

SESP was originally authorized for 36 months and went into effect on January 19, 2016.

The specific fees reduced by SESP are as follows:

City of Stockton Page 4 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2318
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
*Or up to $19,997, whichever is less
†Decimals included where the fee amount was not a whole dollar SESP program terms and requirements have evolved since 2015 as follows:
2015 (Resolution 2015-11-17-1602 - Attachment B)
· Program to expire on December 31,2018
· SESP waivers only apply to the first 1,000 single-family and 500 multi-family permits issued citywide
· Only units within the existing City Limits as described in the 2008 General Plan Settlement Agreement are eligible
· Developers must comply with local hire and disadvantaged individual requirements:
o At least 50% of the workforce on a permit residing within Stockton. o By permit issuance, builder(s) must provide a list of all employees (including names and addresses) that worked on SESP permits
§ From the time that the first residential building permit is issued to a developer, quarterly reports identifying the above must be submitted to the City o Disadvantaged communities will be included in the local workforce to the greatest extent feasible. Projects (i.e. developers) participating in this program shall work with the BIA and NAACP to coordinate the hiring of disadvantaged Stockton residents. § To be considered disadvantaged, an individual or firm must be a member of one of the following groups:

City of Stockton Page 5 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2319
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
· African American
· Asian Pacific American
· Native American
· Women
o The BIA shall provide opportunities to youth from SJCOE YouthBuild, Lincoln High School's Engineering Construction Academy, SUSD Edison's woodworking and construction program, and Jane Fredrick's masonry program. · A monthly report to the City identifying the total number of lots in their project, the number of permits issued, the number of homes under construction and the number of homes with a final permit.
· Applicants must start construction within six months of permit issuance unless an extension is approved.
· Builders may receive no more than twenty (20) building permits at any given time for each final map, or forty (40) citywide for builders involved in more than one subdivision under SESP. · Builders must start and receive a first inspection for each permit within six months of the permit being issued, unless an extension is approved (permits in SB 535 disadvantaged areas exempt)
· Noncompliance with SESP regulations result in builder reimbursement of all waived fees (during noncompliance period) back to the City and ineligibility for future program waivers 2018 (Resolution 2018-07-17-1302 - Attachment C)
· SESP expiration extended to December 31, 2020.
· Increase of developer's permit limitations in non-disadvantaged areas to 30 per subdivision and 80 citywide.
· All other program components remained "as is"
2019 (Motion 2019-08-20-1405 - Attachment D)
· Removal of specific program expiration date; expiration is now triggered by adoption of new PFF nexus study and associated PFF fee schedule
· Elimination of the program cap of 1,000 single-family residential permits · Elimination of the program cap of 500 multi-family residential permits · Removal of local hire requirement for multi-family projects · Removal of permit limitations for builders (i.e., construction and inspection timing requirements)
· All other program components remained "as is"
The current iteration of SESP is in place until adoption of a new Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and associated PFF fee schedule.

University of the Pacific (UOP) Study
Presented by the BIA in 2015, the UOP Study analyzed the economic benefit of constructing 1,000 single-family units and quantified the effect of a PFF reduction program on permit fees. The study highlights economic benefits of constructing 1,000 new Single-Family Homes, including: 3,700 jobs in San Joaquin County, $492 million in economic output for San Joaquin County, $244 million value added, $56 million in permit and fee revenue for local governments, and $64 million in tax revenue to City of Stockton Page 6 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2320
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
federal, state, and local government. However, the author of the study was quoted as being “neutral” on SESP and commented that the study was “not meant as a policy analysis on how to achieve that” (Stockton Record quote of Dr. Jeffrey Michael, October 12, 2015).

The UOP study estimated the broad economic benefits of home construction and did not distinguish the economic effect in Stockton from the whole of San Joaquin County. Further the UOP study did not illustrate baseline information such as underlying market conditions or projections. In 2013, the City commissioned Economic Planning Systems (EPS) to prepare an analysis of the market conditions of the City’s housing market. EPS estimated that upon economic recovery, new housing construction would normalize at 700 units per year. Additionally, EPS analyzed how fees affect the feasibility of housing construction and concluded that impact fees do not directly influence price. The analysis stated that the housing market determines the price.

Since SESP was implemented, the median market price of new single-family residential construction exceeded the amount of PFFs waived. The median sales price of new single-family residential construction increased by $234,950, from $224,600 in 2015 to $459,550 in 2024 - more than 104.6 percent. Given that new single-family home pricing is based on market conditions, and market price increases outpaced the PFF fee waiver amount by over eleven times, there is a possibility that the SESP fee waivers are no longer necessary to “close the gap” for new residential construction.

The UOP study also did not consider the ongoing cost to the City of providing services. Statewide, the cost to serve residential development exceeds the revenues generated from development. In Stockton new residential development is estimated to add net General Fund costs not included in the Long-Range Financial Plan (L-RFP). In 2018, it was calculated that the annual service and maintenance General Fund deficit created by residential development ranges from $453 to $787 per unit depending on the specifics of the single-family construction. Consequently, while the UOP study accurately forecasted an increase in local tax revenues, it did not call out the net negative effect on the City’s General Fund and ability to provide services. On April 2, 2019, the Stockton City Council formally approved the formation of a city-wide Community Facilities District (CFD No. 2018-3) to address the net cost of new residential development and improve the ability to provide long-term citywide services.

Present Situation
The following data was prepared to inform on the current program. The following information is derived from statistics dating from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2024.

Counts: A total of 3,649 single-family residential permits, 1,343 multi-family residential permits, 164 commercial permits, and 118 industrial permits were issued between January 2016 and the end of December 2024.

Nearly all single-family residential building permits (3,461 or 95 percent) were issued under the SESP program. SESP vs. Non-SESP Building Permit Residential Unit Counts from January 2016 to December 2024 are as follows:

City of Stockton Page 7 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2321
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
Approximately 41 percent (548) of multi-family residential units constructed during this period were issued permits under the SESP program (this lower ratio can be attributed to other available waiver programs for multi-family development). A report showing the monthly residential counts (SFR and MFR) is included as Attachment E (SESP Summary Unit Counts for Issued Residential Permits).

Total Single-Family and Multi-Family SESP Unit Counts by Council District from January 2016 to December 2024:

All figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar
All commercial and industrial (nonresidential) permits automatically receive the 50 percent SESP reduction.

Total Nonresidential SESP Counts by Council District from January 2016 to December 2024:

City of Stockton Page 8 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2322
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
Summary of Distribution: The tables below identify recipients of SESP waivers from program inception through December 31, 2024.

Approximately 79 percent of single-family residential building permits issued under the SESP program were built by housing developers, the remainder by individuals or small builders. Further, approximately 21 percent of all SFR permits issued under SESP were issued to builders located in Stockton.

Single-Family SESP Permit Distribution by Recipient:

City of Stockton Page 9 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2323
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
*Company based in Stockton
All figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar
All multi-family residential building permits issued under the SESP program were built by housing developers. Further, 57 percent of all MFR permits issued under SESP were issued to builders located in Stockton.

Multi-Family SESP Permit Distribution by Recipient:
*Company based in Stockton
All figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar
SESP Credits: As of December 31, 2024, the total amount of fees waived under the SESP program is $94,009,668. As displayed in the table below, the City has foregone resources that could have been used for city facilities, recreation centers, libraries, police stations, street improvements, fire stations, and parks.

Total PFF Fees Waived by Category:

All figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar
City of Stockton Page 10 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2324
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
In 2015, one of the justifications for SESP was that City Council recognized the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan update would differ from the 2035 General Plan in place at the time. The 2035 General Plan was prepared at a time of rapid growth under different conditions. The 2040 General Plan (adopted 2018) encourages infill and focuses on smart growth to achieve public health and Climate Action Plan goals. This revised approach was forecasted to impact PFF fee calculations and reduced mitigation requirements.

Further, SESP was adopted in part because developers believed existing fees were too high and that an updated PFF Nexus Study and accompanying PFF Fee Schedule would result in reduced fee amounts. The study is currently being developed and will be available for public comment during this calendar year.

From 2015 to 2024, the increase in median sales price for single-family homes was $234,950, approximately over eleven times the amount of fees waived ($19,919.61). Remembering the BIA’s prior comments to Council that builders would sell new homes at market rates, there is a possibility that the SESP fee waivers are no longer necessary to “close the gap” for new residential construction.

Further, taking into account that approximately 79 percent of the SFR SESP and 43 percent of MFR permits went to builders located outside of Stockton, not only did the City forego $94 million for needed improvements but at least $59 million of waived fees left the local economy.

SESP Employment Effect: The UOP study estimated that nearly 3,700 jobs (2,138 attributed to the direct effect of construction) would be created by the construction of 1,000 single-family homes per year. Based on submitted SESP recipient self-certifications, the unduplicated count of individuals employed by SESP-assisted projects (attributed to construction) is 5,525, of those, 2,883 reside in Stockton.

Over 9 years of the SESP, an annual average of 385 single-family units were constructed, with 614 unduplicated jobs reported (of which 320 were Stockton residents). Compared to the UOP study ratio of 2,138 construction jobs per 1,000 new units, job creation projections were not met. Based on the above ratio (2.138 jobs per unit) that average should be approximately 823 jobs based on the program’s annual construction average of 385 single-family units.

SESP Compliance: All participants of the SESP program are required to submit monthly reports to the City. Participation in the SESP program is contingent on at least 50 percent of the workforce for a permit residing in Stockton (excluding multi-family). Based on the reported data, the Local Hire requirement is being met. If a participant does not satisfy the conditions of the SESP program, they will be required to reimburse the City the equivalent PFF fee reduction for each permit issued during the period of noncompliance.

The adopted SESP program included the direction that individuals from disadvantaged communities within Stockton be included in the local workforce to the extent possible. An agreement between the BIA and the Stockton Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was referenced in the enacting resolution, but not subject to the monthly reporting requirements or City enforcement. Either the BIA or the NAACP would have to comment on the relative success of the agreement to employ individuals from disadvantaged communities.

City of Stockton Page 11 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2325
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council consider the impacts/results of the SESP to-date and provide staff direction on how to move forward. Council has the option to maintain, eliminate, extend, or otherwise modify the existing SESP program. Potential options include (but are not limited to):

Action Summary Result
None Maintain current SESP All waivers will remain until new PFF fees are adopted by Motion No. 2019-08-20-1405. PFF
fund balances will continue to accrue at current
rates.

Amend SESP Adoption of a future SESP
sunset date
All waivers will cease as of the date identified in
the Council action. PFF fund balances
projected to increase upon cessation of
program.

Amend SESP Remove waivers for singlefamily developmentWaivers will remain for multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial development. PFF
fund balances projected to increase upon
cessation of SFR fee waivers.

Amend SESP Retain waivers for multifamily residential
development only
Waivers for single-family residential,
commercial, and industrial development will
cease. PFF fund balances projected to
increase upon cessation of SFR and
nonresidential fee waivers.

Amend SESP Decrease or eliminate
certain waiver categories
PFF fund balances projected to increase due to
increased revenues.

Elimination of
SESP
Adoption of an immediate
SESP sunset date
Waivers will cease immediately (upon Council
action). PFF fund balances projected to
increase due to increased revenues.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
As of December 31, 2024, the total amount of fees waived under the SESP program is $94,009,668.

As a result, the City has foregone resources that could have been used for city facilities, recreation centers, libraries, police stations, street improvements, fire stations, and parks.

