Exhibit 1 - Mitigated Negative Declaration — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, June 3, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

FINAL
South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Stockton, San Joaquin County, California
Prepared for:

City of Stockton
345 North El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
202.937.8561
Contact: Nicole D. Moore, LEED® AP
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Elizabeth Johnson, Senior Project Manager
Report Date: January 17, 2025
EXHIBIT 1
This Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Division 13, California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.). This Final IS/MND meets CEQA content requirements by including a project description; descriptions of the existing environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for any potentially significant impacts and discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with plans and policies. The analysis provided in this Final IS/MND demonstrates that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation incorporated. During the public review period, agencies and the public had an opportunity to provide written comments on the information contained within the IS/MND. The City received six comment letters. These comments, and written responses to them, are included in the record and will be considered by the City. No revisions to the IS/MND are proposed or required that constitute a significant change or significant new information. The Final IS/MND addresses all significant environmental issues raised by public comments.

EXHIBIT 1
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................................................ v Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 - Purpose.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 - Project Location ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2.1 - Environmental Setting ............................................................................................ 1

1.2.2 - Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................... 2

1.2.3 - General Plan and Zoning ........................................................................................ 2

1.3 - Project Description ............................................................................................................ 2

1.3.1 - Parking, Access, and Circulation ............................................................................. 3

1.3.2 - Utilities ................................................................................................................... 3

1.3.3 - Construction ........................................................................................................... 4

1.4 - Required Discretionary Approvals ..................................................................................... 5

1.5 - Intended Uses of this Document ....................................................................................... 5 Section 2: Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation ............................................... 21

2.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 22

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................... 26

2.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 29

2.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 53

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................... 70

2.6 Energy ......................................................................................................................... 76

2.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 80

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 86

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 98

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... 104

2.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................. 110

2.12 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................... 112

2.13 Noise ......................................................................................................................... 114

2.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................... 121

2.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................... 123

2.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 127

2.17 Transportation .......................................................................................................... 129

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................... 140

2.19 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................... 146

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 149 Section 3: List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 153 Appendix A: Air Quality Supporting Information
Appendix B: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Appendix D: Geotechnical Supporting Information
Appendix E: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Supporting Information Appendix F: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix G: Traffic Impact Analysis
EXHIBIT 1
List of Tables
Table 1: Regional Construction Air Pollutant Emissions ........................................................................ 40 Table 2: Unmitigated Operational Pollutant Emissions (2025) ............................................................. 42 Table 3: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction .................................... 43 Table 4: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operations ....................................... 44 Table 5: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction at the Maximum Impacted Receptor ........................................................................................... 48 Table 6: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources ........................................................................... 50 Table 7: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption ...................................................................... 77 Table 8: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................ 90 Table 9: Unmitigated Project Operational Greenhouse Gases 2025 .................................................... 90 Table 10: Proposed Project Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies .......................................................................................... 92 Table 11: Proposed Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies .......................................................................................... 94 Table 12: VMT per Employee Summary .............................................................................................. 134 Table 13: TDM Reduction Measures ................................................................................................... 134 Table 14: Water Supply Demand Comparison for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years in the COSMUD Service Area ................................................................................. 142 Table 15: Landfill Capacities ................................................................................................................ 144 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1:Regional Location Map ............................................................................................................. 7 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 3: FEMA Flood Zone Map .......................................................................................................... 11 Exhibit 4: General Plan Land Use Map .................................................................................................. 13 Exhibit 5: Zoning Map ........................................................................................................................... 15 Exhibit 6: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................. 17 Exhibit 7: Conceptual Off-site Improvements ....................................................................................... 19 Exhibit 8: Land Cover and Vegetation Community Types ..................................................................... 61 Exhibit 9: Impacts on Biological Resources ........................................................................................... 63 EXHIBIT 1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAF age-specific adjustment factor
AB Assembly Bill
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model Air Basin San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQI Air Quality Index
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQP Air Quality Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASF age sensitivity factor
AST aboveground storage tank
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BEV battery electric vehicle
BMP Best Management Practice
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CBC California Building Standards Code
CCIC Central California Information Center
CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal
EXHIBIT 1
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CHL California Historic Landmarks
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COSMUD City of Stockton Municipal Utility District
CPF cancer potency factor
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CRA Cultural Resources Assessment
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CTR Commuter Trip Reduction
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBR daily breathing rates
DNL Day-Night Level
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWTP Delta Water Treatment Plant
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMFAC EMission FACtor mobile source emissions model
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FICAN Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAMAQI Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts EXHIBIT 1
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HBW home-based work
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HHDT Heavy Heavy-Duty Truck
HI hazard index
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HTAC Habitat Technical Advisory Committee
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-L Industrial Limited
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITMM Incidental Take Minimization Measure
kBTU kilo-British Thermal Unit
kWh kilowatt-hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn day/night sound level
LED light-emitting diode
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MHDT Medium Heavy-Duty Truck
MIR Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric tons
MUSD Manteca Unified School District
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NB No Build
NEV neighborhood electric vehicle
EXHIBIT 1
NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OES Office of Emergency Services
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
REL Reference Exposure Level
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWCF Regional Wastewater Control Facility
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sacramento Metro AQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SB Senate Bill
SEL sound exposure levels
SEWD Stockton East Water District
SFD Stockton Fire Department
SIL significant impact level
SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SNAP Significant New Alternatives Policy
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOI Sphere of Influence
South Coast AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SOx sulfur oxide
SPAL Small Projects Analysis Level
SPD Stockton Police Department
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board SUSD Stockton Unified School District
EXHIBIT 1
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWQCP Storm Water Quality Control Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAH time at home factors
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USGS United States Geological Survey
VERA Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WID Woodbridge Irrigation District
WMPU Water Master Plan Update
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Purpose
The purpose of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (proposed project) in the City of Stockton, California. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Stockton has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the project. The intended use of this IS/MND is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately analyze the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public. As identified in the following analysis, potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed project either do not occur, are less than significant, or have been rendered less than significant. Therefore, this Initial Study is intended to support adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The remainder of this section provides a brief description of the project location and the primary project characteristics. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may result from project implementation, elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist, and provides justification for each checklist response, and Section 3 contains the List of Preparers.

1.2 - Project Location
The project site is located in the City of Stockton’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) just south of the Stockton city limits, in San Joaquin County, California (Exhibit 1). The 11.7-acre project site corresponds to Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 193-02-034, located at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 5 (I-5), and State Route (SR) 99. As shown in Exhibit 2, the Union Pacific-Oakland Railroad parallels South McKinley to the east, and the Union Pacific-Fresno Railroad runs north–south to the west of the site.

1.2.1 - Environmental Setting
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, aside from a shipping container located at the north end of the project site. The site lies along French Camp Slough and riparian oak woodlands associated with French Camp Slough are located along the northern and western property lines. The site has historically been used for agricultural purposes. Most recently it was used for the cultivation of hay, and is plowed and disced regularly. A barbed wire fence and overhead electrical lines line the perimeter of the project site.

EXHIBIT 1
The project site Is located partially within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 500- year Flood Zone and partially within a FEMA 100-year Flood Zone in the area adjacent in the French Camp Slough1 (Exhibit 3).

1.2.2 - Surrounding Land Uses
The surrounding area is designated as Industrial, Open Space/Agriculture, and Low Density Residential. The project site is surrounded by a manufacturing plant to the north; South McKinley Avenue and a logistics center and a distribution center to the east; French Camp Slough, a warehouse building and lot, and a single-family residence to the south; and French Camp Slough and vacant land to the west.

1.2.3 - General Plan and Zoning
The project site is designated Industrial by the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (General Plan) (Exhibit 4).2The Industrial land use designation allows for a wide variety of industrial uses, including warehousing, and office uses. The maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for industrial uses is 0.6.

The project site is anticipated to be zoned Industrial Limited (I-L) upon annexation into the City and the proposed project would be designed to comply with I-L Zone regulations (Exhibit 5). The I-L Zone allows for warehouse uses and supporting office uses.

The County designates the project site as Mixed-Use (M/X).3 However, because the property is within the City’s SOI and it would be annexed into the City as part of the proposed project, the City’s designation is used in this analysis.

1.3 - Project Description
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 (Exhibit 6). 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 low-maintenance 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Website: https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed May 16, 2022. 2 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Figure 2-8 General Plan Land Use Map. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/Adopted_Plan.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2022. 3 San Joaquin County. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan Policy Document. December.

EXHIBIT 1
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 (Exhibit 7). A sewer lift station would be constructed within the project site.

The tenant for the proposed project is speculative. The following operational features are proposed by the project proponent and would be included in project construction plans and specifications:

Owners, operators, or tenants shall establish locations for food or catering truck service and cooperate with food service providers to provide consistent food service to operations employees on-site in order to minimize project generated trips.

Owners, operators, or tenants shall prohibit the use of diesel generators, except in emergency situations, in which case such generators shall have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) that meets California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 emission standards.

Owners, operators, or tenants shall provide periodic yard and parking area sweeping to minimize dust generation. All facility operators would train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queueing and idling of trucks.

In addition, all tenant lease agreements for the project site shall include a provision requiring the tenant/lessee to comply with all applicable requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), a copy of which shall be attached to each tenant/lease agreement.

1.3.1 - Parking, Access, and Circulation
Access would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building. A total of 192 parking stalls would be provided, 150 of which would be standard parking stalls located to the east and south of the proposed building. Thirty-seven trailer parking stalls would be located west of the proposed building adjacent to the loading area. All driveways and parking stalls would be constructed in accordance with the City’s Development Code.4 In order to minimize the number of trips generated by the project during construction, the applicant has agreed to require the construction contract to provide transit and ride sharing information for construction workers. In addition, the contractor will establish one or more locations for food or catering truck service to construction workers and to cooperate with food service providers to provide consistent food service on-site.

1.3.2 - Utilities
The proposed project is located within the service areas of the following utility service providers, which would provide service following construction and operation:
4 City of Stockton. 2023. Stockton, California, Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Title 16. Development Code.

EXHIBIT 1
Water: The proposed project would obtain water from the City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (COSMUD).5
Wastewater: The proposed project’s wastewater would be collected in a proposed sanitary sewer line extension that would connect to the City’s sewer line near Sperry Road and treated by the Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF).6 Solid Waste: Waste Management would provide solid waste pickup services for the project site.7
Electricity and Gas: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would provide electricity to the project site.8

1.3.3 - Construction
The proposed project would require site preparation, grading, paving, and installation of the warehouse facility. The construction phases and approximate dates for their duration are outlined below:

Site preparation (1 week): During this phase, the project site would be readied for construction, including the removal of existing vegetation.

Grading (4 weeks): During this phase, grading of the project site would occur.

Construction (38 weeks): This phase includes construction of the warehouse building and office space.

Paving (1 week): This phase includes paving and striping of the parking areas and driveways, as well as the construction of building setbacks, side yards, and signage.

Architectural Coating (2 weeks): This phase involves the application of architectural coatings.

The proposed project would include the following features as Best Management Practices (BMPs):

At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction would be sourced from local suppliers.

At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials would be recycled or reused.
5 City of Stockton. January 2021. Water Master Plan Update. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/COS_MUD__Water_Master_Plan_Update_2021.pdf#page=41&zoom=100,92,116. Accessed May 16, 2022.
6 City of Stockton. 2022. Wastewater (Sewer). Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/municipalUtilities/utilSewer.html. Accessed May 16, 2022. 7 City of Stockton. 2023. Garbage Collection. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/adminServices/ubilServGarb.html#:~:text=Waste%20collection%20services %20are%20provided,by%20Waste%20Management%20(WM).&text=Customers%20with%20brown%2Dbodied%20carts,by%20Rep ublic%20Services%20(Republic).&text=Your%20garbage%20service%20provider%20is%20determined%20by%20the%20location%2 0of%20your%20residence. Accessed May 16, 2022.
8 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Website: https://www.pge.com/. Accessed May 16, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

Signs would be posted at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.

For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed project is anticipated to be constructed over a 9- month period from April 2024 through December 2024.

1.4 - Required Discretionary Approvals
As mentioned previously, the City of Stockton has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of this IS/MND. The City has pre-zoned the site as Industrial Limited (I-L), which will take effect upon annexation. In order to implement the project, the City would need to secure the following permits/approvals:

Annexation into the City of Stockton
Design Review

1.5 - Intended Uses of this Document
This IS/MND has been prepared to evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project. This document will also serve as a basis for soliciting comments and input from members of the public and public agencies regarding the proposed project. The IS/MND will be circulated for a minimum of 30 days, during which comments concerning the analysis contained in the IS/MND should be sent to:

Nicole D. Moore, LEED® AP
City of Stockton
345 North El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Phone: 209.937.8561
Email: [email protected]
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
99 4
26 88
120
132
33 580
205
5 Manteca
Lathrop
Tracy
Stockton
Ripon
Patterson
Disappointment
SloughMiddle River
Clifton
Court
Forebay
5 0 5 2.5
Miles
Text
Project Site
Project Site
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Legend
Project Site
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Legend
Project Site 11.26 acres
Flood Hazard Zones
Regulatory Floodway
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Legend
Project Site
City of Stockton
General Plan Land Use Designations
Low Density Residential
Commercial
Administrative Professional
Industrial
Institutional
Open Space/Agriculture
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Legend
Project Site
City of Stockton
City of Stockton Zoning
General Commercial
General Industrial
Light/Limited Industrial
Open Space
Right of Way
County of San Joaquin Zoning
Agriculture Urban Reserve
Community Commercial
Freeway Service Commercial
General Agriculture
General Commercial
General Industrial
Limited Agriculture
Limited Commercial
Light/Limited Industrial
Low Density Residential
Public Facilities
Warehouse Industrial
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL

EVALUATION
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Services Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Date: Signed:

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.1 Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
building within a State Scenic Highway?

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

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

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Parks, recreation, open space, and agricultural uses account for about 14 percent of the City and its SOI. The General Plan Community Vision aims to preserve scenic vistas of agricultural land. The project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance by the California Important Farmland Finder.9
The City collaborates with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions to manage and protect natural resources as a voluntary participant in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), which was adopted in 2001.

General Plan Action LU-1.3C requires the incorporation of scenic views, including open space features like waterways, wetlands, natural landscapes, and parks, into the design of the built environment.

General Plan Action LU-5.3A requires that landscaping and other attractive edging are used at the interface between development and rural landscapes, rather than sound walls and similar utilitarian edges, in order to maintain the visual integrity of open space. 9 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
General Plan Action LU-5.3C requires the maintenance of the City’s agricultural conservation program, which requires that either dedication of an agricultural conservation easement at a 1:1 ratio or payment of an in lieu agricultural mitigation fee for the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, as defined by the State Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program (FMMP). As stated above, the project site is designated Farmland of Local Importance, which is not listed in this policy.

Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than significant impact. While the General Plan notes agricultural resources as important scenic vistas in the City, there are no officially designated scenic vistas within the Planning Area.

The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. It was previously used for agricultural purposes and is designated Farmland of Local Importance. While General Plan policies protect Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, they do not apply to Farmland of Local Importance.

The project site is adjacent to French Camp Slough and is bordered to the north, west, and south by trees associated with this riparian feature. Land designated as Open Space/Agriculture is located across South McKinley Avenue East, encompassing a portion of French Camp Slough. Therefore, development of the proposed project would change current scenic views of the project site.

However, none of the scenic resources on-site are officially designated or regulated by General Plan policies. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with General Plan Policy LU-5.3A by providing landscaping around the perimeter of the project site. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Industrial and is also adjacent to Industrial and Low Density Residential uses.

Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a State Scenic Highway?
No impact. There are no designated State Scenic Highways near the project site. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of I-580, located approximately 18 miles southwest of the project site, which is not visible.10As the proposed project would not have the potential to damage any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings visible from these roadways, no impact would occur.
10 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Scenic Highway System Lists. Website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than significant impact. While the project site is adjacent to French Camp Slough, a portion of which is designated Open Space/Agriculture, the site is largely surrounded by industrial uses to the east, north, and west and is in an area largely characterized by industrial development. Therefore, the project site is considered to be in an urbanized area. The project site itself is designated Industrial by the General Plan, which allows for a wide variety of industrial uses, including the proposed warehousing and associated office uses. The maximum allowable FAR for the Industrial land use designation is 0.6. The FAR of the proposed project would be approximately 0.4, which would be consistent with the maximum allowable FAR for the Industrial land use designation. Upon annexation into the City, the project site would be zoned I-L, which also allows for warehouse uses and supporting office uses. The proposed project would be required to follow the I-L zoning district standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 16.24.130. Furthermore, per Municipal Code Chapter

16.120, the proposed project would undergo Design Review prior to approval to ensure consistency with the Stockton Municipal Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than significant impact. Excessive or inappropriately directed lighting can adversely affect nighttime views by reducing the ability to see the night sky and stars. Glare can be derived from unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces (i.e., polished metal) can also cause glare. Impacts associated with glare range from simple nuisance to potentially dangerous situations (i.e., if glare is directed into the eyes of motorists). Light-sensitive land uses in the area include Low Density Residential uses to the south.

The project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain existing sources of light and glare.

The area surrounding the project site has existing sources of light and glare, including headlights from vehicles traveling on South McKinley Avenue East, streetlights, and existing development such as the industrial uses north and east of the project site. The proposed project would create new sources of light and glare resulting from indoor and outdoor lighting as well as vehicles circulating the site.

The proposed lighting would be consistent with the site’s zoning and the existing character of the surrounding industrial area. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with Municipal Code Section 16.32.070, Light and Glare, general performance standards,11 which would ensure that light 11 City of Stockton. Stockton, California Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Title 16 Development Code. Division 3. Site Planning and General Development Regulations. Chapter 16.32 General Performance Standards. Section 16.32.070 Light and glare.

Website: https://library.qcode.us/lib/stockton_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_16-division_3-chapter_16_32-16_32_070.

Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
generated on-site would be directed downward so as not to trespass onto residential properties to the south or adversely affect nearby light-sensitive uses. Furthermore, per Municipal Code Chapter

16.120, the proposed project would undergo Design Review prior to approval to ensure consistency with the Stockton Municipal Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

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

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract?

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT 1
Setting
The General Plan Community Vision aims to preserve scenic vistas of agricultural land. The project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance by the California Important Farmland Finder.12 General Plan Action LU-5.3C discusses the maintenance of the City’s agricultural conservation program, and requires either dedication of an agricultural conservation easement at a 1:1 ratio or payment of an in lieu agricultural mitigation fee for the conversion of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, as defined by the State FMMP . As stated above, the project site is designated Farmland of Local Importance, which is not listed in this policy.

Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No impact. The project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any protected Farmlands to nonagricultural uses. As such, General Plan Action LU-5.3C does not apply.

No impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? No impact. The project site would be zoned as I-L upon annexation into the City. This zone does not allow for agricultural uses. Furthermore, the project site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act Contract.13 Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No impact. The California Public Resources Code defines forestland as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 12220). “Timberland” is defined as land that is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products (PRC § 4526). “Timberland production zone” is defined as an area that has been zoned and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (PRC § 51104(g)).

The project site does not have a forest land zoning designation and does not contain forestland or timberland as defined above. The project site would be zoned as I-L upon annexation into the City, 12 California Department of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed April 1, 2023. 13 San Joaquin Valley Gateway. 2015. San Joaquin County Williamson Act Parcels. Website:
https://sjvp.databasin.org/datasets/a32f8f44b4524b07b1861e779a0857c0/. Accessed April 1, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
which is an industrial designation that does not allow for forest land or timberland uses. No impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact. The project site does not contain nor is it adjacent to any forest land. Therefore, there would be no loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Less than significant impact. The project site is designated Farmland of Local Importance; it is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. While the project site was previously used for agriculture, it is now vacant and no longer used for agricultural purposes.

Furthermore, the proposed project is not located on or near forestland and therefore would not convert forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

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

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?

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

Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Report prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), which is included as Appendix A.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable Air Quality Management District or Air Pollution Control District may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Stockton, in San Joaquin County, California, situated in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (Air Basin) and within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The Air Basin is generally shaped like a bowl. It is open in the north and is surrounded by mountain ranges on all other sides. The Sierra Nevada mountains are along the eastern boundary (8,000 to 14,000 feet in elevation), the Coast Ranges are along the western boundary (3,000 feet in elevation), and the Tehachapi Mountains are along the southern boundary (6,000 to 8,000 feet in elevation).14
The air pollutants for which national and State standards have been promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Air Basin include ozone, nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5). In addition, toxic 14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

February.

EXHIBIT 1
air contaminants (TACs) are of concern in the Air Basin. Each of these pollutants is briefly described below. Other pollutants that are regulated but not considered an issue in the project area are sulfur dioxide (SO2), vinyl chloride, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and lead; the proposed project would not emit substantial quantities of those pollutants, so they are not discussed further in this section.

Ozone is a gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG), also known as volatile organic compounds (VOC), and NOX—both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust—undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are conducive to its formation. Its effects can include the following: irritate respiratory system; reduce lung function; cause breathing pattern changes; reduce breathing capacity; inflame and damage cells that line the lungs; make lungs more susceptible to infection; aggravate asthma; aggravate other chronic lung diseases; cause permanent lung damage; cause some immunological changes; increase mortality risk; and cause vegetation and property damage.

CO is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of fuels. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during winter mornings, with little to no wind, when surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines—unlike ozone—and motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Air Basin, the highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Potential health effects from CO ranges depending on exposure: slight headaches; nausea; aggravation of angina pectoris (chest pain) and other aspects of coronary heart disease; decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; impairment of central nervous system functions; possible increased risk to fetuses; and death.

PM10and PM2.5consist of extremely small, suspended particles, or droplets 10 microns and

2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring. However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. Health effects from short-term exposure (hours per days) can include the following: irrigation of the eyes, nose, throat; coughing; phlegm; chest tightness; shortness of breath; aggravation of existing lung disease causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis; those affected with heart disease can suffer heart attacks and arrhythmias. Health effects from long-term exposure can include the following: reduced lung function; chronic bronchitis; changes in lung morphology; and death.

TACs refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a toxic air contaminant that is emitted from construction equipment and diesel-fueled vehicles and trucks. Some short-term (acute) effects of DPM exposure include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. Studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Human EXHIBIT 1
studies on the carcinogenicity of DPM demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer, although the increased risk cannot be clearly attributed to diesel exhaust exposure.

The Air Basin is currently designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10 (State only), and PM2.5.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would be subject to applicable SJVAPCD rules and requirements. The SJVAPCD CEQA Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) was developed to assist local jurisdictions and lead agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts to air quality.15 City of Stockton General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan
The General Plan was adopted on December 4, 2018. The General Plan contains several policies which aim to reduce air quality impacts from new land use development. Relevant General Plan policies are listed below.

Policy SAF-4.1 Reduce air impacts from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

Action SAF-4.1A Require the construction and operation of new development to implement best practices that reduce air pollutant emissions, including:

Use of low-emission and well-maintained construction equipment, with idling time limits.

Development and implementation of a dust control plan during construction.

Installation of electrical service connections at loading docks, where appropriate.

Installation of Energy Star-certified appliances.

Entering into Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Action SAF-4.1B Use the results of the Health Risk Assessments required by the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act to establish appropriate land use buffer zones around any new sources of toxic air pollutants that pose substantial health risks.

Action SAF-4.1C Require the use of electric-powered construction and landscaping equipment as conditions of project approval when appropriate.

Action SAF-4.1D Limit heavy-duty off-road equipment idling time to meet the California Air Resources Board’s idling regulations for on-road trucks.

Policy SAF-4.2 Encourage major employers to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that reduces vehicle trips through approaches such as carpooling, vanpooling, shuttles, car-sharing, bike-sharing, end-of-trip 15 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

February.

EXHIBIT 1
facilities like showers and bicycle parking, subscription bus service, transit subsidies, preferential parking, and telecommuting.

Action SAF-4.2A Provide information and conduct marketing and outreach to major existing and new employers about the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program facilitated by the San Joaquin Council of Governments.

Policy SAF-4.3 Coordinate with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and non- profit organizations to promote public awareness on air quality issues and consistency in air quality impacts analyses.

Action SAF-4.3A Distribute educational materials from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District on the City’s website and at its Permit Center.

Action SAF-4.3B Coordinate review of development project applications with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to ensure that air quality impacts are consistently identified and mitigated during CEQA review.

General Plan Environmental Impact Report Mitigation
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on December 5, 2018, and amended on June 8, 2020. The amended EIR contains several mitigation measures that aim to reduce air quality impacts from new land use development and may be applied, as appropriate and necessary, to the proposed project. All General Plan EIR mitigation measures pertaining to air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts are listed below. The following mitigation measures are from the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program of the General Plan EIR.

MM AQ-1 Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to further reduce long-term criteria air pollutant emissions.

MM AQ-2 Prior to issuance of any construction permits for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), development project applicants shall prepare and submit to the City of Stockton Planning and Engineering Division a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. The prepared evaluation for projects that meet the SJVAPCD Small Projects Analysis Level (SPAL) screening criteria shall at minimum, identify the primary sources of construction emissions and include a discussion of the applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations and SPAL screening criteria to support a less than significant conclusion.

For projects that do not meet the SPAL screening criteria, project-related construction emissions shall be quantified. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD adopted EXHIBIT 1
thresholds of significance, as identified in the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), the City of Stockton Planning and Engineering Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds. These identified measures shall be incorporated into appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning and Engineering Division. Mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions could include, but are not limited to:

Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having Tier 3 (model year 2006 or newer) or Tier 4 (model year 2008 or newer) emission limits, applicable for engines between 50 and 750 horsepower (hp). A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor on-site, which shall be available for City review upon request.

Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.

Use of alternative-fueled or catalyst-equipped diesel construction equipment, if available and feasible.

Clearly posted signs that require operators of trucks and construction equipment to minimize idling time (e.g., five-minute maximum).

Preparation and implementation of a fugitive dust control plan that may include the following measures:

Disturbed areas (including storage piles) that are not being actively utilized for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or covered with a tarp or other suitable cover (e.g., revegetated).

On-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

Land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled utilizing application of water or by presoaking.

Material shall be covered, or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained when materials are transported off-site.

Operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at the end of each workday. (The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions.) (Use of blower devices is expressly forbidden.) (Utilize electric-powered vacuums or devices to capture materials.)
EXHIBIT 1
Following the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

Within urban areas, trackout shall be immediately removed when it extends 50 or more feet from the site and at the end of each workday.

Any site with 150 or more vehicle trips per day shall prevent carryout and trackout.

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).

Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the project area.

Adhere to Regulation VIII’s 20 percent opacity limitation, as applicable.

Enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD.

The VERA shall identify the amount of emissions to be reduced, in addition to the amount of funds to be paid by the project applicant to the SJVAPCD to implement emission reduction projects required for the project.

MM AQ-3 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Stockton for development projects subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review (i.e., non-exempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Stockton Planning and Engineering Division for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the SJVAPCD adopted thresholds of significance, as identified in the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), the City of Stockton Planning and Engineering Division shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities.

The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval.

Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions can include, but are not limited to the following:

For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.

Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.

Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked EXHIBIT 1
for loading/unloading in accordance with Section 2485 of 13 California Code of Regulations Chapter 10.

Provide changing/shower facilities as specified, at minimum, or greater than in the guidelines in Section A5.106.4.3 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).

Provide bicycle parking facilities equivalent to or greater than as specified in Section A4.106.9 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel efficient, and carpool/van vehicles equivalent to or greater than Section A5.106.5.1 of the CALGreen Code (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).

Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures) and Section A5.106.8.2 (Residential Voluntary Measures) of the CALGreen Code.

Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star-certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star-certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by Building and Safety during plan check.

Applicants for future development projects along existing and planned transit routes shall coordinate with the City Stockton and San Joaquin Regional Transit District to ensure that bus pad and shelter improvements are incorporated, as appropriate, and that these transit improvements consider and implement design features (e.g., pullout lanes for buses) to avoid or reduce impediment/queueing of vehicles.

Applicants for future development projects shall enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD. The VERA shall identify the amount of emissions to be reduced, in addition to the amount of funds to be paid by the project applicant to the SJVAPCD to implement emission reduction projects required for the project.

MM AQ-4a Implement MM AQ-2 and MM AQ-3 to further reduce construction and operation- related criteria air pollutant emissions.

MM AQ-4b Prior to discretionary approval, applicants for development projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall assess their projects to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 Applicability Thresholds as follows:
50 residential units;
2,000 square feet of commercial space;
25,000 square feet of light industrial space;
100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space;
20,000 square feet of medical office space;
39,000 square feet of general office space;
9,000 square feet of education space;
EXHIBIT 1
10,000 square feet of government space;
20,000 square feet of recreational space; or
9,000 square feet of space not identified above.

Applicants for development projects subject to CEQA that do not meet the SJVAPCD Rule 9510 Applicability Thresholds shall assess whether project-related construction and operational emissions exceed the SJVAPCD 100 pounds per day ambient air quality screening threshold. Applicants for development projects that exceed this ambient air quality screening threshold shall prepare or have prepared an ambient air quality analysis, consistent with the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), to assess whether the subject development project would cause or contribute to a violation of any California Ambient Air Quality Standard or National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The ambient air quality analysis shall identify measures to reduce impacts, as necessary.