For example, these resources could have been used towards the new City Hall or funded a portion of the new Northeast Library. If PFF fees were available and utilized for the Northeast Library, City Council could have an additional $4.5 million in available Strong Communities (Measure M) funding to immediately expand or improve library and recreation services at existing locations. Furthermore, had the $10.6 million in parkland PFFs been collected, additional park space could have been City of Stockton Page 12 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2326
File #: 25-0601, Version: 1
developed for residents as identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). If continued, the reduced PFF collections will further delay public infrastructure, and absent other resources, a permanent facility deficit will exist.

Public Comments
Notice for this public hearing was published in The Record on May 23, 2025, and a mailed notice was sent to all SESP recipients, the Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley (BIA GV) and NAACP Stockton - San Joaquin Branch at least ten (10) days prior. As the writing of this staff report, no written comments have been submitted to the Community Development Department.

Attachment A - UOP Study
Attachment B - Resolution No. 2015-11-17-1602
Attachment C - Resolution No. 2018-07-17-1302
Attachment D - Motion No. 2019-08-20-1405
Attachment E - SESP Summary Unit Counts
City of Stockton Page 13 of 13 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2327

ATTACHMENT A
2328

ATTACHMENT A
2329

ATTACHMENT A
2330

ATTACHMENT A
2331

ATTACHMENT A
2332

ATTACHMENT A
2333

ATTACHMENT A
2334

ATTACHMENT A
2335

ATTACHMENT A
2336

ATTACHMENT A
2337

ATTACHMENT A
2338
Resolution No. 2015-11-17-1602

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STOCKTON ECONOMIC STIMULUS PROGRAM

SUPERSEDING EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM FOR

RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
In 1988 the City Council adopted Stockton Municipal Code section 16.72.260, which established the authority for imposing and charging public facilities fees for new development; and
In 2005 the City Council increased these fees in response to a nexus study. The fee increases resulted in a significant increase in residential and nonresidential public facility fees; and
On September 14, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-0309, which established a temporary reduction of certain public facilities fees for nonresidential projects Citywide, exempted certain public facilities fees for residential projects in the "Greater Downtown Stockton Area," reduced certain public facilities fees for single-family residential projects developed within the existing City limits, as of October 14, 2008, and increased the Public Facilities Administrative Fee to 3.5% until December 2012;and
On November 16, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-0377, which expanded the program to include multi-family projects with a sunset date of December 31, 2012; and
On December 11, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-12-11- 1601, which extended certain components of the fee reduction program through December 31, 2013, which were scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012; and On December 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-12-17- 1502, which extended certain components of the fee reduction program through December 31, 2014, which were scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2013; and On November 18, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-11-18- 1501, which extended certain components of the fee reduction program through December 31, 2015, which were scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2014; and On August 18, 2015, the Mayor introduced the Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP) for City Council consideration, the City Council directed the City Manager to return to Council on October 6, 2015 and report on the financial impacts of the SESP and the status of the General Plan; and

ATTACHMENT B
2339
On October 6, 2015, the Council members scheduled a study session for October 13, 2015 to discuss the SESP. At the study session, Council discussed the SESP (Item 15-2115. On November 3, 2015, Council further debated the SESP and an alternative proposal (Item 15-2124) and moved to continue the public hearing to November 17, 2015 so that further analysis related to the alternative could be considered.

At the continued public hearing of November 17, 2015, the Building Industry Association (BIA) submitted a revised proposal which was further discussed and deliberated by Council.

In order to stimulate new development, attract new business, improve the unemployment rate, and jump start the local economy, the City Council of the City of Stockton desires to implement the following Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan; now therefore,

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

The Stockton Economic Stimulus Program (SESP) proposal is hereby adopted as follows:

1. Residential.

2. This program supersedes the City's 2010 Economic Development Department (EDD) Public Facilities Fee Reduction Program adopted in 2010 and extended through December 31, 2015. However, the current EDD program remains in force until such time the SESP is fully implemented.

3. Under the program, applicants will receive a reduction of City Building, Street Improvement and Parks Public Facilities Fees (PFF) for single family and multifamily permits up to a total of $19,997 or 100% of these fees whichever is less.

More specifically, the PFF fees to be reduced are:
a. City Office Space
b. Community Recreation Centers
c. Libraries
d. Police Stations
e. Fire Stations
f. Street Improvements
g. Parks

4. The program for residential permits will last for 36 months from the date of Council adoption and shall be reviewed by Council within 18 months of program adoption.

The reduction program applies to the first 1,000 single family permits issued citywide for

ATTACHMENT B
2340
builders who comply with the terms of the program. The reduction program also applies for the first 500 multi-family units issued citywide for builders who comply with the terms of the program. Only units within the existing City Limits as described in the 2008 General Plan Settlement Agreement shall be eligible to participate in this program.

5. To participate in the residential component of the SESP, a developer must comply with the following local hire and disadvantaged individual requirements.

6. Local Hire Requirement. Participation in the Program is contingent on at least 50% of the workforce on a permit residing within Stockton. Employees residing within the City of Stockton city limits are considered local hires. By time of permit issuance, the builder must provide a list of all employees to work on a particular permit with names and addresses of the employees and identify which employees reside within Stockton city limits.

Should the number of local hires fall under 50%, the applicant has 30 days to cure the deficiency. If the applicant is unable to cure this within the 30 days, the applicant will be deemed non-compliant and subject to the penalties set out in paragraph 11, below.

From the time of the first residential building permit issued to an applicant, the applicant must make a quarterly report to the City. The report will identify the total number of workers employed on the project and the number of those employees who reside within the City of Stockton.

7. Disadvantaged Requirement. Disadvantaged communities will be included in the local workforce to the greatest extent feasible. Projects participating in this program shall work with the BIA to coordinate the hiring of disadvantaged Stockton residents to appropriate positions matching skills and experience to job requirements and staffing needs. In order to facilitate the inclusion of disadvantaged communities, the BIA has entered into an agreement with the NAACP. (See Attachment A for details).

To be considered as disadvantaged for the purposes of this requirement, an individual or firm must be a member of one of the following groups as listed within the City's Public Works Disadvantaged Enterprise (DBE) Program:

1. African American

2. Asian Pacific American

3. Native American

4. Women
The BIA shall provide opportunities to youth from SJCOE YouthBuild, Lincoln High School's Engineering Construction Academy, SUSD Edison's woodworking and construction, and Jane Fredrick's masonry program.

ATTACHMENT B
2341

8. On a monthly basis, the applicant will submit a report to the City identifying the total number of lots in their project, the number of permits issued, the number of homes under construction and the number of homes with a final permit.

9. Once a permit is issued, the applicant must start construction within six months of issuance unless an extension, authorized by state law and local ordinance is approved.

10. A builder may receive no more than twenty (20) building permits at any given time for each final map, or forty (40) citywide for builders involved in more than one subdivision under the SESP. The builder must start and receive a first inspection for each permit within six months of the permit being issued, unless the builder receives an extension as provided by state law and local ordinance. Permits in SB 535 disadvantaged areas are exempt from this paragraph.

11. If a participating builder does not satisfy the conditions of the Program, then the builder will be required to reimburse the City the equivalent reduction of 100% of City Buildings, Street Improvement and Parks PFF, as detailed above, for each issued permit that was in a stage prior to final permit inspection during the non-compliant period and shall not be eligible to further participate in the Program.

12. In the event the Program expires, or the numerical count of 1,000 single family unit permits and 500 multifamily unit permits is reached, or a developer chooses to not participate in the Program, or a developer is no longer eligible to participate in the program due to noncompliance with the local hire requirement of the SESP, the city will require payment of fees in the full, unabated amount.

13. Commercial/Industrial.

14. The current Commercial and Industrial fee reduction shall remain in effect until a new nexus study is completed and new Public Facility Fees (PFF) are adopted in conjunction with the current General Plan Update.

A 50% reduction of the following PFF for Commercial and Industrial permits shall remain in place until new fees are adopted under the General Plan Update:
i. City Office Space
ii. Community Recreation Centers
iii. Libraries
iv. Police Stations
v. Fire Stations
vi. Street Improvements

15. The fee reduction program set out in this resolution shall take effect 60 days following Council adoption.

ATTACHMENT B
2342

16. All other provisions of the Public Facilities Fees Program shall remain in full force and effect.

17. 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. --'"'""N;.,;.,o::::....;v:....:::e..:....:..m=b=er=--1"'""7....,_1 =20,;;;_1.;..;:5;..___ ATTEST:

BONNIE PAGE, City
City of Stockton
AN��JJ
City of Stockton

ATTACHMENT B
2343
Attachment A
To facilitate the hiring of disadvantaged Stockton residents the BIA will collaborate with the NAACP and other such organizations to match workers to jobs. All projects participating in this program shall submit to the BIA all vacant positions and all new positions to be filled for the project prior to any other type of solicitation or recruitment efforts by the project general contractors and each and every subcontractor working on the project. All job vacancies and openings will be submitted to the NAACP, and others as requested, for their use in matching up jobs to workers. The NAACP will create and maintain a list of workers desiring a job with one or more projects, contractors or subcontractors utilizing this program. The information about each worker shall include standard employment information enabling a prospective employer to determine the proper skills, licenses and experience of each worker. The BIA its members and their contractors and sub-contractors will use their best efforts to hire from the lists provided for positions at all levels.

ATTACHMENT B
2344
Resolution No. 2018-07-17-1302

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE STOCKTON ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN FOR

RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
In 1988 the City Council adopted Stockton Municipal Code section 16.72.260, which established the authority for imposing and charging public facilities fees for new development; and
In 2005 the City Council increased these fees in response to a nexus study. The fee increases resulted in a significant increase in residential and nonresidential public facility fees; and
On September 14, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-0309, which established a temporary reduction of certain public facilities fees for nonresidential projects Citywide, exempted certain public facilities fees for residential projects in the "Greater Downtown Stockton Area," reduced certain public facilities fees for single-family residential projects developed within the existing City limits, as of October 14, 2008, and increased the Public Facilities Administrative Fee to 3.5% until December 2012; and
On November 16, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-0377, which expanded the program to include multi-family projects with a sunset date of December31,2012;and
On December 11, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-12- 11- 1601, which extended certain components of the fee reduction program through December 31, 2013, which were scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012; and On December 17, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-12- 17- 1502, which extended certain components of the fee reduction program through December 31, 2014, which were scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2013; and On November 18, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-11-18- 1501, which extended certain components of the fee reduction program through December 31, 2015, which were scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2014; and On November 17, 2015, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-11-17-1602, which adopted the Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan (SESP) which superseded previous public facility fee reduction programs. This program is scheduled to expire December31,2018;and

ATTACHMENT C
2345
In order to stimulate new development, attract new business, improve the unemployment rate, provide greater opportunities for disadvantaged communities within Stockton, and jump start the local economy, the City Council of the City of Stockton desires to extend the SESP; now, therefore,

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

1. The SESP shall be extended and remain in effect until December 31, 2020.

2. Increase the developer's permit limitations in non-disadvantaged areas to 30 per subdivision and 80 citywide.

3. All other components of the program will remain "as is," unless amended by Council resolution.

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. ___ J_u~ly_1_7,-2_0_18 __ ~~k-CvM-~
MICHAEL D. TUBBS l\Jb\u
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

ATTACHMENT C
2346

MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC

FINANCING AUTHORITY/PARKING AUTHORITY CONCURRENT - REVISED MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 2019
Council Chamber - City Hall, 425 N. El Dorado Street, Stockton CA

1. CLOSED SESSION CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 4:00 PM
Roll Call

Present:

Jesus Andrade
Christina Fugazi
Sol Jobrack
Susan Lenz
Michael Tubbs
Daniel Wright

Absent:

Paul Canepa.

NOTE: Councilmember Canepa arrived to Closed Session at 4:01 PM

2. ADDITIONS TO CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
None

3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION

3.1 19-5735 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION Number of Cases: Four
Name of Case: Wells Fargo Bank v. City of Stockton (San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. 39-2012-00277662)
Name of Case: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee v. City of Stockton (San Joaquin County Superior Court Case No. 39-2012-00280741) Name of Case: In re City of Stockton, California - Debtor (United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California Case No. 2012-32118) Name of Case: Richard Price, et al. v. City of Stockton, Redevelopment Agency, et al. (United States District Court, Eastern District Case No. CIV.S-02-0065 LKK JFM) This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Section 54956.9(a) of the Government Code.

Legislation Text

3.2 19-5736 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2347
Agency Designated Representative: Acting City Manager Laurie Montes Employee Organizations: Unrepresented Units, Stockton City Employees' Association, Operating Engineer's Local 3, Mid-Management/Supervisory Level Unit, Unrepresented Management/Confidential, Law Department, Stockton Police Management Association, Stockton Firefighters Local 456 International Association of Firefighters, Stockton Fire Management, Stockton Police Officers' Association (SPOA) This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Section 54957.6(a) of the Government Code.

Legislation Text

3.3 19-5737 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYEE EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL:

City Manager This Closed Session is authorized pursuant to Government Code section 54957.

Legislation Text

3.4 19-5738 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL LITIGATION Number of Cases: One Based on existing facts and circumstances, there is significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b).

Legislation Text

3.5 19-5781 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION Number of Cases: One Based on existing facts and circumstances, there is significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(c).

Legislation Text

4. PUBLIC COMMENT
None

5. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
The Council recessed to Closed Session at 4:01 PM. The Council returned from Closed Session and recessed at 5:20 PM.

6. REGULAR SESSION CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 5:33 PM
Roll Call

Present:

Jesus Andrade
Paul Canepa
Christina Fugazi
Sol Jobrack
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2348
Susan Lenz
Michael Tubbs
Daniel Wright

7. INVOCATION/PLEDGE TO FLAG
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Andrade. Pastor Renee Bennett of First Church of the Nazarene provided the Invocation.

8. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney John M. Luebberke announced that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session this evening.

9. ADDITIONS TO REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
None

10. RECOGNITIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, OR REPORTS
None

11. CONSENT AGENDA
Steven Turner - public comment agenda placement
Approve the Consent Agenda with a single vote, save item 11.4 which was considered separately
Moved by: Paul Canepa, seconded by Susan Lenz.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

11.1 19-5714 ACCEPT THE QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2019
Motion 2019-08-20-1101 accepting the Quarterly Investment Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2019.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Quarterly Investment Report - 6-30-2019
Attachment B - Certification of Quarterly Investment Report - 06-30-2019

11.2 19-5790 ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM Motion 2019-08-20-1102 adopting the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Internal Audit Program.

Legislation Text
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2349
Attachment A - Fiscal Year 2019-20 Internal Audit Program

11.3 19-5803 APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Motion 2019-08-20-1103 approving the minutes from the City Council meeting of June 18, 2019.

Legislation Text
2019-06-18 - Minutes for Approval

11.4 19-5791 RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR A COMMUNITY CHOICE

AGGREGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
Legislation Text
Proposed Resolution - CCA Feasibility Study
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1104
Approve Resolution 2019-08-20-1104:

1. Appropriating $100,000 of Air Quality Mitigation Public Facility Fee funds to determine the feasibility of the City of Stockton developing a Community Choice Aggregation program.

2. Authorizing the receipt and appropriation of any awarded grant funds for the purpose of completing a Community Choice Aggregation feasibility study.

Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

Moved by: Michael Tubbs, seconded by Daniel Wright.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

11.5 19-5695 FINAL MAP AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR CANNERY PARK UNIT NO. 3, (VILLAGE G1), TRACT NO. 3523 PROJECT
Resolution 2019-08-20-1105:

1. Approving the final map for Cannery Park, Unit No. 3, (Village G1), Tract No. 3523.

2. Authorizing the City Manager to execute the subdivision agreement, accept on behalf of the public all offers of dedication, and record the final map for Cannery Park, Unit No. 3, (Village G1), Tract No. 3523.

Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Vicinity Map
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2350
Proposed Resolution - Cannery Park Unit No. 3
Exhibit 1 - Subdivision Agreement
Exhibit 2 - Subdivision Map
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1105

11.6 19-5720 MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A VOLUNTARY REDUCTION LETTER TO U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN

DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FROM A FUTURE YEAR GRANT ALLOCATION
Motion 2019-08-20-1106:
1) Authorizing the City Manager to sign a letter agreeing to a voluntary reduction in future allocation of $147,277.72, from the HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Entitlement funds; and
2) Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to take the appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the motion.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Voluntary Reduction Letter
Attachment B - Resolution 2018-08-21-1104
Attachment C - Resolution 2019-02-05-1108

11.7 19-5600 APPROVE LEASE AMENDMENT WITH QUINN & KRONLUND, LLP AT 509 WEST WEBER AVENUE
Resolution 2019-08-20-1107:
1) Approving a Lease Amendment to the lease with Quinn & Kronlund, LLP for office space in the Waterfront Towers (509 West Weber Avenue); and 2) Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to take all the necessary and appropriate actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Current Lease
Proposed Resolution - Quinn and Kronlund Lease
Exhibit 1 - Lease Amendment - Quinn and Kronlund
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1107

11.8 19-5664 MOTION APPROVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

FUNDING TO LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT BUSINESS START-UPS

AND ENTREPRENEURS
Motion 2019-08-20-1108:

1. Approving Community Development Block Grant funding to local organizations that provide support to business start-ups and entrepreneurs in Stockton. http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2351

2. Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the motion.

Legislation Text

11.9 19-5676 APPROVE AMENDMENT OF OPTION AGREEMENT WITH 1501 S.

AIRPORT WAY, LLC
Resolution 2019-08-20-1109:

1. Authorizing an amendment to extend the Option Agreement with 1501 S. Airport, LLC for City-owned property at 1501 S. Airport Way and 1670 Union Street; and

2. Authorizing the City Manager to take necessary and appropriate actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Resolution 2018-02-27-1111
Attachment B - Vicinity Map
Attachment C - Option Agreement
Proposed Resolution - 1501 Airport Option Agreement
Exhibit 1 - Amendment to 1501 Airport Option Agreement
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1109

11.10 19-5481 ADOPT FINDINGS APPROVING AN EXCEPTION TO THE COMPETITIVE

BID PROCESS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF

EMERGENCY REPORTING RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE FIRE

DEPARTMENT
Motion 2019-08-20-1110:

1. Adopting findings approving an exception to the competitive bid process and authorize the City Manager to enter into a five-year agreement with Backdraft OpCo, LLC, DBA Emergency Reporting (ER) in the amount of $197,263 for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of Emergency Reporting software.

2. Authorizing the City Manager to take all appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this motion.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Emergency Reporting Service Agreement

11.11 19-5717 AWARD A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH EVOQUA WATER

TECHNOLOGIES FOR RENTAL OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE STORAGE TANK,

SERVICE SOFTWARE, AND PURCHASE OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Motion 2019-08-20-1111:

1. Approving findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code Section 3.68.3070 in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process. http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2352

2. Awarding a five-year contract between the City of Stockton and Evoqua Water Technologies of Sarasota, Florida, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $1,648,150 for rental of Hydrogen Peroxide storage tank, service software, and purchase of Hydrogen Peroxide.

Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the motion.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Evoqua Contract

11.12 19-5634 ADOPT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A LAW ENFORCEMENT

ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF STANDARD AGREEMENT 19G-LA46, AND AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 ANNUAL BUDGET
Resolution 2019-08-20-1112:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to accept $100,000 in Fiscal Year 2019-20 Police Grant Funds from the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grant Assistance to Local Law Enforcement Agencies Project for the Stockton Police Department's ABC public education and enforcement program;

2. Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Annual Budget to increase the Police Grants and Special Programs expenditure and revenue appropriation by $100,000; and

3. Authorizing the City Manager to execute all required contracts or agreements with the granting agency, provide additional information and furnish such documents as may be required, execute all documents and amendments or extensions pertaining to the grant project, make all required appropriations in compliance with and for the purposes stated in the project Agreement.

4. 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.

Legislation Text
Proposed Resolution - 2019 ABC Grant
Exhibit 1 - 2019 ABC Grant - 19G-LA46
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1112

11.13 19-5663 CITYWIDE SECURITY SERVICES CONTRACT
Motion 2019-08-20-1113:

1. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a four-year Professional Services Agreement between the City of Stockton and Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. for citywide security services for a total contract amount not to exceed $6,145,923.

2. It is further recommended that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2353
to make any and all expenditures and appropriations on behalf of the City as appropriate and necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this motion.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Securitas Security Services

11.14 18-4885 APPROVE MOTION TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE FRENCH CAMP ROAD/I-5 INTERCHANGE LANDSCAPING

PROJECT
Motion 2019-08-20-1114 authorizing the City Manager to increase the Design Professional Purchase Order for Services with Derivi Castellanos Architects of Stockton, CA, in the amount of $19,510, for the French Camp Road/I-5 Interchange Landscaping, Project No. PW1418.

Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this motion.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Design Professional Purchase Order for Services

11.15 19-5151 APPROVE A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION

OF NEW PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT HARRY CORREN PARK THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH PLAYPOWER, INC.

THROUGH SOURCEWELL
Resolution 2019-08-20-1115:

1. Approving findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code section 3.68.070 in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process.

2. Approving a Cooperative Purchasing Agreement in an amount not to exceed $200,000 to provide the City access to preferential pricing programs from PlayPower, Inc. and its associated vendors, including Miracle Recreation Equipment Company, that was awarded through a competitive process by Sourcewell (formerly National Joint Powers Alliance).

3. Authorizing the purchase and installation of new playground equipment at Harry Corren Park, which is part of the North Stockton Open Space Improvements, Project No. PW1803, through the above Sourcewell contract with Miracle Playsystems, Inc. of Alamo, CA, in the amount of $128,180.85.

Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.

Legislation Text
Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Proposed Resolution - Harry Corren Park Playground Equipment Exhibit 1 - Cooperative Purchasing Agreement
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2354
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1115

11.16 19-5666 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND

SUBMIT THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019-20
Resolution 2019-08-20-1116:

1. Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to execute and submit a claim to the San Joaquin Council of Governments for Fiscal Year 2019-20 Transportation Development Act funds.

2. Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to deposit the proceeds in the Transportation Development Act Fund 034 pursuant to State of California requirements.

Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of this resolution.