Recommended measures may include those identified in MM AQ-2 and MM AQ-3.

The related recommendations of the ambient air quality analysis shall be incorporated into all construction management and design plans and shall be submitted to the City and verified by the City’s Planning and Engineering Division.

MM AQ-5 Prior to discretionary project approval, applicants for industrial or warehousing land uses in addition to commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel (i.e., 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) per day based on the California Air Resources Board recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses), shall contact the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) or the City of Stockton in conjunction with the SJVAPCD to determine the appropriate level of Health Risk Assessment (HRA) required. If preparation of an HRA is required, all HRAs shall be submitted to the City of Stockton and the SJVAPCD for evaluation.

The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the SJVAPCD. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds 10 in one million (10E-06) or the risk thresholds in effect at the time a project is considered, or that the appropriate non-cancer hazard index exceeds 1.0 or the thresholds as determined by the SJVAPCD at the time a project is considered, the applicant will be required to identify and demonstrate that measures are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

Measures to reduce risk impacts may include but are not limited to:

Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.

Electrifying warehousing docks.

EXHIBIT 1
Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.

Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.

Measures identified in the HRA shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the proposed project.

MM AQ-6 Prior to project approval, if it is determined during project-level environmental review that a project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, an odor management plan shall be prepared and submitted by the project applicant prior to project approval to ensure compliance with San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 4102. The following facilities that are within the buffer distances specified from sensitive receptors (in parentheses) have the potential to generate substantial odors:

Sanitary Landfill (1 mile)
Transfer Station (1 mile)
Composting Facility (1 mile)
Petroleum Refinery (2 miles)
Asphalt Batch Plan (1 mile)
Chemical Manufacturing (1 mile)
Fiberglass Manufacturing (1 mile)
Painting/Coating Operations (1 mile)
Food Processing Facility (1 mile)
Feed Lot/ Dairy (1 mile)
Rendering Plant (1 mile)
The odor management plan prepared for these facilities shall identify control technologies that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. Control technologies may include but are not limited to scrubbers (e.g., air pollution control devices) at an industrial facility. Control technologies identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the environmental document and/or incorporated into the site plan.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. Current Air Quality Plans (AQPs) provides the following criteria for determining project consistency:

1. Will the project support the primary goals of the AQP?

2. Will the project comply with applicable control measures in the AQP?

3. Will the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures? EXHIBIT 1
The use of the criteria listed above is a standard approach for CEQA analysis of projects in the SJVAPCD’s jurisdiction, as well as within other air districts, for the following reasons:

Significant contribution to existing or new exceedances of the air quality standards would be inconsistent with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.

AQP emissions inventories and attainment modeling are based on growth assumptions for the area within the air district’s jurisdiction.

AQPs rely on a set of air district-initiated control measures as well as implementation of federal and State measures to reduce emissions within their jurisdictions, with the goal of attaining the air quality standards.

AQPs are plans for reaching attainment of air quality standards. The assumptions, inputs, and control measures are analyzed to determine whether the Air Basin can reach attainment for the ambient air quality standards. To show attainment of the standards, the SJVAPCD analyzes the growth projections in the valley, contributing factors in air pollutant emissions and formations, and existing and adopted emissions controls. The SJVAPCD then formulates a control strategy to reach attainment that includes both State and SJVAPCD regulations and other local programs and measures.

Criterion 1
A measure for determining whether the proposed project supports the primary goals of the AQP is if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs. The development of the AQP is based in part on the land use general plan determinations of the various cities and counties that constitute the Air Basin. The Stockton 2035 General Plan Land Use Map adopted in 2007 and the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Industrial and has pre-zoned it as I-L, Industrial. The proposed project is a warehouse development intended to be used primarily for a commercial warehouse and logistics facility accommodating the storage and transport of commercial goods. Therefore, the proposed project’s operational use as a warehouse development would be considered consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation.

Additionally, the land use designation was adopted before the AQPs were most recently updated.

Because the proposed project would be consistent with land use assumptions used in the AQPs, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project would not adversely affect the AQPs.

Criterion 2
The AQP contains a number of control measures, which are enforceable requirements through the adoption of rules and regulations. A detailed description of rules and regulations that apply to the proposed project is provided in the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy Report. The proposed project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations through the issuance of applicable permits and applications. Therefore, the proposed project complies with this criterion and EXHIBIT 1
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality attainment plan for this criterion.

Criterion 3
A measure of determining whether the proposed project is consistent with the AQPs is if the proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQPs. Because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, or PM2.5would exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds, then the proposed project would be considered to conflict with the attainment plans.

As discussed in Impact 2.3(b) below, annual emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s significance thresholds. As shown in Impact 2.3(b), the proposed project would not result in CO hotspots that would violate CO standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to air quality violations.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Less than significant impact. Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the proposed project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities and long- term operation of the proposed project.

The primary pollutants of concern during project construction and operation are ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The SJVAPCD GAMAQI adopted in 2015 contains thresholds for CO, NOx, ROG, sulfur oxides (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5.16
Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOXemissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOXare termed ozone precursors. The Air Basin often exceeds the State and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. The Air Basin also exceeds air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.

The SJVAPCD’s annual emission significance thresholds used for the project define the substantial contribution for both operational and construction emissions as follows:
100 tons per year CO
10 tons per year NOX
10 tons per year ROG
27 tons per year SOX
16 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts.

EXHIBIT 1
15 tons per year PM10
15 tons per year PM2.5
The proposed project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SO2 emissions during construction and operation.

Construction Emissions
The proposed project construction would start with site preparation beginning in April of 2024 and would end in December 2024. In addition, the proposed project would require an off-site sewer trench in South McKinley Avenue, extending approximately 2,400 feet north of the site (Exhibit 6).

The off-site construction would occur in April 2024. The proposed construction schedule and equipment assignment presented in Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy Report are based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) defaults with a building construction duration to match the applicant’s schedule for the warehouse construction, by shortening the construction slightly appropriate to the type of construction and assuming that painting and paving occur at the same time.

Table 1 summarizes the criteria pollutant emissions from construction of the proposed project and compares these emissions to the SJVAPCD’s regional thresholds of significance. It should be noted that unmitigated construction emissions incorporate the basic dust control measures required under District Rule 8201, which requires that vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces be reduced to no more than 15 miles per hour and exposed construction areas are watered during earthmoving activities.

Table 1: Regional Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Project Construction Activity
Emissions (tons)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Site Preparation 0.02 0.21 0.18 < 0.0005 0.053 0.029
Grading 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.0005 0.018 0.011
Building Construction 0.12 1.01 1.36 0.002 0.11 0.055
Paving 0.01 0.04 0.05 < 0.0005 0.003 0.002
Architectural Coating 0.45 0.01 0.01 < 0.0005 0.001 < 0.0005 Off-site Construction 0.001 0.015 0.013 < 0.0005 0.002 0.001 Annual Emissions 0.62 1.38 1.7 0.002 0.187 0.098
SJVAPCD Annual Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Do Construction Emissions Exceed
Regional Thresholds? No No No No No No
EXHIBIT 1
Project Construction Activity
Emissions (tons)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX= nitrogen oxides
PM10= particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5= particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX= sulfur oxides
Totals may not add up due to rounding. CalEEMod Output files are contained in Appendix A.

Table 1 shows that criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed any of the SJVAPCD’s regional thresholds of significance during unmitigated construction of the proposed warehouse project.

General Plan EIR MMs AQ-2 AQ-4a require project applicants to prepare a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction phase-related air quality impacts. The analysis of regional pollutant emissions generated by construction of the project, summarized above, fulfills the requirements of these General Plan MMs.

Operational Emissions
Emissions from the operation of the facility would be from stationary and area sources of emissions at the project site itself and from mobile sources (i.e., vehicles) associated with the operation of the warehouse.

The facility has planned for a diesel- fueled fire pump but no other stationary sources such as boilers or emergency standby generators are anticipated.

There are no sources of air pollutant related to the industrial operations inside of the warehouse since all of the material handling equipment is electric (e.g., battery electric forklifts and electric pallet jacks). Area sources refer to VOC compound emissions from use of consumer products by employee (cosmetics and personal care products) and also include emissions from cleaning products including detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, floor finishes. Emissions from exhaust of any gasoline-fueled landscaping equipment also contribute to, and are included in, the area source emissions. The proposed project would not provide connections for natural gas usage so there would be no future natural gas use in the building for heating or cooking, although those estimates were included in the emissions estimates as a worst-case scenario. There would be no emissions from the proposed project due to natural gas energy use.

The warehouse operations will generate both employee and visitor passenger vehicle trips and truck trips which are mobile sources of both criteria pollutant and TAC emissions. On-site idling will generate small amounts of emissions at the site; however, regulations limit this idling to less than 5 minutes per occurrence and the on-site emissions will be minimal. Signs would be posted at the facility to facilitate compliance with the regulation. Signs also directing truck traffic into and out of the facility would ensure smooth traffic flow and avoid wasteful queueing and idling. The Advanced EXHIBIT 1
Mobility Group produced a Transportation Impact Study (TIA)17for the proposed project that estimated the proposed project would generate 378 daily passenger vehicle trips and 20 daily truck trips. The Air Quality Analysis and CalEEMod estimates are conservatively based on CalEEMod defaults for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) trip length.

Table 2 summarizes the proposed project’s emissions from these sources.

Table 2: Unmitigated Operational Pollutant Emissions (2025) Emission Source
Emissions (Tons)
ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.88 0.01 0.72 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Energy < 0.005 0.06 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Stationary Source 0.01 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 Mobile 0.19 0.86 2.02 0.01 0.29 0.07
Project Total 1.08 0.96 2.82 0.01 0.29 0.07
SJVAPCD Annual Thresholds 10 10 100 27 15 15
Do Operational Emissions Exceed
Thresholds? No No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX= nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5= particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
SOX= sulfur oxides
Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod Output files are contained in Appendix A.

As shown in Table 2, operational emissions are well below the SJVAPCD’s regional significance thresholds for all pollutants. General Plan EIR MMs AQ-1, AQ-3, and AQ-4a require project applicants to prepare a technical assessment evaluating potential project operational phase-related air quality impacts. The analysis of regional pollutant emissions generated by project operations, summarized above, fulfills the requirements of these General Plan MMs.

Localized Pollutant Analysis
Emissions occurring at or near the project have the potential to create a localized impact also referred to as an air pollutant hotspot. Localized emissions are considered significant if when combined with background emissions, they would result in exceedance of any health-based air quality standard. In locations that already exceed standards for these pollutants, significance is 17 Advanced Mobility Group. 2022. Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Industrial Development at 6505 South McKinley Avenue East, Stockton, California.

EXHIBIT 1
based on a significant impact level (SIL) that represents the amount that is considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing violation of an air quality standard.

The SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI includes screening thresholds for identifying projects that need detailed analysis for localized impacts. Projects with on-site emission increases from construction activities or operational activities that exceed the 100 pounds per day screening level of any criteria pollutant after compliance with Rule 9510 and implementation of all enforceable mitigation measures would require preparation of an ambient air quality analysis. The criteria pollutants of concern for localized impact in the Air Basin are PM10, PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and CO. CO violations require heavy traffic volumes and extreme traffic congestion that would not occur at or near the project site; therefore, operational CO emission hotspots are highly unlikely.

An analysis of maximum daily emissions during construction and operation was conducted to determine whether emissions would exceed the 100 pounds per day screening threshold for any pollutant of concern. The maximum daily model has adjusted both construction and operational trips to be 0.25 mile to represent on-site emissions of on-road trucks visiting the site. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3 and Table 4. The proposed project would not exceed daily emission thresholds during construction and operation for any pollutant of concern. Operational emissions include emissions generated on-site by area sources such as natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance, and on-site travel from motor vehicles accessing the project.

Table 3: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
ROG NOx CO
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Total)
Site Preparation 4 37 34 9.3 5.4
Grading 2 18 19 3.6 2.1
Building Construction 2 12 14 0.5 0.5
Architectural Coating and Paving 92 9 12 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emissions 92 37 34 9.3 5.4
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX= nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5= particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
1 PM10and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4: Maximum On-site Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Operations Source
On-site Emissions (pounds per day)1
ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily 7 2 12 0.1 0.1
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No No No No No
Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX= nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5= particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter ROG = reactive organic gases
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output (Appendix A).

Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. February 19.

The proposed project would not exceed SJVAPCD screening thresholds for requiring additional ambient air quality modeling; therefore, the proposed project’s localized criteria pollutant impacts are less than significant.

Summary
In summary, regional emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed any applicable thresholds after compliance with all rules, regulations, and application of General Plan MM AQ-1, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4a, and MM AQ-4b during either construction or operation. Localized construction and operational emissions would also be less than significant after incorporation of the required General Plan mitigation. In summary, the overall impacts would be less than significant. No project-specific mitigation measures are required.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant impact. The SJVAPCD considers a sensitive receptor to be a location that houses or attracts children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools.

Construction: Reactive Organic Gases
ROG is emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). The amount emitted is dependent on the amount of ROG (or VOC) in the paint. ROG emissions are typically an indoor air quality health hazard concern rather than an outdoor air quality health hazard concern. Therefore, exposure to ROG during architectural coatings is a less than significant health impact.

There are three types of asphalt that are typically used in paving: asphalt cements, cutback asphalts, and emulsified asphalts. However, SJVAPCD Rule 4641 prohibits the use of the following types of EXHIBIT 1
asphalt: rapid cure cutback asphalt; medium cure cutback asphalt; slow cure asphalt that contains more than 0.5 percent of organic compounds that evaporate at 500°F or lower; and emulsified asphalt containing organic compounds, in excess of 3 percent by volume that evaporate at 500°F or lower. An exception to this is medium cure asphalt when the National Weather Service official forecast of the high temperature for the 24-hour period following application is below 50°F.

The acute (short-term) health effects from worker direct exposure to asphalt fumes include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Other effects include respiratory tract symptoms and pulmonary function changes. The studies were based on occupational exposure of fumes. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG during construction is less than significant.

Operation: Reactive Organic Gases
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from motor vehicles. Direct exposure to ROG from project motor vehicles would not result in health effects, because the ROG would be distributed across miles and miles of roadway and in the air. The concentrations would not be great enough to result in direct health effects.

Construction: NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
As discussed in Impact 2.3(b), emissions during construction would not exceed the significance thresholds and would not be expected to result in concentrations that would exceed ambient standards or contribute substantially to an existing exceedance of an ambient air quality standard.

Operation: NOX, PM10, and PM2.5
As discussed in Impact 2.3(b), localized concentrations of NOX, PM10, and PM2.5would not exceed the ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria air pollutant concentrations during operation.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit DPM, which is considered a TAC. The SJVAPCD’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years.