Legislation Text
Proposed Resolution - TDA Claim 2019
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1116

12. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
None

13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None

14. NEW BUSINESS

14.1 19-5761 AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE LEASE OF SWENSON PARK GOLF COURSE TO KSM SWENSON, LLC; ADOPT FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS; APPROVE A SECOND AMENDMENT WITH KEMPERSPORTS MANAGEMENT; AUTHORIZE THE
CLOSURE OF VAN BUSKIRK GOLF COURSE; AMEND THE FY 2019-20 BUDGET,

APPROVE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH BRIGHTVIEW, AND APPROVE

RELATED ACTIONS
Legislation Text
Attachment A - 2011 KemperSports Operations and Management Agreement First Proposed Resolution for KSM Swenson LLC lease (1) Exhibit 1 - Swenson Golf Course Lease Agreement
Proposed Resolution 2 - 2nd Amendment to KSM Management Agreement Exhibit 1 - 2nd Amendment to KSM Management Agreement
Proposed Resolution 3 - Brightview Contract Change Order Exhibit 1 - Change Order No. 5
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2355
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1401-01
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1401-02
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1401-03
PowerPoint presentation - Lease of Swenson Golf Course and Interim Plan for Van Buskirk Golf Course The following person(s) spoke to the item - Pandora Crowder, Conway Homes Resident Council President (document filed); Mark Stebbins; John Obagoban Document filed by Pandora Crowder - Recommendations to Improve Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety for the Conway Community in Stockton
Approve Resolution 2019-08-20-1401:

1. Authorizing the execution of a contract to KSM Swenson, LLC for the lease of Swenson Golf Course beginning January 1, 2020, and approving findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code 3.67.070 adopting findings in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process; and

2. Authorizing the execution of a Second Amendment to the Management Agreement and Transition Plan with KemperSports Management (C-11-202NP), approving the closure of Van Buskirk Golf Course, appropriating $350,000 from the General Fund reserve to KSM for cafe improvements and critical repairs, and authorizing the City Manager to take all actions related to Golf Cart disposition; and

3. Authorizing the execution of Contract Change Order Number 5 in the amount of $307,760 with Brightview Landscaping (Project No. OM-18-062) for sixteen months of landscaping services at the Van Buskirk property.

It is also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to take all appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of these three resolutions.

Moved by: Michael Tubbs, seconded by Paul Canepa.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

14.2 19-5621 DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATES FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO BE HELD OCTOBER 16-18, 2019
Legislation Text
Attachment A - League of CA Cities Correspondence
Approve Motion 2019-08-20-1402 designating two members to serve as a voting delegates representing the City at the League of California Cities Annual Conference to be held October 16-18, 2019, Vice Mayor Dan Wright as delegate and Councilmember Christina Fugazi as alternate.

Moved by: Michael Tubbs, seconded by Paul Canepa.
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2356
Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

14.3 19-5707 APPROVE RESPONSE TO THE 2018-19 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT RELATED TO COLD CASES, CASE NO. 0318, AND APPROVE RESPONSE TO THE 2016-17 CIVIL GRAND JURY FOLLOW UP REPORT CONCERNING COUNTY WIDE DISPATCH FOR FIRE, CASE NO. 0616
Legislation Text
Attachment A - Grand Jury Report - Case No. 0318
Attachment A1 - City of Stockton Response Letter - Case No. 0318 Attachment B - Follow-up to Grand Jury Report - Case No. 0616 Attachment B1 - City of Stockton Response Letter - Case No. 0616 Exhibit 1 to Attachment B1 - Radio Infrastructure Plan
Exhibit 2 to Attachment B1 - CAD Requirement Changes
Attachment C - Grand Jury Report - Case No. 0117
Attachment D - Grand Jury Report - Case No. 0817
Attachment E - Grand Jury Report - Case No. 0917
The following person(s) spoke to the item - Steven Turner Approve Motion 2019-08-20-1403 adopting the City's responses to the 2018-2019 Civil Grand Jury Report for Cold Cases in San Joaquin County - "On the Back Burner," Case No. 0318 and a follow up investigation report related to the 2016-2017 Civil Grand Jury Report "County Wide Dispatch for Fire," Case No. 0616, and directing the City Manager to sign the response on behalf of the City Council and to transmit the response to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court.

Moved by: Paul Canepa, seconded by Daniel Wright.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

14.4 19-5795 AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR A REGIONAL STRATEGIC HOMELESSNESS

PLAN, A CITY STRATEGIC HOMELESSNESS PLAN, AND APPLICATIONS FOR

HOMELESS HOUSING, ASSISTANCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM FUNDS Legislation Text
Proposed Resolution - Strategic Homelessness Plan and Funding Application Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1404
PowerPoint presentation - Authorize Funding for a Regional Strategic Homeless Plan The following person(s) spoke to the item - Kathleen Gapusan; Brenda Vasquez; Delfina Martinez; Wesley Wristman; Denise Friday (document filed); Steven Turner; http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2357
James; Aaron Paradiso; Dionne Smith Downs
Document filed by Denise Friday - 2019 Schedule of Events Approve Resolution 2019-08-20-1404:

1. Budgeting revenue from anticipated state Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program funds in the amount of $125,000.

2. Appropriating $125,000 from the state Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program funds to complete the following deliverables:
a. San Joaquin Continuum of Care strategic homelessness plan, b. City of Stockton strategic homelessness plan,
c. City of Stockton application for state Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program funds as required by the state, and
d. San Joaquin Continuum of Care application for state Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program funds as required by the state.

3. Authorizing the receipt of reimbursements from the San Joaquin Continuum of Care via the County of San Joaquin as the administrative agent for strategic homelessness planning when funds become available.

Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution and motion.

Directing staff to work with Central Valley Low Income Housing and the Housing Authority of San Joaquin to better utilize funds with existing programs.

Moved by: Christina Fugazi , seconded by Sol Jobrack.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

14.5 19-5804 CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE STOCKTON ECONOMIC STIMULUS

14.5 19-5804 CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION

RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE STOCKTON ECONOMIC STIMULUS

PROGRAM
Legislation Text
Attachment A - Resolution 2015-11-17-1602
Attachment B - Resolution 2018-07-17-1302
Attachment C - SESP Summary Unit Counts
NOTE: The meeting went into Recess at 7:49 PM
NOTE: The meeting reconvened at 8:09 PM
The following person(s) spoke to the item - John Beckman, Chair, Development Oversight Commission (document filed); Steve Herum
2358
PowerPoint presentation - Development Oversight Commission Meeting of July 31, 2019 Approve Motion 2019-08-20-1405 amending the Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan to eliminate the residential permit cap and removing the local hire requirement from multifamily developments until such time as the fees proposed and approved by Council in the following Nexus report are affective.

Moved by: Michael Tubbs, seconded by Christina Fugazi .

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

14.6 19-5779 MOTION TO APPROVE A FORMAL RESPONSE FROM CITY STAFF TO THE MAYORS TASK FORCE ON AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING

RECOMMENDATIONS
Legislation Text
Attachment A - Mayors Task Force Affordable and Workforce Housing Report Attachment B - City Response to Task Force Recommendations Around the Bench Memo - Amended Title to Item 14.6
PowerPoint presentation - Response to the Mayors Task Force on Affordable and Workforce Housing Recommendations
The following person(s) spoke to the item - John Beckman, Building Industry Association (BIA)
Approve Motion 2019-08-20-1406 accepting staff recommendations, with recommendation number twenty-five referred to the Legislation/Environmental Committee.

Moved by: Michael Tubbs, seconded by Daniel Wright.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

14.7 19-5796 ALLOCATE CITY COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING AND AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-20 ANNUAL BUDGET
Legislation Text
Attachment A - FY 2019-20 Park and Tree Projects for Funding Consideration Proposed Resolution - FY 2019-20 Discretionary Funding
Approved Resolution 2019-08-20-1407
PowerPoint presentation - Allocate FY 2019-20 City Council Discretionary Funding Approve Resolution 2019-08-20-1407 amending the FY 2019-20 Annual Budget to appropriate and allocate the $150,000 of unrestricted discretionary funding. http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D Approve Motion 2019-08-20-1405 amending the Stockton Economic Stimulus Plan to eliminate the residential permit cap and removing the local hire requirement from multifamily developments until such time as the fees proposed and approved by Council in the following Nexus report are affective.

Moved by: Michael Tubbs, seconded by Christina Fugazi .

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.
: Jesus Andrade, Paul C
2359
Authorizing the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

Moved by: Daniel Wright, seconded by Michael Tubbs.

Vote: Motion carried 5-2
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

No: Christina Fugazi , and Sol Jobrack.

15. HEARINGS

15.1 19-5716 PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT THE 2019 PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS REPORT
Legislation Text
Attachment A - 2019 Public Health Goals Report
PowerPoint presentation - 2019 Public Health Goals Report Approve Motion 2019-08-20-1501 accepting the 2019 Public Health Goals Report.

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

Moved by: Paul Canepa, seconded by Sol Jobrack.

Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Jesus Andrade, Paul Canepa, Christina Fugazi , Sol Jobrack, Susan Lenz, Michael Tubbs, and Daniel Wright.

16. PUBLIC COMMENTS - MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Brenda Vazquez - 209 Cares, Founder Nancy Lamb
Melinda Kadow - Waste Management issues across from her home; trash trucks Rikki Kadow - Waste Management issues (document filed)
Document filed by Rikki Kadow - Stockton Scavengers Association Charlene Byrd, African American Chamber of Commerce - Black Family Day at Weber Point, Monday, September 2, 2019; advocate for the homeless Document filed by Charlene Byrd - Sleeping Bag Drive
Kathleen Gapusan - Pride Flag; recent shootings
Steven Turner - experience with Stockton Police Department

17. COUNCIL COMMENTS
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2360
Councilmember Canepa - thanked people for Swenson support; coordinating homeless clean-ups; Shot-Spotter
Councilmember Fugazi - United Airlines Flights available at Stockton Airport; thanked community for Outreach Events; Stockton Tequila Festival, August 17, 2019; Stockton 209 CARES (Community Accessing Resources Empowerment and Sustainability); lights out in Stribley Park bathroom
Vice Mayor Wright - thanked Council for approving item 11.4, Community Choice Aggregate; thanked Councilmember Andrade and San Joaquin County LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) members for approving CARMAX location; Pride Flag
Councilmember Lenz - thanked City of Stockton and community members for National Night Out participation
Vice Mayor Wright - National Night Out at Polo Run Apartments Councilmember Fugazi - National Night Out Event at Yosemite Street Village Councilmember Lenz - National Night Out event at Kentfield Park, Oak Park Senior Center

18. ADJOURNMENT - 9:55 PM

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

1. 19-5637 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STRONG COMMUNITIES ADVISORY

COMMITTEE TO PRIORTIZE NORTHWEST STOCKTON LIBRARY AND

RECREATION SERVICES
This item is an information item communicating a recommendation from the Strong Communities Advisory Committee to prioritize Strong Communities (Measure M) funding for Northwest Stockton library and recreation services.

Legislation Text
ELIZA R. GARZA, CMC

STOCKTON CITY CLERK
http://stockton.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?view_id=48&clip_id=6687 ATTACHMENT D 2361
Total Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total FY 11-12 8 25 8 19 9 2 3 6 0 10 15 9 114
FY 12-13 14 10 8 3 5 7 3 6 15 14 12 7 104
FY 13-14 19 7 0 6 7 0 6 16 3 11 1 18 94
FY 14-15 9 7 12 2 1 1 5 11 9 34 16 9 116
FY 15-16 14 1 13 11 7 0 1 2 20 26 27 47 169
FY 16-17 19 6 13 16 4 15 7 2 29 15 15 40 181
FY 17-18 19 7 22 20 12 30 18 28 14 42 46 51 309
FY 18-19 30 17 18 22 29 5 6 15 43 24 53 26 288
FY 19-20 18 15 15 41 13 31 9 34 12 11 43 74 316
FY 20-21 51 90 48 48 23 73 64 57 25 36 47 56 618
FY 21-22 47 54 26 28 45 79 77 55 71 72 48 35 637
FY 22-23 7 18 27 8 46 81 25 17 44 39 77 44 433
FY 23-24 15 49 39 14 30 71 63 31 69 51 44 31 507
FY 24-25 48 83 23 34 27 22 237
Total Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total FY 11-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
FY 12-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 70
FY 13-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 4 0 0 0 24
FY 14-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 20 32
FY 15-16 0 0 0 0 0 24 173 82 0 0 0 0 279
FY 16-17 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 57
FY 17-18 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 117
FY 18-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 100 0 106
FY 19-20 156 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 232
FY 20-21 72 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 312
FY 21-22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 2 29
FY 22-23 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 4
FY 23-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 2 0 29
FY 24-25 0 0 0 202 0 0 202

ATTACHMENT E
2362
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total FY 15-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 1 20 26 27 46 120
FY 16-17 14 4 14 15 4 15 6 2 29 14 15 40 172
FY 17-18 19 6 22 18 8 30 18 28 14 35 28 35 261
FY 18-19 29 16 17 22 29 4 6 15 43 23 48 19 271
FY 19-20 18 15 15 40 13 29 9 34 12 10 42 72 309
FY 20-21 50 87 47 48 23 66 64 57 25 36 46 55 604
FY 21-22 47 52 25 26 45 79 75 54 71 70 47 35 626
FY 22-23 2 18 27 8 46 21 20 16 44 39 74 44 359
FY 23-24 14 48 39 14 30 71 62 31 69 51 44 31 504
FY 24-25 48 81 23 34 27 22 235
Total 3461
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total FY 15-16 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FY 16-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FY 17-18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
FY 18-19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FY 19-20 156 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 232
FY 20-21 72 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 312
FY 21-22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
FY 22-23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FY 23-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FY 24-25 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 548

ATTACHMENT E
2363
FY 2015-16
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 15-16 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 11 8 15 13 47
District 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
District 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 12 12 13 29 66
District 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 6 0 0 6
Total 0 1 23 26 28 46 120
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 15-16 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTACHMENT E
2364
FY 2016-17
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 16-17 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 5 1 1 5 4 5 4 1 18 6 9 19 78
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 8 3 13 10 0 7 2 1 11 6 6 16 83
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
District 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 9
Total 14 4 14 15 4 15 6 2 29 14 15 40 172
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 16-17 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTACHMENT E
2365
FY 2017-18
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 17-18 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 1 4 8 0 11 8 13 6 17 8 19 95
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 10 0 2 5 6 39
District 4 10 0 8 5 5 0 5 5 6 7 6 0 57
District 5 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
District 6 8 5 8 5 0 6 5 0 1 9 9 10 66
Total 19 6 22 18 9 30 18 28 13 35 28 35 261
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 17-18 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

ATTACHMENT E
2366
FY 2018-19
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 18-19 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 10 10 9 9 6 3 4 11 36 12 32 9 151
District 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
District 3 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
District 4 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15
District 5 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 13
District 6 1 5 3 10 11 1 1 3 0 11 16 9 71
Total 29 16 17 22 29 4 6 15 43 23 48 19 271
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 18-19 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTACHMENT E
2367
FY 2019-20
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 19-20 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 14 12 14 40 11 11 6 14 6 9 8 31 176
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 5 0 0 1 14
District 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
District 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 0 0 33 10 59
District 6 4 2 1 0 1 18 0 0 1 1 1 30 59
Total 18 15 15 40 13 29 9 34 12 10 42 72 309
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 19-20 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 72
District 3 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
District 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 156 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 232

ATTACHMENT E
2368
FY 2020-21
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 20-21 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 22 51 23 18 19 35 41 37 22 27 31 29 355
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 5 9
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5
District 5 9 0 0 1 1 8 10 4 1 1 2 17 54
District 6 18 36 24 29 1 22 13 16 0 6 12 4 181
Total 50 87 47 48 23 66 64 57 25 36 46 55 604
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 20-21 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 168
District 2 72 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 72 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168 312

ATTACHMENT E
2369
FY 2021-22
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 21-22 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 22 33 15 21 26 63 51 42 55 54 35 19 436
District 2 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
District 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
District 4 6 8 6 1 8 12 12 6 9 5 6 12 91
District 5 15 11 3 2 8 1 12 6 7 7 4 0 76
District 6 0 0 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 4 2 3 16
Total 47 52 25 26 45 79 75 54 71 70 47 35 626
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 21-22 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

ATTACHMENT E
2370
FY 2022-23
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 22-23 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 1 14 26 4 34 16 15 15 38 26 62 43 294
District 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
District 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
District 4 0 4 0 3 0 3 2 0 6 1 0 0 19
District 5 0 0 0 1 12 0 2 1 0 11 11 1 39
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3
Total 2 18 27 8 46 21 20 16 44 39 74 44 359
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 22-23 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTACHMENT E
2371
FY 2023-24
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 23-24 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 12 48 32 13 30 68 60 30 66 50 40 28 477
District 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
District 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
District 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 7
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
District 6 1 0 6 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 13
Total 14 48 39 14 30 71 62 31 69 51 44 31 504
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 23-24 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTACHMENT E
2372
FY 2024-25
SESP Only Single-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 24-25 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 47 72 22 29 20 22 212
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
District 4 0 4 0 3 3 0 10
District 5 1 0 1 1 2 0 5
District 6 0 5 0 0 2 0 7
Total 48 81 23 34 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 235
SESP Only Multi-Family Residential Building Permit Unit Counts FY 24-25 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total District 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
District 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATTACHMENT E
2373
Stockton Economic Stimulus Program
(SESP) Update & Consideration of
Potential Program Amendments
City Council Meeting
June 3, 2025
Agenda Item 16.4
2374
Overview
Council has requested a program update
Program background and summary of PFF funds waived to-date SESP Employment Effect
Financial Implications
Potential options available to the Council for consideration 2375
Introduction: Public Facility Fees (PFFs)
Charged to new
development to
fund infrastructure
PFFs Included in SESP: • City Office Space • Community Recreation Centers • Library • Police Stations • Street Improvements • Fire Stations • Parkland* • City Administrative Legally required to
show “nexus”
between new
growth and
impacts to City
facilities
Based on the
demand created by
additional residents
and employees
Authorized Under AB 1600
*Parkland fee not charged on
Nonresidential Permits
2376
Background: SESP Program Timeline
Program Established (CC Resolution 2015-11-17-1602)
Reduced fees for Residential, Commercial, & Industrial Development • Intent: Stimulate building + incentivize local hiring • Limits: • Cap of 1,000 Single Family Residential (SFR) & 500 Multi-Family Residential (MFR) permits • Builders cannot receive more than 20 permits per Final Map, and no more than 40 citywide at any given time • Program expires December 31, 2018 • Requires: 50% local hire + BIA & NAACP to coordinate inclusion of disadvantaged communities; quarterly self-certified reporting by recipients (residential only) • Projected Impacts: UOP Study (presented by BIA in support of program) predicted creation of 3,700 jobs for every 1,000 SFRs in addition to other economic benefits to region
2015
2377
SESP Fee Waiver Amounts Per Land Use Type
Category Sub-Category Total Waived
$19,919.61
per unit Single Family Residential
100% reduction for
included fees $14,572.80
per unit Multi-Family
$2,912
Per 1,000 SF
Office
Commercial
50% reduction for
included fees
$3,502
Per 1,000 SF
Retail
$5,626
Per room
Guest Rooms
$1,192.58
Per $1,000 SF n/a
Industrial
50% reduction for
included fees
2378
Background: Program Timeline
2018
Program Extended (CC Resolution 2018-07-17-1302) • Expiration extended 2 years to December 31, 2020 • Increased permit limitations in non-disadvantaged areas to 30 per subdivision & 80 citywide
2019
Program Expansion (CC Motion 2019-08-20-1405)
• Removed program expiration date; expiration now triggered by PFF Nexus Study adoption
• Eliminated caps (1,000 single family permits, 500 multi-family permits) • Removed local hire requirement for multi-family projects • Removed limits per builder
2379
Residential Fee Amounts Waived By Category
Single-Family Multi-Family PFF Category 3,461 SFR Permits 548 MFR Units City Office Space $1,616,287 $214,268
$1,664,741 $221,940 Community Recreation
Centers
Library $3,121,822 $417,028
Police Stations $2,045,451 $272,356
Street Improvements $45,775,186 $5,291,488
Fire Stations $2,703,041 $360,584
Parkland $9,683,878 $938,176
Administrative Fee (3.5%) $2,331,365 $270,053
TOTAL $ WAIVED $68,941,771 $7,985,893
$76,927,664
in Waived
Residential
PFFs
All figures are rounded to
the nearest whole dollar.
2380
Non-Residential Fees Waived By Category
Industrial
(113 Permits)
Commercial (164 Permits)
PFF Category
Guest Rooms
(2 Permits)
Retail
(88 Permits)
Office
(74 Permits)
Total $ Waived
City Office Space $18,621 $7,248 $512,896 $438,025
$12,456 $6,291 $ - $400,243 Community Recreation
Centers
Library $28,148 $15,623 $8,424 $963,852
Police Stations $44,903 $17,395 $13,141 $1,067,122
Street Improvements $1,129,851 $920,585 $252,253 $9,653,681 Fire Stations $37,572 $19,649 $6,943 $929,429
Parkland $ - $ - $ - Exempt
Administrative Fee (3.5%) $44,504 $34,538 $27,778 $470,833 TOTAL $ WAIVED $1,316,055 $1,021,329 $821,435 $13,923,185 $17,082,004 in Waived Non-Residential PFFs All figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar.
2381
Employment Projections & Actuals
Single-Family Residential Development Under SESP
Actual Annual
Averages*
UOP Study
Projections
Single-Family Housing Units (SFRs) 1,000 385
Total Construction Jobs 2,138 614
Jobs for Stockton Residents n/a 320
Total Jobs per Housing Unit Ratio 2.14 1.59
*From 1/1/16 - 12/31/24, 3,461 SFRs were constructed, with 5,525 unduplicated construction jobs reported 2382
Financial Impacts
All figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Total Waived
Between 1/1/2016 & 12/31/2024 Fee
City Office Space $2,807,345
Community Recreation Centers $2,305,671
Library $4,554,897
Police Stations $3,460,368
Street Improvements $63,023,044
Fire Stations $4,057,218
Parkland $10,622,054
Administrative Fee (3.5%) $3,179,071
TOTAL $ WAIVED $94,009,668
2383
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1
ADOPT THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 STOCKTON CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 96-2

RECOMMENDATION
This public hearing is to consider public comments and testimony regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 Stockton Consolidated Landscape Maintenance Assessment District No. 96-2 (Consolidated Landscape District) Annual Engineer's Report, budget, and levy of assessments.

After the public hearing, if owners of more than 50 percent of the area of assessable lands within the Consolidated Landscape District have not protested the proposed levy of annual maintenance assessments, it is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to:

1. Overrule any and all protests or objections (including all written protests not withdrawn in writing before the conclusion of the public hearing) to the proposed levy of assessments in the Consolidated Landscape District in each zone.

2. Approve and adopt the Consolidated Landscape District's Annual Engineer's Report for the FY 2025-26 containing the budget for each zone and confirm and levy the assessments for each zone as set forth in the Annual Engineer's Report.

3. Certify that the special assessment(s), fee(s), or charge(s) to be placed on the FY 2025-26 Secured Property Tax bill by the City of Stockton are certified to meet the requirements of Proposition 218 that added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California State Constitution.

4. Confirm that the assessments of the annual amount of costs and expenses for the maintenance and operation of the improvements upon the assessable lands in the Consolidated Landscape District, as contained in the Annual Engineer's Report, shall be levied and collected for FY 2025-26. The assessments are in compliance with all laws pertaining to the levy of the annual assessment (State of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500). The assessments are levied without regard to property valuation. The purpose of the assessments is to pay the costs and expenses for maintenance and operation of public parks and landscape improvements in public rights-of-way and public open spaces.