EXHIBIT 1
Toxic Air Pollutants—On-site Workers
A variety of State and national programs protect workers from safety hazards, including high air pollutant concentrations.18,19
On-site workers are not required to be addressed through this Health Risk Assessment (HRA) process. A document published by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects, indicates that on-site receptors are included in risk assessments if they are persons not employed by the proposed project.20Therefore, an HRA for on-site workers is not required or recommended. No further discussion is necessary.

Construction Health Risk Assessment
During construction and operation, the proposed project would result in emissions of several TACs that could potentially impact nearby sensitive receptors. The SJVAPCD has defined health risk significance thresholds. These thresholds are represented as a cancer risk to the public and a non- cancer hazard from exposures to TACs. Cancer risk represents the probability (in terms of risk per million individuals) that an individual would contract cancer resulting from exposure to TACs continuously over a period of several years. The SJVAPCD’s latest threshold of significance for TAC emissions is an increase in cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual of 20 in a million (formerly 10 in a million). The principal TAC emission analyzed in this assessment was DPM from operation of off-road equipment and diesel-powered delivery and worker vehicles during construction and operation. DPM has been identified by the ARB as a carcinogenic substance. For purposes of this analysis, DPM is represented as exhaust emissions of PM10. DPM represented as exhaust PM10 adequately addresses impacts from PM10 and PM2.5emissions, as PM2.5 comprises a component of PM10. Fugitive dust components of PM10and PM2.5would be controlled through the use of required dust control practices during project construction.

Exposures to TACs can also result in both short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) non-cancer health impacts. Such impacts could include illnesses related to reproductive effects, respiratory effects, eye sensitivity, immune effects, kidney effects, blood effects, central nervous system, birth defects, or other adverse environmental effects.

Estimation of Cancer Risks
Cancer risks are estimated as the upper-bound incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer as a direct result of exposure to potential carcinogens over a specified exposure duration. The cancer risk attributed to a chemical is calculated by multiplying the chemical intake or dose at the human exchange boundaries (e.g., lungs) by the chemical-specific cancer potency factor (CPF). A risk level of 10 in a million implies a likelihood (or risk) that up to 10 persons out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to 18 Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). 2023. Methane and Health and Safety. Website: https://www.socalgas.com/stay- safe/methane-emissions/methane-and-health-and-
safety#:~:text=Methane%20is%20non%2Dtoxic%20and,oxygen%20may%20result%20in%20suffocation. Accessed March 21, 2023. 19 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. Construction. Website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/construction/. Indoor Environmental Quality. Website: www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/indoorenv/constructionieq.html. Accessed March 21, 2023. 20 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2009. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.

EXHIBIT 1
the levels of TACs over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer risk that is in addition to any environmental cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics.

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has developed guidance for estimating cancer risks that considers the increased sensitivity of infants and adults to TAC emissions, different breathing rates, and time spent at home. This guidance was applied in estimating cancer risks from the construction and operation of the proposed project.

The recommended method for the estimation of cancer risk is shown in the equations.

Cancer Risk=CDPMx Inhalation Exposure Factor (EQ-1)
Where:

Cancer Risk = Total individual excess cancer risk defined as the cancer risk a hypothetical individual faces if exposed to carcinogenic emissions from a particular source for specified exposure durations; this risk is defined as an excess risk because it is above and beyond the background cancer risk to the population; cancer risk is expressed in terms of risk per million exposed individuals.

CDPM = Period average DPM air concentration calculated from the air dispersion model in µg/m3
Inhalation is the most important exposure pathway to impact human health from DPM and the inhalation exposure factor is defined as follows:

Inhalation Exposure Factor = CPF x EF x ED x DBR x AAF/AT (EQ-2) Where:

CPF = Inhalation cancer potency factor for the TAC: 1.1 (mg/kg-day)-1 for DPM EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years of construction)
AAF = set of age-specific adjustment factors that include age sensitivity factors (ASF), daily breathing rates (DBR), and time at home factors (TAH)
AT = Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged (days) Estimation of Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards
An evaluation of potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures was also conducted.

Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate Reference Exposure Level (REL). Available RELs promulgated by OEHHA were considered in the assessment.

Risk characterization for non-cancer health hazards from TACs is expressed as an HI. The HI is a ratio of the predicted concentration of the project’s emissions to a concentration considered acceptable to public health professionals, termed the REL.

EXHIBIT 1
To quantify non-carcinogenic impacts, the HI approach was used.

HI = Cann/REL (EQ-3)
Where:

HI = chronic hazard index
Cann = annual average concentration of TAC as derived from the air dispersion model (g/m3) REL = reference exposure level above which a significant impact is assumed to occur (g/m3) The HI assumes that chronic exposures to TACs adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint) of the body. For each discrete chemical exposure, target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used. To calculate the HI, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity REL. For compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint, this ratio is summed. Where the total equals or exceeds 1, a health hazard is presumed to exist. OEHHA has defined a REL for DPM of 5 g/m3. The principal toxicological endpoint assumed in this assessment was through inhalation.

Toxic Air Contaminant Construction Analysis
Major sources of DPM during construction include off-road construction equipment and heavy-duty delivery truck activities. The results of the HRA prepared for project construction for cancer risk and long-term chronic cancer risk are summarized below. Air dispersion modeling was utilized to assess the project’s potential health risks using American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) Version 22112 which is an air dispersion model accepted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the SJVAPCD for preparing HRAs. Exhaust emissions of DPM (as PM10exhaust) were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2022.1.

The estimated health and hazard Impacts at the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) from the project’s construction emissions are provided in Table 5. The MIR was determined to be a single- family home located 440 feet southwest of the project site.

Table 5: Estimated Health Risks and Hazards During Project Construction at the Maximum Impacted Receptor
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI1
Unmitigated Risk and Hazards 0.8 0.001
Significance Threshold 20 1
Exceeds Individual Source Threshold? No No
Notes:
µg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter
DPM = diesel particulate matter
HI = hazard index
MIR = Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter REL = Reference Exposure Level
EXHIBIT 1
Source
Cancer Risk
(risk per million)
Chronic
Non-Cancer HI1
1 Chronic non-cancer HI was estimated by dividing the maximum annual DPM concentration (as PM10 exhaust) by the REL of 5 g/m3.
2 Risk is based on Infant Exposure starting in Third Trimester and over the construction period.

Source: Appendix A.

The MIR was determined to be a residence located at 7201 South McKinley Avenue, French Camp, CA 95231, approximately 440 feet from the project site.

As noted in Table 5, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the cancer risk significance threshold or non-cancer hazard index significance threshold at the MIR.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors from TACs during construction.

Toxic Air Pollutants Emitted from Operations of the Proposed Project The proposed project would generate passenger vehicle trips from employees, visitors, and light- duty delivery vehicles traveling to and from the project site; however, the proposed project would also be served with daily truck deliveries. The main source of DPM from the long-term operations of warehouses is from combustion of diesel fuel in diesel-powered engines in heavy-duty trucks. Motor vehicle emissions refer to DPM exhaust emissions from the motor vehicle traffic that would travel to and from the project site each day. An estimate of the number of vehicle trips that the proposed project would generate was provided in the project-specific traffic analysis, which indicates the project will generate 20 truck trips per day.

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.

Exposure to Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Valley Fever As discussed in more detail in the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy Report, exposure to naturally occurring asbestos can occur during soil-disturbing activities in areas with deposits present.

Review of the Department of Conservation maps indicates that the project site and San Joaquin County do not have reported historic asbestos mines, historic asbestos prospects, and other natural occurrences of asbestos.21 Therefore, impacts associated with the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to naturally occurring asbestos are less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
As discussed in the report, the project site would have low probability of C. immitis(Valley Fever) growth on-site or exposure from disturbed soil. Compliance with dust control regulations would further reduce the potential to expose sensitive receptors to Valley Fever during construction. During operations, the project site would be built up and would not provide a conducive environment for Valley Fever. Therefore, impacts associated with the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to Valley Fever are less than significant. No further analysis is needed. d) Result in other emission (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than significant impact. Odors can cause a variety of responses. The impact of an odor is dependent on interacting factors such as frequency (how often), intensity (strength), duration (in time), offensiveness (unpleasantness), location, and sensory perception. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

According to the SJVAPCD, analysis of potential odor impacts should be conducted for the following two situations:

Generators: projects that would potentially generate odorous emissions proposed to locate near existing sensitive receptors or other land uses where people may congregate, and Receivers: residential or other sensitive receptor projects or other projects built for the intent of attracting people locating near existing odor sources.

The SJVAPCD provides a suggested screening distance for a variety of odor-generating land uses and operations. Those distances are used as a guide to assess whether nearby facilities could be sources of significant odors. Projects that would site a new sensitive receptor farther than the applicable screening distances from an existing odor source are not likely to have a significant impact. These screening distances by type of odor generator are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Screening Levels for Potential Odor Sources
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2 miles
Sanitary Landfill 1 mile
Transfer Station 1 mile
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 1 mile
Chemical Manufacturing 1 mile
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations (e.g., auto body shop) 1 mile EXHIBIT 1
Odor Generator Screening Distance
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Rendering Plant 1 mile
Source: Source: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). February 19.

The proposed project is not in the category of generator sources listed in Table 6 and warehouses are not known sources of odorous emissions. Furthermore, the project is an industrial project and is not considered a sensitive receptor that would need to consider impacts as a “receiver .” There are no significant concerns related to odors or a need for further odor assessment of the project operations.

The proposed project has the potential to emit odors during construction activities from sources such as the exhaust from diesel-fueled construction equipment, or during the application of architectural coatings. However, because of the low intensity of these emissions, intermittent and short-term nature of construction activities, and highly diffusive properties of diesel exhaust, a substantial number of nearby receptors would not be affected by odors associated with project construction. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the immediate area surrounding the project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and odors would be typical of most construction-sites and temporary in nature. The proposed project would not have the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, therefore, MM AQ-6 is satisfied by the analysis included in this document; an odor management plan would not applicable for this project and no project-specific mitigation measures related to odor are required. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No project-specific mitigation is required. The air quality technical analysis included as Appendix A of this IS/MND and summarized above fulfills the requirements of General Plan MMs AQ-1, MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4a, MM AQ-5, and MM AQ-6. General Plan MM AQ-4b would remain applicable to the project.

MM AQ-4b Prior to discretionary approval, applicants for development projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall assess their projects to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVAPCD) Rule 9510 Applicability Thresholds as follows:
50 residential units;
2,000 square feet of commercial space;
25,000 square feet of light industrial space;
100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space;
20,000 square feet of medical office space;
39,000 square feet of general office space;
EXHIBIT 1
9,000 square feet of education space;
10,000 square feet of government space;
20,000 square feet of recreational space; or
9,000 square feet of space not identified above.

Recommended measures may include those identified in MM AQ-2 and MM AQ-3.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service?

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

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

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The project parcel is in the San Joaquin Valley bioregion near the center of California’s Central Valley.

The site is part of the southern French Camp district of the City of Stockton, surrounded by suburban, industrial, and agricultural zones. For many decades the site has been used for agriculture.

The site is bordered by South McKinley Avenue to the east and French Camp Slough to the west and south. French Camp Slough is a perennial stream with a substantial valley oak (Quercus lobata) riparian corridor (Exhibit 8). Open areas are dominated by non-native grasses and bare ground. The EXHIBIT 1
soils are mainly Stockton and Galt clay, which are somewhat poorly drained. The relatively flat, low elevation (10-15 feet above mean sea level) site does not have obvious concentrated surface flows into French Camp Slough, but precipitation may percolate and flow underground to the Slough. The Slough flows north into the San Joaquin River, which drains to San Francisco Bay. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Special-status Plants
The 2022 Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B) documents 25 special-status plant species for the Stockton West, United States Geological Survey(USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles.8,9However, 16 of these species are not expected to occur on the project site, based on the absence of suitable habitat. Nine special-status plant species have at least low potential to occur in the adjacent riparian corridor of French Camp Slough (Appendix B, Appendix A), albeit not necessarily within the proposed development footprint.

Therefore, no significant impacts on special-status plant species are anticipated.

Special-Status Wildlife Covered Under SJMSCP
The 2022 Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix B) identifies 21 special-status wildlife species for the Stockton West, USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles.10,11However, 11 special-status wildlife species are not expected to occur within the project site, based on the absence of suitable habitat. Ten special-status wildlife species have at least low potential to occur within the project site (Appendix B, Appendix A), albeit not necessarily within the proposed development footprint. The avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures required by the SJMSCP are intended to reduce any impacts on these species to a less than significant level.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Per the SJMSCP , within San Joaquin County distribution of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) includes elderberry (Sambucus spp.) and all valley floor riparian and foothill habitats that support elderberry. No stands of elderberry were observed within the project site; however, presence of individual elderberry shrubs within the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough nearby cannot be ruled out.

The proposed project would not result in direct impacts to the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough (Exhibit 8). No valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat is present outside the riparian corridor. Therefore, the project would not have direct impacts on this species or this species habitat.

The construction of the proposed project could result in dust that may coat and potentially adversely impact this species, if present. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring coverage through the SJMSCP , and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on the riparian and EXHIBIT 1
aquatic habitats of French Camp Slough, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Western Pond Turtle
French Camp Slough and its associated riparian corridor and adjacent upland grassland provides potential suitable habitat for this species.

The proposed project would not result in direct impacts on the aquatic habitat and riparian corridor of French Camp Slough. However, western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) could disperse into the ruderal grassland area and agricultural field in search of upland nesting opportunities. Therefore, the proposed project could have direct impacts on this species through construction equipment resulting in take of western pond turtle and their nests, if present. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring coverage through the SJMSCP , and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on the riparian and aquatic habitats of French Camp Slough, potential project- related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Giant Garter Snake
French Camp Slough and its associated riparian corridor and adjacent upland grassland provides potential suitable habitat, including overwintering habitat, for this species.

The proposed project would not result in direct impacts on the aquatic habitat and riparian corridor of French Camp Slough. However, giant garter snakes (Thamnophis gigas) could disperse into the ruderal grassland area and agricultural field in search of upland overwintering opportunities.

Therefore, the project could have direct impacts on this species from construction equipment resulting in take of this species if present. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO- 3, requiring coverage through the SJMSCP , and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on the riparian and aquatic habitats of French Camp Slough, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Specifically, the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) requires a temporary construction setback of 200 feet from the banks of French Camp Slough for giant garter snakes from October 2 to (HTAC) and Board. The time period in which the proposed project may build within that 200-foot buffer is from May 1 to October 1, when giant garter snakes are not potentially burrowing in the banks of the Slough.

Tricolored Blackbird
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) nesting habitat is present within the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough adjacent to the project site.

The proposed project would not result in direct impacts on the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough. However, the construction of the proposed project could result in indirect disturbance of a tricolored blackbird nesting colony (if present) through excessive noise, dust, and other construction- related disturbance. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring pre- EXHIBIT 1
construction nesting bird surveys and nest avoidance, coverage for this species through the SJMSCP , and avoidance of impacts on the riparian and aquatic habitats of French Camp Slough, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Burrowing Owl
The upland herbaceous portions of the project site, including the agricultural field under certain conditions (e.g., if left fallow and mowed or grazed, and if colonized by ground squirrels), could potentially provide burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat.

The proposed project would result in direct impacts on these areas through grading, resulting in adverse impacts on this species, if present. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys and nest avoidance, coverage for this species through the SJMSCP , and avoidance of impacts on the riparian and aquatic habitats of French Camp Slough, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is listed as threatened under CEQA and is a covered species under the SJMSCP , Fish and Game Code, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Up to four Swainson’s hawk nests have been documented in the past by California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) on the project site and within disturbance distance. A stick nest consistent with the appearance of a nest of Swainson’s hawk or other hawk species was observed in the tallest valley oak tree on the northern property boundary; however, whether this tree is a Swainson’s hawk nest tree would need to be confirmed through protocol-level surveys. The agricultural field and ruderal/disturbed grassland (together approximately 10.36 acre on-site) and surrounding areas provide Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Therefore, the probability of Swainson’s hawks to nest and forage on-site is high.

The proposed project would result in both potential direct and indirect impacts related to Swainson’s hawk. Direct impacts would occur if an occupied nest tree were to be removed, or if disturbance from construction activities would result in failure of a Swainson’s hawk nest. Potential indirect impacts could occur if unoccupied but confirmed Swainson’s hawk nest trees and foraging habitat is removed. Approximately 8.46 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the form of agricultural field and ruderal grassland are proposed to be removed.

With implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys and nest avoidance, coverage for this species through the SJMSCP , implementing all SJMSCP- required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures (including compensatory mitigation for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat at a ratio determined by SJCOG), and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on nests and occupied nest trees, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level under CEQA Guidelines.

White-tailed Kite
This species has a moderate potential to nest in the trees on-site. Suitable nest trees and foraging habitat in the form of the agricultural field and ruderal/disturbed grassland (together approximately EXHIBIT 1

10.36 acre on-site) and surrounding areas provide white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) foraging habitat.

The proposed project would result in both potential direct and indirect impacts related to white- tailed kite. Direct impacts would occur if an occupied nest tree were to be removed, or if disturbance from construction activities would result in failure of a white-tailed kite nest. Potential indirect impacts could occur if unoccupied but confirmed white-tailed kite nest trees and foraging habitat is removed. Approximately 8.46 acres of white-tailed kite foraging habitat in the form of agricultural field and ruderal grassland are proposed to be removed.

With implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys and nest avoidance, coverage for this species through the SJMSCP , implementing all SJMSCP- required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures, and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on nests and occupied nest trees, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level under CEQA.

Loggerhead Shrike
This species has a moderate potential to nest in the shrubs on-site, including in shrubs potentially to be removed or disturbed by the proposed project. Loss of an active loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) nest would be a significant impact on this species.

However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys and nest avoidance, coverage for this species through the SJMSCP , implementing all SJMSCP- required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures, and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on nests and nest trees, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Song Sparrow (“Modesto” population)
Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia mailliardi) nesting habitat is present within the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough adjacent to the project site.

The proposed project would not result in direct impacts on the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough. However, the construction of the proposed project could result in indirect disturbance of song sparrow nests (if present) through excessive noise, dust, and other construction-related disturbance. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys and nest avoidance, coverage for this species through the SJMSCP , implementing all SJMSCP-required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures, and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on the riparian and aquatic habitats of French Camp Slough, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Least Bell’s Vireo
Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii) nesting habitat is present within the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough adjacent to the project site.

EXHIBIT 1
The proposed project would not result in direct impacts to the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough. However, the construction of the proposed project could result in indirect disturbance of least Bell’s vireo nests (if present) through excessive noise, dust, and other construction-related disturbance. However, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3, requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys and nest avoidance, coverage for this species through the SJMSCP , implementing all SJMSCP-required avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures, and avoidance of direct and indirect impacts on the riparian and aquatic habitats of French Camp Slough, potential project-related impacts on this species can be reduced to a less than significant level.

Longfin Smelt and Delta Smelt
Both species (Spirinchus thaleichthysand Hypomesus transpacificus) have been documented downstream from French Camp Slough. Presence of vagrant individuals cannot be ruled out from occurring in the water column of French Camp Slough. The proposed project does not impact French Camp Slough directly. Therefore, no impacts on these species are anticipated.

The construction and operation of the proposed project could have indirect impacts on the water quality of French Camp Slough through erosion, sediment, and runoff of polluted stormwater.

Therefore, the proposed project could result in potential impacts on aquatic habitats for special- status fish species occurring in French Camp Slough and other waterbodies downstream.

With implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2, the proposed project would implement all water quality protection measures imposed by the SJCOG and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and therefore any potential indirect impacts on aquatic special-status species would be reduced to less than significant.

Roosting Bats
The project site contains trees that could provide suitable bat roosting habitat, including for special- status bats such as the pallid bat. Potential direct and indirect impacts could occur to roosting bats due to removal of potential roosting habitat during project construction. Therefore, it is recommended that a roosting bat survey be conducted prior to the start of project construction, as described below in MM BIO-4.

Other Non-listed Species Covered Under the SJMSCP
The SJMSCP covers additional species that are not listed by State or federal resource agencies. These include more common species including Ferruginous hawk, great egret, great blue heron, short- eared owl, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, pocket mouse, and others. Potential impacts on any of these will be mitigated to a less than significant level by obtaining coverage by the SJMSCP as stated in MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-3.

Special-status Species Not Covered Under the SJMSCP
Steelhead–Central Valley Distinct Population Segment
Steelhead have been documented downstream of French Camp Slough in the San Joaquin River.

French Camp Slough does not provide suitable spawning habitat, but presence of vagrant individuals EXHIBIT 1
cannot be ruled out. The proposed project does not impact French Camp Slough directly, therefore no direct impacts on this species are anticipated.

The construction and operation of the proposed project could have indirect impacts on the water quality of French Camp Slough and downstream reaches through sediment and polluted stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potential indirect impacts on aquatic habitats for special-status fish species.

With implementation of MM BIO-2, 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. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Valley Oak Riparian Forest and Woodland
As shown in Exhibit 9, no direct impacts on Valley Oak Riparian Forest and Woodland (0.35 acre within the project site) are proposed. Per communication with the SJCOG in April 2022, no permanent setback is required to avoid impacts on the riparian corridor.

Approximately 0.15 acre of Valley Oak Woodland and Forest (CDFW California Sensitive Natural Community 71.040.00 and protected under the SJMSCP) are proposed to be removed. The SJCOG offers compensatory mitigation for loss of Valley Oak Woodland and Forest through the SJMSCP permitting process. The applicant would be required to obtain a SJMSCP permit, as stated in MM BIO-1, above. With implementation of the mitigation requirements defined by the SJCOG, impacts to sensitive natural communities would be considered less than significant under CEQA. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

French Camp Slough is a protected water through federal and State regulations. No direct impacts are proposed to French Camp Slough. However, the construction and operation of the proposed project could have indirect impacts on the water quality of French Camp Slough and downstream reaches through sediment and polluted stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potential impacts on State and federally protected waters.

With implementation of MM BIO-2 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.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Legend
Project Site 11.26 acres
Land Cover and Vegetation
Agricultural 10.18 acres
Ruderal/Disturbed 0.18 acre
Valley Oak Riparian Forest and Woodland0.34 acre
Valley Oak Woodland and Forest0.56 acre
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Legend
Project Site 11.26 acres
Limits Of Grading8.53 acres
Impacts to Valley Oak Woodland and Forest Outside the Limits of Grading Land Cover and Vegetation Project Site Impacts Agricultural 10.18 acres 8.42 acres Ruderal/Disturbed 0.18 acre 0.04 acre Valley Oak Riparian Forest and Woodland 0.34 acre 0.00 acre Valley Oak Woodland and Forest 0.56 acre 0.15 acre EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Nursery Sites
The aquatic and riparian habitats of French Camp Slough, and the upland valley oak woodland are potential nursery sites, including for nesting birds and roosting bats, giant garter snakes, western pond turtles and others. With implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6, impacts on nursery sites would be reduced to less than significant through direct and indirect impact avoidance of the riparian corridor and compensatory mitigation for loss of 0.15 acre of valley oak woodland.

Protected Nesting Birds
The riparian corridor of French Camp Slough and all vegetated habitats within the project site could provide suitable habitat for a variety of species of nesting birds. Ground nesting birds may use undisturbed grassland and barren areas. Grading and the removal of trees during the nesting season (generally February 15 to August 31) could result in direct harm to nesting birds protected under the Fish and Game Code or MBTA. Construction noise, light, and other man-made disturbances may cause nesting birds to abandon their nests.

Implementation of MM BIO-3 would reduce impacts on protected bird nests to a less than significant level.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Local policies include protection of biological and natural resources and require preparation of a Biological Study, which the FCS Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) constitutes. With implementation of the mitigation measures developed and recommended here, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies. Specifically, MM BIO-6 would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the Municipal Code Section 16.130 – Heritage Oak Permit by requiring a Tree Report as well as a tree removal permit and mitigation as required by the SJCOG and SJMSCP for removal of any ordinance-size valley oak trees protected under the Municipal Code.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

The project site is located within the SJMSCP planning area, and the City of Stockton is a signatory to the SJMSCP . MM BIO-1 would require the project to obtain SJMSCP coverage for potential project- EXHIBIT 1
related impacts on covered species and loss of 0.15 acre of protected valley oak woodland; and implementation of all required avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures.

With implementation of MM BIO-1, no significant conflict with the provisions of the SJMSCP would occur.

Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Prior to any disturbance activities (including vegetation removal and grading), the applicant shall obtain a San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) permit from San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) to mitigate for impacts to SJMSCP-covered species and their habitats. The applicant shall implement all requirements and conditions stated in the SJMSCP permit. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of Incidental Take Minimization Measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered species.

MM BIO-2a Avoidance and Minimization of Indirect Temporary Impacts to Water Quality and Riparian Habitat
The project applicant shall obtain a Construction General Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The applicant shall ensure that the project Civil Engineer prepares all required stormwater planning documents consistent with the requirements of the RWQCB (e.g., a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP] that complies with current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]; Best Management Practices [BMPs] to control the pollutants in stormwater runoff, and/or a Storm Water Management Plan [SWMP]) shall be developed and integrated into the project plan.

MM BIO-2b No Work Within the Riparian Corridor and Creek Bed or Banks No work (including vegetation removal) shall take place within the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough unless specifically permitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Prior to construction the applicant shall install silt fencing including the placement of straw wattles between all construction areas and the riparian corridor to avoid impacts to water quality by grading and construction. A qualified Biologist shall be on-site to monitor the installation of fencing. Fencing shall be in place and regularly maintained during project implementation.

MM BIO-2c Avoidance and Minimization of Indirect Permanent Impacts to Water Quality and Riparian Habitat
EXHIBIT 1
The applicant shall install post-construction stormwater management measures and establish a long-term maintenance plan. This requirement is intended to ensure that the post-construction conditions at the project site do not cause or contribute to direct or indirect water quality impacts (i.e., pollution and/or hydromodification) upstream and downstream. Specifically, the discharger shall demonstrate compliance with the post-construction standards set forth in the General Permit. The discharger is responsible for all compliance issues including all annual fees until the Notice of Termination (NOT) has been filed and approved by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

The applicant shall establish permanent fencing to keep trash and other debris from moving off-site into the aquatic or riparian habitats of French Camp Slough.

MM BIO-3 Protection of Active Bird Nests (includes pre-construction survey and implementation of avoidance buffer, if found).

Removal of trees shall be limited to only those necessary to construct the proposed project as reflected in the relevant project approval documents.

If the proposed project requires trees to be removed during the nesting season, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 10 days prior to the start of ground or vegetation disturbance (including tree removal) to determine whether or not active nests are present.

If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, a qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately sized avoidance buffer based on the species and anticipated disturbance level. (The California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors.) A qualified Biologist shall delineate the avoidance buffer using Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing, pin flags, and/or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. No construction activities or construction foot traffic is allowed to occur within the avoidance buffer(s).

The qualified Biologist shall monitor the active nest during construction activities to prevent any potential impacts that may result from the construction of the proposed project, until the young have fledged.

MM BIO-4 Roosting Bat Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance Prior to the star of construction (e.g., prior to any earthmoving or ground-disturbing activity), a qualified Biologist with relevant roosting bat experience shall conduct a survey for special-status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., EXHIBIT 1
observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.).

Visual surveys will include trees within 500 feet of project construction activities.

Not more than 2 weeks prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall ensure that a qualified Biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of bats and signs of bats) survey buildings proposed for demolition for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the structure, demolition may proceed. If the Biologist determines or presumes bats are present, the Biologist shall exclude the bats from suitable spaces by installing one- way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the space, the Biologist shall close off the space to prevent recolonization. Building demolition shall only commence after the Biologist verifies 7 to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. To avoid impacts on young non-volant (i.e., non- flying) bats, the Biologist shall only conduct bat exclusion and eviction from May 1 through October 1. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young) as determined by the Biologist.

Movement Corridors
French Camp Slough and associated riparian corridors provide a significant wildlife movement corridor. The proposed project avoids all direct impacts on this corridor, and implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 (above), MM BIO-5, below, and MM BIO-6 (in subsequent sections) will avoid and minimize all indirect impacts to this area.

MM BIO-5 The project applicant shall implement GP NCR-2.18 Minimize Lighting Impacts for the portion of the project site that is visible from the riparian corridor of French Camp Slough. The applicant shall ensure that lighting associated with new development or facilities (including street lighting, recreational facilities, and parking) shall be designed to prevent artificial lighting from illuminating adjacent natural areas at a level greater than 1 foot-candle above ambient conditions.

MM BIO-6 The applicant shall prepare and submit a tree report to the City of Stockton. The tree report shall include the location, species, and diameter at 24 inches above grade (for multi-trunked trees the combined total trunk diameter shall be used for all trunks measuring 6 inches or greater measured at 24 inches above actual grade). The tree report shall list the number of ordinance-size trees proposed to be removed. For ordinance-size trees to be removed, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit from the City of Stockton. If ordinance-size valley oaks are proposed to be removed, then mitigation for loss of these valley oaks can be covered through valley oak woodland mitigation as required by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and defined in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJCMSCP) permit to be obtained by the applicant.