5. Authorize the City Manager or designee, on behalf of the City Clerk, to file the assessments or a copy thereof certified by the City Clerk with the San Joaquin County Auditor and cause the assessments to be entered on the FY 2025-26 tax roll for the parcels in the Consolidated Landscape District and each zone within the Consolidated Landscape District as set forth in the Annual Engineer's Report on file with the City Clerk.

City of Stockton Page 1 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2384
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1
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
This public hearing is to consider public comments and testimony regarding the FY 2025-26 Consolidated Landscape District's Annual Engineer's Report, budget, and levy of assessments. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Act), under which the Consolidated Landscape District was formed, requires this public hearing and approval of the Annual Engineer's Report, budget, and levy of assessments. The FY 2025-26 Annual Engineer's Report for the Consolidated Landscape District, which contains the budget, assessment amounts, and description of improvements eligible to be maintained, is on file with the City Clerk and is available for online viewing on the City of Stockton website.

The Consolidated Landscape District levies assessments to fund maintenance of public parks, landscape improvements, and streetlights in public rights-of-way and public open spaces in 27 zones across the City. All funds generated from the assessments for each zone can only be used for specific work in that zone.

The assessments for seven zones of the Consolidated Landscape District are fixed and cannot be increased without approval by a majority of the property owners. For FY 2025-26, it is required and recommended the actual assessment, which is at the maximum, remains the same as FY 2024-25 for the seven zones with fixed assessments.

The assessment formula for the remaining 20 zones where assessments are levied provides an annual escalator to the maximum allowable assessment and adjusts the actual assessment. It is recommended that the FY 2025-26 maximum assessment be increased per the formula. It is further recommended that the actual FY 2025-26 assessment increase by varying amounts from 3.00 to 729.92 percent in the 20 zones that allow for an annual adjustment. This recommendation is a result of a comprehensive review and evaluation of current maintenance expenditures, long-term capital needs, available reserves, and rapid inflation.

The recommended resolution overrules any and all protests; approves and adopts the Consolidated Landscape District's Annual Engineer's Report for the FY 2025-26 containing the budget for each zone; confirms and levies the assessments for each zone as set forth in the Annual Engineer's Report; certifies that the assessments meet the requirements of Proposition 218 that added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California State Constitution; confirms that the assessments are in compliance with State of California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, that the assessments are levied without regard to property valuation, and that the assessments are to fund maintenance of public parks, landscape improvements, and streetlights in public rights-of-way and public open spaces; authorizes and directs the City Manager or designee to execute all documents, including, but not limited to, agreements and amendments; and authorizes the City Manager to take appropriate and necessary actions to carry out the purpose and intent of the resolution.

All costs are funded by assessments levied on the properties in the zones of the Consolidated Landscape District.

City of Stockton Page 2 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2385
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1

DISCUSSION
Background
On February 26, 1996, Council adopted Resolution No. 96-0084 that consolidated the eight Landscape Maintenance Districts that existed at that time into a single Consolidated Landscape District. The City used the provisions of the Act to establish the original individual districts and the Consolidated Landscape District. The Act contains provisions for the City to form an assessment district, or annex territory to an existing district, for the maintenance and operation of improvements that impart a special benefit to an area. Though the title of the Act references landscaping and lighting, a district can be formed to maintain a variety of improvements. These improvements include but are not limited to landscaping, fountains, ornamental structures, public lighting (such as streetlights and traffic signals), walls, irrigation, parks, and park equipment. The Consolidated Landscape District provides for the maintenance of these types of improvements in certain subdivisions throughout the City.

The Consolidated Landscape District sets annual assessments, collected by the County with annual property taxes, on each taxable parcel contained within the Consolidated Landscape District. These annual assessments provide funding for maintenance of the improvements, parks, inspection, repair and replacement of improvements, and other associated administrative costs, including preparing an Annual Engineer's Report and assessment roll. The Annual Engineer's Report contains the Consolidated Landscape District's budget. The budget details the maintenance and administrative costs for all affected zones. The property owners are responsible for funding only those improvements within their zone.

The assessments are apportioned in a manner to distribute the amounts among all assessable parcels in proportion to the special benefit conferred on each parcel. Each year, all properties are evaluated to determine if they meet the criteria to be assessed. A dwelling unit equivalent factor (dueF) is assigned to each parcel if they are to be assessed. The dueF is based on the parcel's use.

A single-family residential lot is equivalent to one dueF. The dueF for other classifications of properties, such as multi-family or commercial, is determined by the Allocation of Costs and Method of Assessment Spread contained in the Annual Engineer's Report.

There are 34 zones in the Consolidated Landscape District. During FY 2024-25, no new zones were formed, and no new territory was annexed to any of the existing zones. Assessments are levied in 27 zones (Attachment A). Assessments are not levied in the remaining seven zones as there are no improvements to maintain.

Of the 27 zones where assessments are levied, seven of the zones (A-1 Weber/Sperry, A-2 Morada West, B-1 Long Park, B-2 Weston Ranch, B-3 Weston Park, C-1 Spanos East, and D-1 Bridgeport Trails) do not have a provision for an annual increase to the assessment. The assessment in these districts is at the same level as when the zones were originally formed in the early 1990s. Any increase in the annual assessment would have to be approved by a majority of the affected property owners. Consequently, not all of the current assessments collected are used for services. A portion of the current assessment collected is reserved to be able to afford future cost increases resulting from inflation.

City of Stockton Page 3 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2386
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1
Assessments in the remaining 20 zones were approved with an annual escalator. The escalator is the greater of 3.00 percent or the increase in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward All Urban Consumers Price Index (CPI). The escalator allows the assessment, when necessary, to keep pace with inflation without having to go through the time and expense to ballot the property owners. The maximum allowable assessment annually adjusts by the CPI, while the actual assessment needed to cover a zone's expenses is determined based on the estimated expenses for the fiscal year. The annual increase in calendar year 2024 of the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward All Urban CPI was

2.38 percent. Therefore, the maximum escalator that can be applied to the maximum allowable assessment for FY 2025-26 is 3.00 percent.

On April 15, 2025, Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-04-15-1206, which preliminarily approved and confirmed the FY 2025-26 Annual Engineer's Report, the proposed actual assessments, set a public hearing for June 3, 2025, and authorized the City Clerk to publish notice of the public hearing.

The Annual Engineer's Report contains the budget, proposed assessment amounts, and a complete description of improvements eligible to be maintained. The Annual Engineer's Report is on file with the City Clerk.

Present Situation
A summary of the proposed FY 2025-26 budget for the Consolidated Landscape District (Attachment B) is contained within the Annual Engineer’s Report, which is on file with the City Clerk. It includes the proposed per dueF/single-family dwelling assessment for each zone where an assessment is proposed to be levied. The budgeted expenditures include contracted maintenance, utilities, administration, repair and replacement of plant material and infrastructure, allocation to the replacement reserve, and contingency. The budgeted revenues are from assessments of the property owners. For the zones that have a provision for an annual escalator, it is proposed that the maximum allowable assessment be increased by 3.00 percent and the actual assessment be increased by up to 729.92 percent. Refer to the Zones with Annual Escalator section of this report for the yearly comparison of the actual increase per zone.

The overall budget for FY 2025-26 is based on current expenditure projections and is approximately $7.235 million. This increase of approximately $462,800 from the FY 2024-25 budget is primarily attributable to the addition of two new parks, court resurfacing, and various other projects within the existing parks. The anticipated cost increases across all budget line items are due to prior rapid inflation that is beginning to slow.

For FY 2025-26, it is recommended the assessment remains the same for the seven zones with fixed assessments. For the 20 zones where the assessment formula provides for an escalator, it is recommended that the maximum assessment be increased per the formula from the previous fiscal year. It is further recommended that the actual FY 2025-26 assessment increase by varying amounts from 3.00 to 729.92 percent in the 20 zones that allow for an annual adjustment. This recommendation is a result of a comprehensive review and evaluation of current maintenance expenditures, long-term capital needs, the Reserve for Continuing Appropriations fund balances, and prior fiscal year rapid inflation.

The reserve funds have accumulated over a number of years to fund the eventual replacement of improvements such as turf, trees, shrubs, irrigation system components, masonry block and pre-cast City of Stockton Page 4 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2387
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1
concrete back-up walls, and park improvements such as park play equipment, picnic structures, and bathroom buildings when those improvements reach the end of their service life. In zones where street lighting is an improvement whose maintenance is funded, the annual assessment is set at a rate to fund re-lamping and knock-down repairs/replacement as needed.

The comprehensive review and evaluation were completed by staff following the completion of a capital needs analysis by Siegfried Engineering, Inc. This combined effort analyzed current maintenance tasks, long-term capital replacement needs, and reserve fund balance for each zone.

The analysis identified additional maintenance/service tasks that should be performed, quantified service life, and replacement estimates for the various improvements eligible to be funded by the Consolidated Landscape District. It is recommended the reserve amount be set aside each year. The recommended reserve set aside is based on the current amount that is in reserve, the appropriate reserve balance for each zone (this number changes as the zone ages), and the recommended adjustment to each zone's assessment to reach those levels (Attachment C).

Zones with Fixed Assessments
Zones A-1, A-2, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, and D-1 do not have a provision for an annual increase to the maximum allowable assessment. Any increase in the annual assessment in these zones would have to be approved by a majority of the affected property owners. In these seven zones, there is a request for an appropriation from the reserve to balance each zone's budget. Each zone's budget anticipates contracted costs such as routine scheduled maintenance service and utilities and includes eventual but unscheduled expenditures such as wall repairs. If the eventual but unscheduled expenditure were not budgeted, a mid-year appropriation requiring City Council action would have to be processed. To avoid a mid-year appropriation, funds for this type of eventual but unscheduled expenditure are budgeted. If the funds are not used, they are returned to the zone at the end of the fiscal year and are available for the next year. An appropriation from the reserve is the only way to balance the budget and efficiently provide for these types of eventual but unscheduled expenditures. Ultimately, given increases in costs in future years, the reserves in each of the seven zones will be depleted. The zones will become unable to fund maintenance at the level currently provided. Current projections are that the reserves in Zones B-1, B-2, B-3, and D-1 will be adequate to continue the current service levels for the next five years.

Reserves in Zones A-1, A-2, and C-1 are insufficient to continue appropriating funds at prior-year levels without the zones falling into insolvency within the next two years. It is recommended that these three zones cease funding wall repairs. All walls are a development requirement and are constructed on private property. Stockton Municipal Code Section 8.36.040.D obligates the property owner to repair any wall constructed as a condition of development.

The following continued actions from the prior FY are further recommended:
· Zone A-1 - Reduce the frequency of landscape maintenance services and irrigation. Water for irrigating the East Bay Municipal Utilities District property between Lorraine Avenue and West Lane is approximately 22 percent of the total proposed Zone A-1 Budget. · Zone C-1 -A reduction in maintenance services is necessary without alternative funding. When Zone C-1 was originally formed, the budget was set based on maintaining only the street City of Stockton Page 5 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2388
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1
landscaping installed with the development. Baxter Park's maintenance cost was added to Zone C-1 in 1997 without an increase in the existing assessment. Annually increasing park maintenance costs are taking a larger percentage of the budget and requiring an everincreasing appropriation from the reserve. If appropriations continue at the previous year's magnitude, Zone C-1 will be insolvent in three years.

The table below shows the FY 2024-25 actual assessment, the recommended FY 2025-26 actual assessment, and what the per dueF assessment would be for budgeted expenditures. The 'Cost per dueF for Budgeted Expenditures' does not include an amount to capitalize a replacement reserve or fund replacement of larger expense items such as extensive landscape rehabilitation or booster pump replacement.