EXHIBIT 1
Conclusion
With adherence to Standard Permit Conditions and implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO- 6, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as pursuant to
Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1(k), or

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

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section describes the existing cultural resources setting and potential effects from project implementation on the project site and its surrounding area. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the Central California Information Center (CCIC), National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), California Historic Landmarks list (CHL), California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, California Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), California Historical Resources Inventory, and a pedestrian survey of the site conducted by FCS. The Confidential Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment (Phase I CRA) can be provided upon request.

EXHIBIT 1
Central California Information Center
A records search was conducted on March 21, 2022, at the CCIC, located at California State University, Stanislaus, for the project site and a 0.5-mile radius beyond the project boundaries. The purpose of this review was to access existing cultural resource survey reports, archaeological site records, and historic aerial photographs and evaluate whether any previously documented prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist within or near the project area.

Results from the CCIC indicate that 12 cultural resources (four prehistoric resources, seven historic resources, and one protohistoric resource) and three informal resources (Bridge 29C033, 29C0124, and 29C0340) have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the project site, no cultural resources have been recorded within the project site. In addition, 18 area-specific survey reports are on file with the CCIC for the project site and its 0.5-mile search radius. One survey report, SJ-00729, is partially within the project boundary indicating that the project site has partially been surveyed for cultural resources.

Native American Heritage Commission and Tribal Outreach On March 18, 2022, FCS sent a request to the NAHC in an effort to determine whether any sacred sites are listed on its Sacred Lands File for the project site. A response was received on May 5, 2022, indicating that the Sacred Lands File was positive for the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC included a list of 12 tribal representatives available for consultation. To ensure that all Native American knowledge and concerns over potential Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) that may be affected by the project are addressed, a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each tribal representative on May 6, 2022. One response was received on June 7, 2022, from the Confederated Villages of Lisjan requesting records search results. No additional responses have been received to date.

Cultural Resources Survey and Buried Site Potential
On May 4, 2022, FCS Senior Archaeologist, Dr. Dana DePietro, surveyed the project site to identify any unrecorded cultural resources within the project boundary. The survey began on the northeast corner of the project site and moved south using east/west transects spaced at 15-meter intervals whenever possible. The project site consists entirely of plowed agricultural land, bordered by South McKinley Avenue to the east, and French Camp Slough to the west. Overall visibility of native soils was moderate due to some ground cover and vegetation, ranging from 40-50 percent across the site.

A trowel was used to test subsurface soil composition in areas of obscured visibility. Overall, soils which were primarily composed of rich, medium brown (Munsell 10 YR 4/2) loamy soils interspersed with small (2-5 cm) stones composed primarily of schist, quartz, basalt, and Franciscan chert.

Particular attention was paid to areas along the western banks of French Camp Slough that may have been utilized by Native American tribes in antiquity.

Survey conditions were documented using digital photographs and field notes. During the survey, Dr.

DePietro examined all areas of the exposed ground surface for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., fire-affected rock, milling tools, flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, ceramics), soil discoloration and EXHIBIT 1
depressions that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, faunal and human osteological remains, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, standing exterior walls, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., glass, metal, ceramics.) The entire project site appears to have been recently plowed, and as a result, quite a bit of modern trash (plastic straws, bottlecaps, etc.) were observed across the site. Interspersed with these items were also older pieces of detritus including heavily patinaed blue glass and milk glass fragments.

Most significantly, a green chert lithic isolate was discovered in the property boundary. The isolate is a piece of lithic debitage, exhibiting cortex with a clearly defined bulb of percussion and at least four channels where flakes were knapped away as part of the lithic reduction strategy. This isolate was found out-of-context along with modern refuse that had been moved across the site as a result of extensive plowing and agricultural activity. As such, no defined archaeological deposit or feature associated with the isolate was discernible. Similar lithics have been recovered at pre-contact archaeological sites along French Camp Slough, significantly, at site CA-SJO-000226 to the immediate north of the project site.

Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines “historic resources” as resources listed in the CRHR, a local register, determined significant by the Lead Agency, or determined to be eligible by the California Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR. The criteria for eligibility are generally set by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which established the NRHP , and which recognizes properties that are significant at the national, State, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, a district, site, building, structure, or object must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association relative to American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. In addition, unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible.

The records search conducted at the CCIC for the project radius determined that seven historic resources have been recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius, however none are within the project boundaries. Additionally, the pedestrian survey did not identify any potentially historic built environment resources. There would be no impacts to historical built environment resources from the proposed project.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related EXHIBIT 1
significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources that fall under these categories.

The records search conducted at the CCIC for the project site determined that four prehistoric resources, one protohistoric resource, and seven historic resources are recorded within the 0.5-mile search radius, no archaeological resources are recorded within the project boundaries. In addition, the results of the pedestrian survey did identify a green chert lithihc isolate and painted blue glass and milk glass fragments. No additional archaeological resources were discovered during the pedestrian survey. Nevertheless, it is possible that earthmoving activities associated with project construction and off-site improvements could encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources. Archaeological resources can include but are not limited to stone, bone, wood or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Damage or destruction of these resources would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of MM CUL-1 would ensure that this potential impact is reduced to a less than significant level. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No human remains or cemeteries are known to exist within the project site, however a recorded burial site is within 0.5-mile search radius of the project boundaries. Although human remains within the project site are unlikely, there is always the possibility that earthmoving activities associated with project construction could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. This would be a potentially significant impact.

In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed. MM CUL-2 further specifies the procedures to follow in the event human remains are uncovered. Along with compliance with these guidelines and statutes, implementation of this mitigation would reduce potential impacts related to human remains to a less than significant level.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
d) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The records search conducted at the CCIC, which included a search of the CRHR, did not identify any listed or eligible TCRs that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Additionally, the NAHC Sacred Lands File search results determined the immediate project is postive for TCRs, however the results did not indicate whether the TCRs are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR. Should any undiscovered TCRs be encountered EXHIBIT 1
during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
e) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

As of April 5, 2023, the City had not initiated Assembly Bill (AB) 52. This section will be updated with the results of that consultation.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall provide full-time archaeological monitoring both on- site and off-site for the new sewer line connection in South McKinley Avenue, for all ground disturbance, including, but not limited to, grubbing, clearing, grading, and trenching into previously undisturbed soils.

It is always possible that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown, buried cultural resources. In the event that buried cultural resources are discovered during construction, operations shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and a qualified Archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further study. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation of the finds and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria.

If the resources are determined to be unique historic resources as defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures shall be identified by the Archaeological Monitor and recommended to the Lead Agency. Appropriate mitigation measures for significant resources could include avoidance or capping, incorporation of the site in green space, parks, or open space, or data recovery excavations of the finds.

No further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Lead Agency approves the measures to protect these resources. Any archaeological artifacts recovered as a result of mitigation shall be donated to a qualified scientific EXHIBIT 1
institution approved by the Lead Agency where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study.

MM CUL-2 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 must be followed. For purposes of this project, once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The Most Likely Descendant (MLD) may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Section 5097.98, or

2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:

The NAHC is unable to identify a MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.

The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation.

The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.6 Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy Report prepared by FCS, which is included as Appendix A.

Energy use, especially through fossil fuel consumption and combustion, relates directly to environmental quality since it can adversely affect air quality and generate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Electrical power is generated through a variety of sources, including fossil fuel combustion, hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, and others. Natural gas is widely used to heat buildings, prepare food in restaurants and residences, and fuel vehicles, among other uses. Fuel use for transportation is related to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and public transportation; choice of different travel modes such as auto, carpool, and public transit; and miles traveled by these modes, and generally based on petroleum-based fuels such as diesel and gasoline. Electric vehicles (Evs) may not have any direct emissions but do have indirect emissions via the source of electricity generated to power the vehicle. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of transportation infrastructure also consume energy. PG&E provides electricity to the project site.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than significant impact. Energy consumed by the proposed project was estimated and includes natural gas (although the proposed project does not provide natural gas connections), electricity, and fuel consumption for project construction and operation. Energy calculations are included as part of Appendix C of the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy Report (Appendix A).

EXHIBIT 1
Construction Impacts
The project construction schedule was assumed to begin in April 2024 and conclude in December 2024. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements as older, less efficient equipment is replaced by newer and cleaner equipment. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition, site clearing, and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks.

The types of on-site equipment used during construction of the proposed project could include gasoline- and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment, including trucks, graders, tractors, and cranes. Main site construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of 20,526 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration (Appendix A).

Fuel use associated with construction vehicle trips generated by the proposed project was also estimated; trips include construction worker trips, haul truck trips for material transport, and vendor trips for construction material deliveries. Fuel use from these vehicles traveling to the project site was based on (1) the projected number of trips the proposed project would generate during construction, (2) average trip distances by trip type, and (3) fuel efficiencies estimated in the ARB Emission FACtor (EMFAC) mobile source emission model. The specific parameters used to estimate fuel usage are included in Appendix A. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate 211,950 VMT and a combined 7,447 gallons of combined gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.

The overall construction schedule and process Is already designed to be efficient In order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Construction-related energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
The proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 7.

Table 7: Estimated Annual Project Energy Consumption
Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Electricity Consumption 2,117,255 kWh/year
Natural Gas Consumption 1,139,771 kBTU/year
EXHIBIT 1
Energy Consumption Activity Annual Consumption
Operational Energy Consumption–ZEVs 20,699 kWh/year
Operational Fuel Consumption–Trucks 61,013 gallons of gasoline and diesel Operational Fuel Consumption–Passenger Vehicles 54,051 gallons of primarily gasoline Total Fuel Consumption (Passenger Vehicles and
Trucks Combined)
115,064 gallons of gasoline and diesel
Notes:
kWh = kilowatt-hour
kBTU = kilo-British Thermal Unit
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
ZEV = Zero-Emission Vehicle
Source: Appendix A.

Operation of the proposed warehouse would consume an estimated 2,117,255 kWh of electricity and an estimated 1,139,771 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis (if it were retrofitted to provide natural gas). The proposed project’s building would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These are widely regarded as the most advanced building energy efficiency standards and compliance would ensure that building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 115,064 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually and would involve activities and travel routes typical of a warehouse-type project. Zero- Emission Vehicles (ZEV) passenger vehicles represent 4 percent of the passenger vehicle fleet in 2024 and electricity consumption associated with this is 20,700 kWh for 2024. This will increase as ZEVs penetrate the California market and fossil fuels will decrease. Thus, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than significant impact. The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by PG&E. In 2021, PG&E obtained 47.7 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources.22PG&E also offers a 50 percent and 100 percent solar choice that source 70.9 and 93.9 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources respectively, as well as a Green Saver option that sources 83.9 percent of its power mix from eligible renewable energy sources.23 The utility would be required to meet the future objective of 60 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The proposed warehouse building would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. The 22 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2023. 2021 Power Content Label: PG&E. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- topics/programs/power-source-disclosure/power-content-label/annual-power-content-2. Accessed March 25, 2023. 23 Ibid.

EXHIBIT 1
incorporation of the Title 24 standards into the design of the proposed project would ensure that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner.

The General Plan contains the following policies related to energy conservation.24 Policy LU-5.4 Require water and energy conservation and efficiency in both new construction and retrofits.

Action LU-5.4A Require all new development, including major rehabilitation, renovation, and redevelopment, to adopt best management practices for water use efficiency and demonstrate specific water conservation measures.

Action LU-5.4B Require all new development, including major rehabilitation, renovation, and redevelopment, to incorporate feasible and appropriate energy conservation and green building practices, such as building orientation and shading, landscaping, and the use of active and passive solar heating and water systems.

Action LU-5.4C Update the Citywide Design Guidelines to strengthen energy conservation and green building provisions.

In addition, Action SAF-4.1A, as part of Policy SAF-4.1 related to Air Quality (summarized in Section

2.3 Setting), requires the installation of Energy Star-certified appliances.

The proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the General Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable or energy efficiency objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project’s compliance with Title 24 standards and other applicable regulations would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the General Plan energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building, mechanical systems, or indoor and outdoor lighting.

Although not required to reduce significance related to energy impacts, implementation of MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1f would further reduce operational energy consumption by requiring electric landscape and material handling equipment, reducing vehicle fuel consumption by limiting or prohibiting vehicle idling which would further reduce operational fuel consumption.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
24 City of Stockton 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Website: http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/Adopted_Plan.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

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

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

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

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

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This section is based in part on a Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ENGEO Incorporated on June 20, 2022.25 The study is included as Appendix D of this IS/MND. 25 ENGEO Incorporated. June 20, 2022. Geotechnical Exploration.

EXHIBIT 1
The City is not listed by the California Geological Survey (CGS) as a city affected by an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.26The Hayward Fault, a major earthquake fault in the San Francisco Bay region, lies roughly 40 miles southwest of the City. The Greenville Fault lies approximately 22 miles from the City. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the nearby San Francisco Bay Area could cause significant ground shaking at the project site. The degree of shaking would depend on the magnitude of the event, the duration of the event, the distance to the zone of rupture (i.e., hypocenter), and local geologic conditions.

Landslides are gravity-driven movements of earth materials that can include rock, soil, unconsolidated sediment, or combinations of such materials. CGS has not mapped any landslide hazard zones in the City or in its immediate vicinity.27 Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moisture that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. Based on a Countywide map of expansive soils published by the San Joaquin County Geographical Information Systems Unit, the project site appears to be underlain by expansive soils.28 Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than significant impact. No designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones have been mapped in the City or its immediate vicinity. Additionally, no other active faults are located within the City or its immediate vicinity. Therefore, ground rupture is unlikely at the project site.29 The nearest earthquake fault to the City is the Greenville Fault, located approximately 22 miles southwest of the City. As previous noted, the maximum forecasted earthquake on this fault is magnitude 6.0 and the probability of such a seismic event occurring by the year 2036 is approximately 3 percent.30 The Hayward Fault, a major earthquake fault in the San Francisco Bay 26 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2017. Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of January 2010, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. Accessed April 1, 2023. 27 Ibid.
28 San Joaquin County Geographic Information Systems. 2022. Expansive Soils 1999. Website:
https://sjmap.org/mapdocs/FrontCounter_Expansive_Soils.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023. 29 ENGEO Incorporated. June 20, 2022. Geotechnical Exploration. 30 City of Stockton. 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft Environmental impact Report. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
region, lies roughly 40 miles west-southwest of the City and has a higher likelihood of have a large seismic event. However, the location of the project site well east of major earthquake faults creates a less than significant impact.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant impact. The nearest earthquake fault to the City is the Greenville Fault, located approximately 22 miles southwest of the City. As previous noted, the maximum forecasted earthquake on this fault is magnitude 6.0 and the probability of such a seismic event occurring by the year 2036 is approximately 3 percent.31The Hayward Fault, a major earthquake fault in the San Francisco Bay region, lies roughly 40 miles west-southwest of the City and has a higher likelihood of have a large seismic event. However, the location of the project site well east of major earthquake faults would help reduce impacts related to ground shaking.32 An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated by the Great Valley fault could cause considerable ground shaking at the site. To mitigate the shaking effects, structures should be designed using the 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBC) requirements.33Specifically, the proposed project would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 2 (CBC 3.7-20 Chapter 3: Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures) of the CBC and the California Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapter 7.8 (the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act), as well as applicable local regulations. This would ensure that the potential adverse impacts from seismic ground shaking are minimized. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. ENGEO performed a liquefaction analysis to estimate the liquefaction susceptibility of the project site. The results indicated that there are potentially liquefiable soil layers below a depth of 37 feet and 50 feet at the project site. However, ENGEO concluded that, given the relative thickness of non-liquefiable surface soil, the risk of surface disruption is low. Therefore, the likelihood of substantial adverse effects to the project site due to seismically-triggered liquefaction is considered low and the impact caused by the proposed project would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?
Less than significant impact. Because of the relatively level topography throughout the City and at the project site, and lack of steep slopes, the probability of earthquake-induced landslides is very low. Furthermore, the CGS has not mapped any landslide hazard zones in the City or in its immediate vicinity.34Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 31 City of Stockton. 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft Environmental impact Report. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023. 32 City of Stockton. 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft Environmental impact Report. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023. 33 ENGEO Incorporated. June 20, 2022. Geotechnical Exploration. 34 City of Stockton. 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft Environmental impact Report. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. The proposed project would require ground-disturbing activities such as grading, excavation, and other earthmoving activities prior to and during construction. These activities would expose surface soils to wind and precipitation, which could cause soil erosion and loss of topsoil if measures are not taken to prevent erosion and runoff during site construction. Projects that disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), issues by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list BMPs the proposed project would implement to control erosion and prevent the conveyance of sediments off- site.