Zone FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Cost per dueF for
Actual (Fixed) Actual (Fixed) Budgeted Expenditures
A-1 $46.90 $46.90 $105.36
A-2 $79.88 $79.88 $112.85
B-1 $84.00 $84.00 $126.95
B-2 $117.82 $117.82 $265.26
B-3 $24.00 $24.00 $39.74
C-1 $119.24 $119.24 $172.08
D-1 $85.00 $85.00 $199.06
Zones with an Annual Escalator
It is recommended that the actual FY 2025-26 assessment increase by up to 729.92 percent in the 20 zones that allow for an annual adjustment. This recommendation is a result of a comprehensive review and evaluation of current maintenance expenditures, long-term capital needs, the Reserve for Continuing Appropriations fund balances, and rapid inflation. The recommended budget includes an appropriation from the reserves to fully fund each zone's operating budget. The table below shows the FY 2024-25 actual assessment, the recommended FY 2025-26 actual assessment, and the FY 2025-26 maximum assessment. Where the actual assessments are nearing the maximum allowable assessments, the actual assessment has increased by 3.00 percent. These percent differences are not a uniform 3.00 percent due to rounding and truncating required to obtain an assessment divisible by two. In an effort to begin replenishing the appropriation reserves, the remaining assessments whose actual assessment is not nearing the maximum allowable assessment, the percentage increase varies between 3.00 percent and 729.92 percent.

Zone FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 Dollar Percentage FY 2025-26 Actual Actual Difference Difference Maximum
A-3 $319.24 $330.66 $11.42 3.58% $330.68
A-4 $216.28 $237.88 $21.60 9.99% $323.13
A-5 $694.04 $902.24 $208.2030.00% $1,792.84
A-6 $370.74 $407.80 $37.06 9.99% $770.67
A-7 $125.90 $256.64 $130.74103.84% $943.18
A-10 $191.14 $210.24 $19.10 9.99% $502.95
City of Stockton Page 6 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2389
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1
B-4 $115.86 $119.32 $3.46 2.99% $119.35
B-5 $95.34 $104.88 $9.54 10.00% $226.18
C-2 $292.86 $301.64 $8.78 3.00% $301.66
C-3 $179.16 $259.74 $80.58 44.98% $259.76
C-4 $98.90 $108.80 $9.90 10.01% $343.94
C-6 $116.34 $137.20 $20.86 17.93% $239.35
C-7/7A $421.50 $476.76 $55.26 13.11% $562.27
D-3 $271.00 $298.10 $27.10 10.00% $314.19
D-4 $144.84 $149.18 $4.34 3.00% $1,496.71
D-6 $14.84 $123.16 $108.32729.92% $611.45
E-1 $248.82 $273.70 $24.88 10.00% $289.56
E-3 $473.20 $520.52 $47.32 10.00% $1,025.83
E-4 $14.58 $109.56 $94.98651.44% $364.21
E-5 $151.38 $166.50 $15.12 9.99% $632.01
The FY 2025-26 Annual Engineer's Report for the Consolidated Landscape District, which contains the budget, assessment amounts, and a description of improvements eligible to be maintained, is on file with the City Clerk. The assessments fund maintenance of over four million square feet of street landscaping, 68 acres of open space, 42 miles of back-up walls, 10.5 miles of bicycle/pedestrian paths, and 12 parks totaling over 114 acres. A brief summary of the improvements eligible to be maintained by each zone and the proposed actual assessment and proposed maximum assessment per dueF for each zone is contained in Attachment C.

City of Stockton Page 7 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2390
File #: 25-0289, Version: 1

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.

Financial Health of Zones
Later this year, staff will prepare a workplan to address the zone shortfalls with deliberate rate escalators to gain relief within the next five years. As noted previously, several zones, either with fixed assessments or annual escalators, are on track for becoming insolvent. In some cases, special benefits are no longer being provided, and fund reserves have sustained their respective operation.

To implement this future workplan, the City will need to seek approval through the constitutional mandates of the Proposition 218 election process.

Public Notification
Notice of the Public Hearing was published in The Record on May 23, 2025. The notice is required to be published a minimum of 10 days prior to the public hearing.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Total Proposed FY 2025-26 Assessments $5,280,208
Total Proposed FY 2025-26 Appropriation from Reserves $1,954,977 TOTAL PROPOSED FY 2025-26 BUDGET $7,235,185
TOTAL FY 2024-25 BUDGET $6,772,385
INCREASE/(DECREASE) $462,800
The requested appropriation from the reserves will leave an estimated $8,014,005.13 in total reserve funds available for future programming. The reserve analysis recommends that there should be a total of $20,048,719.19 in reserve. Additional details for all zones are included in Attachment C.

The cost shortfall for Baxter Park of $24,400 may be budgeted in the Parks Operating fund through the annual budgeting process; otherwise, maintenance services at Baxter Park may be reduced accordingly. The City makes no financial contribution to the Consolidated Landscape District. All fees, costs, and expenses, including staff costs, are paid from the proceeds of the annual assessments to be levied.

Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Proposed FY 2025-26 Budget
Attachment C - Summary of Zones
City of Stockton Page 8 of 8 Printed on 5/29/2025
powered by Legistar™2391

STOCKTON CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 96-2

ATTACHMENT A
2392
Dept./Division 072-6907 072-6913
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj WEBER
SPERRY
MORADA
WEST
A-1 A-2

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 61,517.00 2,669.00 Incidental Services - -
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25 4,167.00 132.00 TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 65,684.00 2,801.00 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities - -
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00 32,238.00 979.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 97,922.00 3,780.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings - -
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 - - GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 2,602.00 326.00 Parks - -
Contracted Scheduled Park Services - -
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 - - Incidental Parks Services - -
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25 - -
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25 - - Parks Utilities - -
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00 - -
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- - - TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00 - -
Materials and Supplies - -
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 819.00 143.00 Street Lights - -
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00 - - Street Light Utilities - -
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00 - -
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00 - -
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00 101,343.00 4,249.00 CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 5,068.00 425.00 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 - - TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00 106,411.00 4,674.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE - -
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 - - Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25 - -
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25 - -

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION - -
Subtotal District Administration Expenses $1,215,678.00 31,550.00 5,189.00 CONTINGENCY: Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Admin. Expenses $109,487.00 590.40-98 1,578.00 519.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED DISTRICT ADMIN. EXPENSES $1,325,165.00 33,128.00 5,708.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00 139,539.00 10,382.00 TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09 3,033.04 77,421.82

TOTAL ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $5,280,207.91 62,117.18 7,348.96
2025-2026 Proposed Potential per dueF Assessment $46.90 $79.88 2025-2026 Max. Possible per dueF Assessment $46.90 $79.88 2025-2026 Total dueF 1324.46 92.00
Stockton Consolidated Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 96-2 Budget 1 ATTACHMENT B
2393
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
Subtotal District Administration Expenses $1,215,678.00 CONTINGENCY: Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Admin. Expenses $109,487.00 590.40-98 TOTAL ESTIMATED DISTRICT ADMIN. EXPENSES $1,325,165.00

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

TOTAL ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $5,280,207.91
2025-2026 Proposed Potential per dueF Assessment
2025-2026 Max. Possible per dueF Assessment
2025-2026 Total dueF
Stockton Consolidated Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 96-2 Budget 072-6915 072-6914

LA MORADA BLOSSOM
RANCH
A-3 A-4
248,119.00 6,895.00
- -
77,553.00 6,701.00
325,672.00 13,596.00
- -
159,881.00 11,312.00
485,553.00 24,908.00
- -
85,790.00 25,998.00
6,500.00 651.00
- -
- -
96,983.00 16,916.00
- -
72,351.00 9,660.00
169,334.00 26,576.00
- -
49,304.00 13,072.00
3,053.00 509.00
221,691.00 40,157.00
- -
9,461.00 1,289.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
808,995.00 93,003.00
80,900.00 8,371.00
- -
889,895.00 101,374.00
- -
89,182.00 -
33,263.00 -
122,444.00 -
- -
174,620.00 23,074.00
15,716.00 2,077.00
190,336.00 25,151.00
1,202,675.00 126,525.00
73,444.76 39,698.80
1,129,230.24 86,826.20
$330.66 $237.88
$330.68 $323.13
3415.08 365.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2394
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

WEBER WOODS BLOSSOM

CAMERA/
SPERRY
A-5 A-6
1,241.00 32,890.00
- -
3,713.00 13,272.00
4,954.00 46,162.00
- -
2,442.00 26,649.00
7,396.00 72,811.00
- -
19,498.00 27,300.00
326.00 12,999.00
- -
- -
31,620.00 -
- -
18,692.00 -
50,312.00 -
- -
44,850.00 -
1,490.00 -
96,652.00 -
- -
369.00 2,234.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
27,589.00 211,996.00
2,484.00 21,200.00
- -
30,073.00 233,196.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
9,801.00 52,092.00
883.00 4,689.00
10,684.00 56,781.00
40,757.00 289,977.00
25,418.92 (5,678.00)
15,338.08 295,655.00
$902.24 $407.80
$1,792.84 $770.67

17.00 725.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2395
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

CANNERY
PARK
A-7 A-10
27,703.00 30,945.00
- -
12,074.00 5,069.00
43,019.00 32,772.00
- -
20,803.00 11,578.00
63,822.00 44,350.00
- -
27,300.00 19,498.00
9,750.00 1,302.00
- -
- -
32,499.00 14,400.00
- -
13,626.00 2,700.00
46,125.00 17,100.00
- -
25,486.00 24,200.00
983.00 -
72,594.00 41,300.00
- -
2,198.00 756.00
- -
17,939.00 17,939.00
- -
2,343.00 8,060.00
20,282.00 25,999.00
195,946.00 133,205.00
17,636.00 11,989.00
- -
213,582.00 145,194.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
21,032.00 46,477.00
1,893.00 4,183.00
22,925.00 50,660.00
168,119.00 264,242.00
(38,336.68) 83,310.80
206,455.68 180,931.20
$256.64 $210.24
$943.18 $502.95
705.00 982.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2396
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

WM LONG
PARK

WESTON RANCH
B-1 B-2
- 327,142.00
- -
- 83,301.00
- 410,443.00
- -
- 438,039.00
- 848,482.00
- -
- 69,543.00
- 6,500.00
- -
- -
71,125.00 79,393.00
- -
(6,202.00) 20,255.00
64,923.00 99,648.00
- -
20,191.00 55,576.00
2,086.00 3,839.00
87,200.00 159,063.00
- -
1,759.00 11,185.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
88,959.00 1,094,773.00
8,007.00 98,530.00
- -
96,966.00 1,193,303.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
39,269.00 242,902.00
3,535.00 21,862.00
42,804.00 264,764.00
139,770.00 1,458,067.00
47,286.00 810,430.60
92,484.00 647,636.40
$84.00 $117.82
$84.00 $117.82
1101.00 5496.83 1

ATTACHMENT B
2397
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

WESTON PARK

SMITH PARK
B-3 B-4
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
73,541.00 31,435.00
- -
3,317.00 45,720.00
76,858.00 77,155.00
- -
55,577.00 33,025.00
3,427.00 1,490.00
135,862.00 111,670.00
- -
146.00 895.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
136,008.00 112,565.00
10,881.00 11,257.00
- -
146,889.00 123,822.00
- -
- -
17,039.00 -
- 17,039.00
- -
39,051.00 25,796.00
3,515.00 2,580.00
42,566.00 28,376.00
189,455.00 169,237.00
75,027.14 47,888.56
114,427.86 121,348.44
$24.00 $119.32
$24.00 $119.35
4767.83 1017.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2398
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

CAMP ROAD
FENCE

SPANOS EAST
B-5 C-1
- 23,400.00
- -
- 6,314.00
- 29,714.00
- -
- 38,674.00
- 68,388.00
- -
77,990.00 -
6,500.00 651.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 767.00
- 767.00
- -
126.00 812.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
84,616.00 70,618.00
8,462.00 4,944.00
- -
93,078.00 75,562.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
22,819.00 25,388.00
1,598.00 2,285.00
24,417.00 27,673.00
99,979.00 120,751.00
30,700.56 61,493.80
69,278.44 59,257.20
$104.88 $119.24
$226.18 $119.24
565.00 581.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2399
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

STOCKTON

PROJECTS

SPANOS WEST
C-2 C-3
1,692.00 60,385.00
- -
67,549.00 -
127,934.00 1,692.00
- -
76,693.00 -
204,627.00 1,692.00
- -
28,860.00 -
2,602.00 -
- -
- -
35,387.00 134,542.00
- -
17,071.00 193,307.00
52,458.00 327,849.00
- -
40,712.00 152,087.00
1,947.00 6,609.00
95,117.00 486,545.00
- -
4,788.00 4,619.00
- -
17,550.00 -
- -
14,950.00 -
32,500.00 -
368,494.00 492,856.00
36,850.00 44,358.00
- -
405,344.00 537,214.00
- -
9,619.00 -
- -
9,619.00 -
- -
89,111.00 82,952.00
8,912.00 7,466.00
98,023.00 90,418.00
512,986.00 627,632.00
35,182.26 133,598.88
477,803.74 494,033.12
$301.64 $259.74
$301.66 $259.76
1584.02 1902.03 1

ATTACHMENT B
2400
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

FAIRWAY
GREENS

WESTLAKE

VILLAGES
C-4 C-6
27,148.00 3,257.00
- -
3,095.00 -
6,352.00 27,148.00
- -
2,799.00 1,500.00
9,151.00 28,648.00
- -
19,498.00 -
977.00 -
- -
- -
- 61,800.00
- -
- 4,000.00
- 65,800.00
- -
- 48,000.00
- -
- 113,800.00
- -
440.00 621.00
- -
- 32,497.00
- -
- 29,897.00
- 62,394.00
30,066.00 205,463.00
3,007.00 20,547.00
- -
33,073.00 226,010.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
20,846.00 11,343.00
1,877.00 1,135.00
22,723.00 12,478.00
248,733.00 45,551.00
(10.60) 24,117.40
248,743.60 21,433.60
$108.80 $137.20
$343.94 $239.35
197.00 1813.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2401
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

NSP III NSP III
C-7/Pitts Park Sub-Zone A
- 11,834.00
- -
- 6,386.00
- 18,220.00
- -
- 16,251.00
- 34,471.00
- -
- 19,498.00
- 5,201.00
- -
- -
66,277.00 -
- -
54,120.00 -
120,397.00 -
- -
64,088.00 -
2,979.00 -
187,464.00 -
- -
1,485.00 1,032.00
- -
- 17,159.00
- -
- 8,060.00
- 25,219.00
188,949.00 85,421.00
18,895.00 8,543.00
- -
207,844.00 93,964.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
21,158.00 33,099.00
1,905.00 3,310.00
23,063.00 36,409.00
117,027.00 244,253.00
46,398.54 36,654.14
70,628.46 207,598.86
$267.18 $209.58
$267.20 $295.07
777.00 337.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2402
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

BRIDGEPORT
TRAILS

BRIDGEPORT
TRAILS 4&5
D-1 D-3
4,686.00 7,024.00
- -
6,672.00 5,699.00
13,696.00 10,385.00
- -
6,374.00 10,079.00
20,070.00 20,464.00
- -
20,149.00 19,498.00
1,951.00 1,951.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
716.00 587.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
42,886.00 42,500.00
4,289.00 4,250.00
- -
47,175.00 46,750.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
14,084.00 14,794.00
1,409.00 1,332.00
15,493.00 16,126.00
62,243.00 63,301.00
7,392.60 36,271.00
54,850.40 27,030.00
$85.00 $298.10
$85.00 $314.19
318.00 184.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2403
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

CALAVERAS

ESTATES
MOSS
GARDEN
D-4 D-6
- 10,145.00
- -
- 9,324.00
- 19,469.00
- -
- 21,972.00
- 41,441.00
- -
19,498.00 -
3,251.00 -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
713.00 740.00
- -
15,989.00 15,989.00
- -
1,366.00 1,432.00
17,355.00 17,421.00
40,817.00 59,602.00
4,082.00 5,961.00
- -
44,899.00 65,563.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
18,926.00 13,238.00
1,704.00 1,192.00
20,630.00 14,430.00
86,193.00 59,329.00
40,045.48 36,355.28
46,147.52 22,973.72
$149.18 $123.16
$1,496.71 $611.45
154.00 374.70 1

ATTACHMENT B
2404
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

LITTLE JOHN
CREEK

SEABREEZE
E-1 E-3
16,415.00 28,472.00
- -
8,282.00 13,107.00
24,697.00 41,579.00
- -
20,671.00 27,949.00
45,368.00 69,528.00
- -
20,800.00 19,498.00
4,552.00 4,552.00
- -
- -
24,674.00 9,623.00
- -
27,144.00 14,472.00
51,818.00 24,095.00
- -
46,127.00 22,783.00
1,219.00 483.00
99,164.00 47,361.00
- -
1,921.00 2,038.00
- -
- 16,380.00
- -
- 1,951.00
- 18,331.00
171,805.00 161,308.00
17,181.00 16,131.00
6,626.00 2,753.00
195,612.00 180,192.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
38,995.00 43,561.00
3,510.00 3,921.00
42,505.00 47,482.00
222,697.00 243,094.00
60,294.76 26,871.00
162,402.24 216,223.00
$273.70 $520.52
$289.56 $1,025.83
790.00 312.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2405
Dept./Division
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Total Estimated
Expenditure
Activity. Elem-obj

MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND UTILITIES
Landscape and Open Spaces
Contracted Scheduled Landscape and Open Spaces Services Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Services $964,785.00 590.20-25 Incidental Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $400,203.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACES SERVICES $1,364,988.00 590.20-25 Landscape and Open Spaces Utilities
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES UTILITIES $959,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACES EXPENS $2,324,183.00 Walls/Signs/Bridge Railings
TOTAL ESTIMATED WALL/SIGN/BRIDGE RAIL EXPENSES $559,212.00 GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, performed by Neighborhood Services $80,947.00 590.20-67 Parks
Contracted Scheduled Park Services
Subtotal .20-25 Contracted Scheduled Park Services $783,466.00 Incidental Parks Services
Subtotal Incidental Services $490,233.00 590.20-25
TOTAL .20-25 PARKS SERVICES $1,273,699.00 590.20-25
Parks Utilities
TOTAL PARKS UTILITIES $695,078.00
Graffiti Abatement in Parks - By PW Staff $30,881.00 590.10- TOTAL ESTIMATED PARKS EXPENSES $1,999,658.00
Materials and Supplies
TOTAL ESTIMATED MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES $54,247.00 590.30-50 Street Lights
TOTAL STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS $167,846.00
Street Light Utilities
TOTAL STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES $70,920.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED STREET LIGHTS EXPENSES $238,766.00
SUBTOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENSES $5,257,013.00
CONTINGENCY; Varies 0 to 10±% of Subtotal Estimated Expens $494,544.00 590.40-98 SPECIAL DIST./STORM BASIN MAINT. DIST. $9,379.00 640.90-74 TOTAL ESTIMATED MAINT/UTIL/REPAIR EXPENSES $5,760,936.00

REPLACEMENT RESERVE
Replacement Reserve: L/S, Walls, Lights $98,801.00 590.20-25 Replacement Reserve: Park $50,302.00 590.20-25
TOTAL REPLACEMENT RESERVE $149,103.00 590.20-25

TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE REQUIRED
2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR $7,235,185.00
TOTAL APPROPRIATION OR (REPLENISHMENT) ON RESERV $1,954,977.09

OAKMORE -

MONTEGO

RANCHO DEL
SOL
E-4 E-5
13,137.00 18,069.00
- -
55,383.00 12,410.00
68,520.00 30,479.00
- -
11,771.00 20,541.00
80,291.00 51,020.00
- -
19,498.00 19,498.00
4,552.00 3,251.00
- -
- -
3,251.00 -
- -
- -
3,251.00 -
- -
- -
- -
3,251.00 -
- -
1,185.00 1,170.00
- -
- 16,380.00
- -
- 2,861.00
- 19,241.00
108,777.00 94,180.00
10,878.00 9,418.00
- -
119,655.00 103,598.00
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
29,227.00 25,284.00
2,631.00 2,276.00
31,858.00 27,560.00
151,513.00 131,158.00
69,781.24 70,885.00
81,731.76 60,273.00
$109.56 $166.50
$364.21 $632.01
746.00 362.00 1

ATTACHMENT B
2406
ZONE A-1, WEBER SPERRY RANCHES:

Zone A-1 is generally bound by West Lane, the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) right-of-way, the Union Pacific Railroad line and the Calaveras River.

Improvements maintained include trees in tree wells, back-up walls and the turf on the EBMUD right-of-way between West Lane and Lorraine Avenue.

There is a request for an appropriation of $77,421.82 from the reserve for continuing appropriations to balance the budget. The amount remaining in the reserve after this requested appropriation is considered sufficient to meet the present. Any unexpended budgeted funds are returned to the Zone A-1 account at the close of the fiscal year.

The reserves in Zone A-1 are not sufficient to continue appropriating funds at proposed FY 2025-26 levels. The zone is currently insolvent with a negative reserve. To address the shortfall, wall repairs will no longer be funded. All walls are a development requirement and are constructed on private property. Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) Section 8.30.040.D obligates the property owner to repair any wall constructed as a condition of development. Reductions in frequency of landscape maintenance services will be evaluated along with a reduction in irrigation frequency. Water for irrigating the EBMUD property between Lorraine Avenue and West Lane is $31,197.00 (approximately 23 percent of the FY 2025-26 budget) of the total $139,539.00 proposed Zone A-1 Budget.

When the assessment for Zone A-1 was originally approved, it did not include a provision for an annual escalator. The assessment cannot be increased without the affected property owners voting to approve the increase. Therefore, no change is proposed in the $46.90/dueF assessment for FY 2025-26. If the assessment was set at a level that would fully fund the estimated FY 2025-26 expenditures without an appropriation from the reserve, the assessment would be $105.36/dueF.

The anticipated Zone A-1 reserve balance as of June 30, 2025, is -$219,851.91. The recommended reserve balance is $1,332,781.01. Zone A-1 would require an appropriation from the reserve to cover contracted expenses, utilities, and administration even without budgeting for eventual, but unscheduled expenditures. This zone cannot continue to fund maintenance of all improvements for which it was formed and at the current service levels.

ZONE A-2, MORADA WEST:

Zone A-2 is generally bound by Hammer Lane, Maranatha Drive, Christian Life Way and State Route 99. Improvements maintained include the back-up walls and trees in tree wells.

There is a request for an appropriation of $3,033.04 from the reserve for continuing appropriations to balance the budget. The amount in the reserve is not considered sufficient to meet the present obligations and still provide for limited future contingencies. Any unexpended budgeted funds are returned to the Zone A-2 account

Page 1 of 19 ends

City Council and Concurrent AuthoritiesJune 3, 2025

City Council and Concurrent Authorities
June 3, 2025