The proposed project would comply with the CBC and with required erosion control measures including those outlined in Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 15.48 Grading and Erosion Control.

Compliance with the CBC and Municipal Code would ensure that the proposed project would not result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. With the implementation of the conditions of the Construction General Permit as well as compliance with the CBC and Municipal Code, erosion impacts resulting from project construction would remain less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
No impact. As discussed in Impact 2.7(a)(iii) and 2.7(a)(iv), the proposed project would not result in risks associated with seismically induced liquefaction or from landslides.

Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone (possibly due to liquefaction) that causes the overlying soil mass to move toward a free face or down a gentle slope. Since groundwater is on the order of 26 feet below the surface it is our opinion that the potential for lateral spreading is negligible.35Furthermore, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded, based on topographic and lithologic data, that the risk of subsidence is considered low to negligible at the site. Compliance with the CBC, which requires that a site-specific ground motion study be performed in accordance with Section 11.4.8 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16, would ensure that the soil would be stable. There would be no impacts.
c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Geotechnical Exploration concluded that there are potentially expansive soils near the surface of the project site. These soils exhibit moderate to high shrink/swell potential. Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on 35 ENGEO Incorporated. June 20, 2022. Geotechnical Exploration.

EXHIBIT 1
moisture content. It can shrink or swell and cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations.

The Geotechnical Exploration recommends several methods to reduce damage to structures resulting from volume changes associated with expansive soil. These recommendations are included as MM GEO-1. Compliance with existing State and local laws and regulations, such as the CBC and the City’s Municipal Code, and the City’s grading and building permit process, would further ensure that the impacts associated with development on expansive soil are minimized to the maximum extent possible. Consequently, the overall impact from implementation of the proposed project as it relates to this hazard would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No impact. The proposed project would connect to an existing wastewater facility and sanitary sewer system and, therefore, would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the capacity of the soils on the project site to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological records search results were provided by Dr. Kenneth L. Finger, PhD through the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database Natural History Museum (Appendix D). The purpose of the paleontological records search was to determine whether the presence of known paleontological resources exist within the project site or within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The results of the records search indicated that the project site is located on Pleistocene Modesto Formation (Qm), a sedimentary unit with the potential to yield significant paleontological resources. The records search reveals that the Modesto Formation has a high sensitivity but low paleontological potential for significant paleontological resources. Because the proposed project would require ground-disturbing activities such as grading and excavation on previously undisturbed soils, the potential exists for previously unknown paleontological resources to be uncovered during excavations of the project site. As such, paleontological monitoring of all subsurface construction activities in the Modesto Formation is recommended. This is included as MM GEO-2. With incorporation of MM GEO-2, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1 The proposed project shall adhere to the site preparation, grading, foundation support, earthwork, and other recommendations of the Geotechnical Exploration for the project site prepared by ENGEO Incorporated on June 20, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
MM GEO-2 All construction-related earth-disturbing activities that would impact previously undisturbed sediments on the project site shall be monitored closely by a qualified Paleontologist to recover any fossil remains discovered quickly and professionally while not impeding development. Should any significant paleontological resources (e.g., bones, teeth,) be unearthed, all construction activities shall be diverted at least 15 feet from the find until a professional Paleontologist has assessed it and, if deemed significant, salvaged the fossil(s) in a timely manner. Collected fossils shall be deposited in an appropriate repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), where they would be properly curated and made available for future research.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
Environmental Evaluation
The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy Report prepared by FCS, which is included as Appendix A.

Setting
Since the City of Stockton does not currently have a qualified GHG Reduction Plan, and the SJVAPCD’s other pathways for determining significance are not appropriate, this Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis will rely on the CEQA Guidelines directly for determining significance of the proposed project with respect to GHG impacts.

The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine whether a project would have a significant impact on GHGs, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the proposed project must be evaluated.

City of Stockton General Plan and General Plan EIR
The following policies from the Community Health, Transportation Strategies and Safe Community elements of the City’s General Plan, Envision Stockton 204036are relevant to the control of GHG emissions from the proposed project. There are no General Plan EIR GHG measures directly applicable to development projects. It is noted that several policies and actions related to Air Quality, as shown in Section 2.4.3, Local Setting, are also repeated here for GHG. This overlapping applicability stems from strategies which target emissions criteria pollutants (such as NOXand DPM) from the combustion of fossil fuels but which also have co-benefits of reducing GHG emissions of CO2.
36 City of Stockton. 2022. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. December 4.

EXHIBIT 1
City Policies and Actions encourage the development of EV infrastructure, building energy efficiency and green building practices, and programs to facilitate ride sharing and practices that reduce vehicle use.

Action CH-5.1B Maintain and implement the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan (CAP) and update the CAP to include the following:

Updated Community-wide GHG Emissions Inventory,
2030 GHG Emissions reduction target, consistent with SB 32, Estimated 2030 GHG emission reduction benefits of States programs, Summary of the City’s progress toward the 2020 local GHG emissions reduction target,
New and/or revised GHG reduction strategies that, when quantified, achieve the 2030 reduction target, and continue emission reductions beyond 2030, and New or updated implementation plan for the CAP .

Policy TR-3.2 Require new development and transportation projects to reduce travel demand and greenhouse gas emissions, support electric vehicle charging, and accommodate multi-passenger autonomous vehicle travel as much as feasible.

Action TR-3.2A Amend the parking requirements in the Development Code to encourage shared parking, require preferential parking for rideshare vehicles, and allow reduced parking requirements to support transit, bicycling, and walking.

Action TR-3.2B Require commercial, retail, office, industrial, and multifamily residential development to provide charging stations and prioritized parking for electric and alternative fuel vehicles.

Policy LU-5.4 Require water and energy conservation and efficiency in both new construction and retrofits.

Policy SAF-4.1 Reduce air impacts from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

Action SAF-4.1A Require the construction and operation of new development to implement best practices that reduce air pollutant emissions, including:

EXHIBIT 1
Use of low-emission and well-maintained construction equipment, with idling time limits.

Development and implementation of a dust control plan during construction.

Installation of electrical service connections at loading docks, where appropriate.

Installation of Energy Star-certified appliances.

Entering into Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreements with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Action SAF-4.1C Limit heavy-duty off-road equipment idling time to meet the California Air Resources Board’s idling regulations for on-road trucks.

Policy SAF-4.2 Encourage major employers to participate in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program that reduces vehicle trips through approaches such as carpooling, vanpooling, shuttles, car-sharing, bike-sharing, end-of-trip facilities like showers and bicycle parking, subscription bus service, transit subsidies, preferential parking, and telecommuting.

Measures specifically applicable to industrial facilities and warehouse include provisions for reducing emissions during construction, as well as design features specific to warehouses such as the electrification of docks. Provisions for electrification of docks eliminate emissions immediately for facilities that have trucks with TRUs. Provisions for future electrification paves the way for the phase- in of ZEV trucks, replacing diesel trucks which are currently a large portion of GHG emissions in the State.

City of Stockton Climate Action Plan
The City of Stockton adopted a CAP in August 2014 for the development and implementation of policies and programs to reduce GHG emissions within the City. The primary purpose of the CAP was to complete an inventory of GHG emissions associated with community activity and recommend strategies to reduce GHG emissions.37 The CAP is based on the directives of AB 32 also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a Statewide reduction goal to reduce GHG emissions levels back to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

While the City has set forth goals Action CH-5.1B to update community-wide GHG emission inventory, create 2030 GHG emission reduction targets and strategies consistent with SB32, and update and maintain its CAP , this work is still in progress (as of April 2023).

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
37 City of Stockton. 2022. 2014 Climate Action Plan. August.

EXHIBIT 1
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact with mitigation. The proposed project’s GHG emissions impact determination is based on the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to global climate change through direct emissions of GHG from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, and indirectly through off-site energy production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal.

GHG Emissions from Project
Table 8 and Table 9 present the proposed project’s GHG emissions, as predicted using CalEEMod, for informational purposes. These emissions are provided to show (1) the magnitude of the proposed project’s GHG emissions relative to overall local and regional levels, and (2) the breakdown of emissions from the project by category (e.g., mobile, stationary source, building electrical energy, building natural gas etc.). The results were obtained using CalEEMod default values for various sectors and do not capture nuanced emission reductions due to the project’s waste reduction measures, water conservation, or improvements in energy efficiency beyond the Title 24 2022 standards since these are not included in the CalEEMod emission model. Moreover, many assumptions used in the modeling such as the operational testing hours for the emergency fire pump, or the air conditioning and heating requirements for the warehouse are also extremely conservative and likely to overestimate the GHG burden of the proposed project.

Modeling for transportation and VMT for calculation of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) were based on the proposed project’s unmitigated emissions using CalEEMod defaults. VMT reductions from Transportation Demand Measures may result in up to a 38 percent reduction in VMT.38 The greatest reductions would be due to the project’s accessibility to the airport, other major industrial centers and its proximity to downtown Stockton and the Port of Stockton, and from a required Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR) Program. The proposed project would implement multiple strategies aimed at reducing drive-alone travel and encouraging alternative modes of transportation.

Construction Emissions
Total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are presented in Table 8. The SJVAPCD does not recommend assessing the significance of construction-related emissions. However, other jurisdictions, such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Sacramento Metro AQMD), have concluded that construction emissions should be included since they may remain in the atmosphere for years after construction is complete. The total emissions generated from construction were therefore amortized over the life of the development (30 years) 38 Advanced Mobility Group. 2022. Traffic Impact Study for Industrial Development @ 6505 South McKinley Avenue East, Stockton, California. March.

EXHIBIT 1
and this annualized value was added to the operational emissions. Table 8 presents the amount of GHG emissions during construction.

Table 8: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Year Total MT CO2e per year
2024 362
Amortized over 30 years 12
Notes:

Because of rounding, total MT CO2e may be marginally different from CalEEMod output.

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

Operational Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. Sources of emissions may include motor vehicles and trucks, energy usage, water usage, waste generation and area sources, such as landscaping activities.

Reported operational emissions are considered to represent unmitigated project conditions. Many project design features such as those related to water-efficient landscape ordinances, updated 2022 Energy and 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) would reduce GHG emissions to levels below the estimates in CalEEMod, as quantitative inputs for these updated operational assumptions are not included within its database yet. The operational run incorporates mitigation measures related to ZEV material handling equipment at the facility and off-road operational equipment (e.g., battery electric vehicle [BEV] forklifts) are zero. Project VMT reductions from TDM reductions of 39 percent were estimated for the proposed project based on VMT and with these mitigation measures, VMT was less than significant. Thus, the contribution of GHG emissions with respect to the project’s VMT would not be considered significant.

Full assumptions and model outputs are provided in Appendix A and results of this analysis for 2025 (the first full year of proposed project operations) are presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Unmitigated Project Operational Greenhouse Gases 2025 Source
Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
2025 % of Total
Area (Landscaping) 2.7 0.2%
Energy–Natural Gas 61 4.1%
Energy–Electrical 198 13.5%
Mobile 1,068 72.6%
Solid Waste 54 4.8%
Water/Wastewater 71 0.3%
EXHIBIT 1
Source
Emissions (MT CO2e per year)
2025 % of Total
Stationary 5 0.8%
Amortized Construction Emissions 12 0.2%
Total 1,472 100
Notes:

MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Source of 2022 emissions: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

It should be noted that MM GHG-1 for ZEV material handling equipment was included in the model and no emissions were predicted for forklifts. The project’s reduction of GHG emissions from this sector is ahead of any State or local regulatory mandate and would be considered a reduction from business-as-usual in a quantitative GHG emissions analysis. A warehouse of 179,000 square feet could have, on average, 22 forklifts in operation39(each utilizing one 8-gallon LPG tank per day, 250 working days per year for an estimated emissions impact of 11.5 MT per year CO2per forklift). The project’s commitment to BEV forklifts, therefore, represents an emission reduction of approximately 250 MT CO2e per year.

Best Management Practices for Warehouses
There are several resources outlining BMPs for warehouses, including the California Office of the Attorney Generals Guidance for Best Practices to comply with CEQA40 and the ARB Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook.41 There is considerable commonality among the various guidance documents, which urge facilities to commit to investments in zero-emission infrastructure at the project design stage; deploy zero-emission technologies and to incorporate contractual language requiring tenants to utilize zero-emission technologies to the maximum extent possible.

Design features and best management strategies, to minimize and reduce GHG from the project include:

Provisions for all ZEV material handling equipment (e.g., forklifts and pallet jacks).

Use to be restricted to dry storage.

Use of compliant Low-Global Warming Potential (GWP) Refrigerants.

Warehouse building to be equipped with solar-ready rooftop infrastructure.

Heat pump for space Conditioning in Single-Zoned Office Spaces (Title 24 Part 6 § 140.4(a).2.).

Water-Efficient Landscaping.
39 South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2014. High-Cube Warehouse Trip Rate Study for Air Quality Analysis. Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/high-cube-warehouse.

Accessed March 19, 2023.
40 California Office of the Attorney General. 2022. Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Website: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. Accessed March 19, 2023.
41 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. California Sustainable Freight Initiative: Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook.

Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/concept-paper-freight-handbook. Accessed March 18, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
Low-Flow water fixtures.

Energy-Efficient light-emitting-diode (LED) Lighting.

Electrical Infrastructure to support ZEV Material Handling equipment.

Electrical Infrastructure ready to support future ZEV Medium Heavy-Duty Truck (MHDT) and Heavy Heavy-Duty Truck (HHDT).

Consistency with Local GHG Reduction Plans
The City of Stockton has a CAP that was published in 2014. The CAP addresses the goals of AB 32 and a reduction plan for 2020 goals. As such, it does not address post-2020 reductions required by Senate Bill (SB) 32 and AB 1279 that would put City emissions on trajectories for year 2030 and 2045 goals. However, the City, as part of its General Plan has both a Policy and Action Plan (CH-5.1B) that provides for an update of the previous plan and the development of new goals and reductions measures to address the SB 32 2030 target. However, the updated plan is not available at the time of this analysis was prepared (April 2023).

Consistency with 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans
A project comparison for consistency with measures for the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plan updates addresses alignment with the State’s planning goals and milestones under SB 32 and AB 1279, respectively.

An evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan serves as a roadmap for evaluating a project’s current design, and to determine whether it complies with current policies and is in compliance with planned reduction measures for GHG emissions. The comparison of a project design to Scoping Plan proposals is not by itself a metric for determining project-level significance, but a step in showing how the project supports current regulations and is aligned with future GHG reduction strategies in development stages. The proposed project would comply with all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law and to the extent that they are applicable to the proposed project.

Table 10 and Table 11 summarize the measures included 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans, respectively, and analyzes project consistency compared to these elements.

Table 10: Proposed Project Consistency with 2017 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 50 percent Renewable Mandate. Utilities
subject to the legislation will be required to increase their renewable energy mix from 33 percent in 2020
to 50 percent in 2030.

Not applicable.This measure would apply to utilities
and not to individual development projects. The
proposed project would purchase electricity from a
utility subject to the SB 350 Renewable Mandate and
the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
requirements. SB 100 has increased the 2030 RPS
standards to 60 percent by 2030, superseding the
increase required by SB 350.

EXHIBIT 1
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
SB 350 Double Building Energy Efficiency by 2030.

This is equivalent to a 20 percent reduction from
2014 building energy usage compared to current
projected 2030 levels.

Not applicable. This measure applies to existing
buildings. New structures are required to comply with
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards that are expected
to increase in stringency over time. The proposed
project would comply with the applicable Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards in effect at the time
building permits are received.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This measure requires
fuel providers to meet an 18 percent reduction in
carbon content by 2030.

Not applicable.This is a Statewide measure that
cannot be implemented by a project applicant or lead
agency. However, vehicles accessing the project site
would benefit from the standards.

Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and
Fuels Scenario). Vehicle manufacturers will be
required to meet existing regulations mandated by
the LEV III and Heavy-Duty Vehicle programs. The
strategy includes a goal of having 4.2 million ZEVs on
the road by 2030 and increasing numbers of ZEV
trucks and buses.

Consistent with mitigation. The proposed project is
industrial in nature and would support truck and
freight operations. It is expected that deliveries
throughout the State would be made with an
increasing number of ZEV delivery trucks, including
trips that would be coming to and from the project
site. The proposed project would not inhibit the
Mobile Source Strategy because the implementation
of MM GHG-1f would require the project applicant to
include infrastructure for electric vehicle charging
stations, into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle
parking spaces (including parking for trucks),
consistent with the applicable California Green
Building Standards Code Tier 1 Nonresidential
Mandatory Measure. As such, future ZEVs could
access the project site to charge batteries as part of
normal goods delivery operations.

Sustainable Freight Action Plan. The plan’s target is
to improve freight system efficiency 25 percent by
increasing the value of goods and services produced
from the freight sector, relative to the amount of
carbon that it produces by 2030. This would be
achieved by deploying over 100,000 freight vehicles
and equipment capable of zero-emission operation
and maximize near-zero-emission freight vehicles and
equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.

Consistent with mitigation. This measure applies to
owners and operators of trucks and freight
operations. The proposed project is industrial in
nature and would support truck and freight
operations. The proposed project would implement
MMs GHG-1a-c and GHG1-f, which would require the
project applicant to include infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations, including for trucks, into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces
(including parking for trucks), consistent with the
applicable California Green Building Standards Code
Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure.

Additionally, MMs GHG-1a and GHG-1b would
require (1) that all on-site off-road and on-road
service equipment be zero-emission or all electric and
(2) that all project buildings would be designed to
support the use of zero-emission or all electric service equipment. These measures would support the
sustainable Freight Action Plan by providing electric
vehicle charging infrastructure and zero-emission
support equipment.

EXHIBIT 1
Scoping Plan Measure Project Consistency
Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction
Strategy. The strategy requires the reduction of
SLCPs by 40 percent from 2013 levels by 2030 and
the reduction of black carbon by 50 percent from
2013 levels by 2030.

Consistent.The proposed project would not include
major sources of black carbon. This measure revolves
around ARB’s SLCP Reduction Strategy that was
released in April 2016 as a result of SB 650. SB 650
required the State to develop a strategy to reduce
emissions of SLCPs. DPM reductions have come from
strong efforts to reduce on-road vehicle emissions.

Car and truck engines used to be the largest sources
of anthropogenic black carbon emissions in
California, but the State’s existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from
on-road diesel engines within 10 years. These policies
are based on existing technologies.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategies.

Requires Regional Transportation Plans to include a
sustainable communities strategy for reduction of per
capita vehicle miles traveled.

Not applicable.The proposed project does not
include the development of a Regional
Transportation Plan.

Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program. The Post 2020
Cap-and-Trade Program continues the existing
program for another 10 years. The Cap-and-Trade
Program applies to large industrial sources such as
power plants, refineries, and cement manufacturers.

Not applicable. The proposed project is not one
targeted by the cap-and-trade system regulations,
and, therefore, this measure does not apply to the
project. However, the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade
Program indirectly affects people and entities who
use the products and services produced by the
regulated industrial sources when increased cost of
products or services (such as electricity and fuel) are transferred to the consumers.

Natural and Working Lands Action Plan. The ARB is
working in coordination with several other agencies
at the federal, State, and local levels, stakeholders,
and with the public, to develop measures as outlined
in the Scoping Plan Update and the Governor’s
Executive Order B-30-15 to reduce GHG emissions
and to cultivate net carbon sequestration potential
for California’s natural and working land.

Not applicable. The project site is in a built up urban area and would not be considered natural or working
lands.

Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.

Table 11: Proposed Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies
Scoring Plan Measure Project Consistency
Light-Duty Vehicles: Smart Growth/Reduce Vehicle
Miles Traveled. VMT per capita reduced 25 percent
below 2019 levels by 2030, and 30 percent below
2019 levels by 2045.

Consistent. VMT impacts for the proposed project are
less than significant and the project demonstrates a
39 percent reduction in VMT from TDM measures as
quantified by CAPCOA methods (2009).

Deploy ZEVs. Medium Heavy and Heavy Heavy-Duty
Trucks. This measure is supported by Executive
Consistent. Medium heavy and heavy heavy-duty
trucks would be compliant with truck Fuel Economy
EXHIBIT 1
Scoring Plan Measure Project Consistency
Order N79-20 and plans in the AB 74 ITS Report: 100
percent of MD/HDV sales are ZEV by 2040.

Standards: California Phase II GHG Standards and
would transition to ZEV by 2045. Infrastructure for the proposed project would be designed to support this
transition to ZEV.

The Scoping Plan does not rely upon on VMT
reductions from the freight and truck transportation
sector.

Decarbonize buildings.All electric appliances
beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed
Statewide by 2030.

Consistent. The proposed project is consistent with
the AB 197 commercial timeline. Consistent with
decarbonization strategies, the warehouse building
proposed as part of the project would be equipped
with solar-ready rooftop infrastructure.

Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation. Biomass
supply is used to produce conventional and
advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen.

Consistent with mitigation. Off-road construction
equipment would utilize renewable diesel in
compliance with the In-Use Off-Road Rule. On-road
diesel trucks would also utilize these fuels consistent with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The
proposed project would implement MMs GHG-1a-c
and GHG1-f, which would require the project
applicant to include infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations, including for trucks, into a minimum of 20 percent of all vehicle parking spaces (including
parking for trucks), consistent with the applicable
CALGreen Tier 1 Nonresidential Mandatory Measure.

These measures would support the sustainable Freight
Action Plan by providing electric vehicle charging
infrastructure and zero-emission support equipment.

Low Carbon Fuels for Fuels for Buildings and
Industry. In 2030s renewable natural gas (RNG)
blended in pipeline, ramping up to 2040. Dedicated
hydrogen pipelines constructed to serve certain
industrial clusters.

Consistent. The proposed design of the building
would not provide natural gas connections; therefore,
it is not anticipated that the proposed project would
utilize natural gas. Natural gas, if it were to be utilized by the proposed project, would contain this RNG
blend as implemented by the Scoping Plan and the
energy providers.

Coordinate supply of liquid fossil fuels with
declining CA fuel demand. Phase-out oil and gas
extraction operations by 2045. Carbon Capture and
Sequestration (CCS) on majority of petroleum
refining operations by 2030. Interim goals are to
reduce petroleum production reduced in line with its
demand.

Not applicable. The proposed project is not related to
the petroleum industry.

EXHIBIT 1
Scoring Plan Measure Project Consistency
Generate clean electricity.Electric sector GHG target
of 38 MMTCO2e in 2030 and 31 MMTCO2e7 in 2045.

This GHG target is determined to meet the loads
associated with the scenario and corresponds to
meeting the 2021 SB 100 Joint Agency Report’s 100
percent of retail sales with eligible renewable and
zero-carbon resources definition.

Not applicable. The proposed project would benefit
indirectly from these goals; however, there are no
actions related to the proposed project itself.

Decarbonize industrial energy supply. Electrification
goals by industry sector specific to Food Industry,
Agriculture, and Chemical and Allied Products and
Pulp and Paper Industry for milestone years 2030
and 2045. Other Industrial Manufacturing: 0 percent
energy electrified by 2030 and 50 percent by 2045.

Construction Equipment: 25 percent energy demand
electrified by 2030 and 75 percent by 2045.

Retire all combined heat and power facilities by
2040.

Consistent with mitigation. Construction equipment
used for the proposed project would comply with ARB
off-road regulations meeting milestones for
electrification as required by regulations as
promulgated. Starting in 2024, amendments to the
off-road In-Use Diesel Rule require use of renewable
diesel consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan and
implementing the LCFS. The proposed design of the
building would not provide natural gas connections.

Reduce non-combustion emissions. This involves
two strategies targeting methane and
hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs).

Increase capture of methane and from landfill and
dairy digester and from the oil and gas
infrastructure components.

Introduction of Low GWP refrigerants introduced
as building electrification increases mitigating HFC
emissions.

Consistent. The proposed project would use low GWP
refrigerants consistent with current California
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) regulations.

Compensate for remaining emissions. This measure
uses Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) to compensate
for remaining emissions.

Not applicable. This measure relates to remaining
emissions and is not applicable at the individual
project level.

Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2022. Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November.

Given that the proposed project would incorporate MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1f and would be consistent with all current regulatory requirements as well as SB 32 and AB 1279 planning measures as outlined in the ARB 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plan updates, GHG impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Considering the proposed project’s design features, the requirement to incorporate MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1f, and the progress being made by the State toward reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the proposed project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment. Therefore, with mitigation, GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact.

EXHIBIT 1
Impacts for GHG would be less than significant with implementation of MM GHG-1a though MM GHG-1f.

Mitigation Measures
MM GHG-1aAll buildings shall be designed to provide infrastructure to support use of electric- powered forklifts and/or other interior vehicles.

MM GHG-1bOnly electric-powered off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts, indoor material handling equipment, etc.) shall be utilized on-site for daily warehouse and business operations. The project developer/facility owner shall disclose this requirement to all tenants/business entities prior to the signing of any lease agreement. In addition, the limitation to use only electric-powered off-road equipment shall be included in all leasing agreements.

MM GHG-1c All landscaping equipment used at the facility shall be electric or battery powered.

The design of the building should provide for outlets on the outside of buildings or in other accessible areas to facilitate the use of electrically powered landscape equipment.

MM GHG-1dAll buildings shall be designed to facilitate future retrofit of all current natural gas systems and appliances to electric replacements.

MM GHG-1eThe warehouse use will be limited to dry storage.

MM GHG-1f Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Community Development Department, Planning Division shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:

The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the project applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?

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

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

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

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Hazards analyzed in this section include hazardous materials, wildfires, and hazards based on proximity to airport and airstrip operations. Hazardous materials, as defined by the California Code of Regulations, are substances with certain physical properties that could pose a substantial present or future hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

EXHIBIT 1
A hazardous waste Is any hazardous material that Is discarded, abandoned, or slated to be recycled.

The criteria that define a material as hazardous also define a waste as hazardous. If improperly handled, hazardous materials and hazardous waste can result in public health hazards if released into the soil or groundwater or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. Soil and groundwater that have concentrations of hazardous constituents higher than specific regulatory levels must be handled and disposed of as hazardous waste when excavated or pumped from an aquifer. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Sections 66261.20–24 contain technical descriptions of toxic characteristics that could cause soil or groundwater to be classified as hazardous waste.

The analysis of potential hazardous material impacts relies primarily upon a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. on April 18, 2022, included in this report as Appendix E. The Phase I ESA identified a 300-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST), but determined that this does not represent an REC (recognized environmental site condition) (defined below) to the project site. Trash piles and concrete debris piles were discovered on-site and were identified as recognized environmental site conditions.

The project site has consisted of French Camp Slough in the northern portion of the site and vacant land in the mid-1910s. By the mid-1930s through the early 1950s the site consisted of French Camp Slough in the northern portion of the site and row crops. Apparent row crops continued on the site from the late 1950s through the early 1980s. The site has remained vacant from the mid-1980s to the present.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than significant impact. Construction activities would potentially require the routine transport, use, and disposal of small amounts of hazardous materials such as diesel fuels, lubricants, paints, asphalt, and solvents, which are required during construction. Handling and transportation of these materials could result in the exposure of workers or residents to hazardous materials. Project operation may include the storage of some hazardous materials in the form of typical household cleaning products. During construction and operation, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal safety codes and regulations related to transporting, using, or disposing hazardous materials, including Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; federal Clean Air Act; and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) that regulates worker safety hazards.

Construction activities that involve hazardous materials would be governed by several agencies, including California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Sonoma County Department of Health Services-Environmental Health & Safety Division, as well as applicable local regulations. Compliance with the provisions of these agencies would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials does not create a significant hazard to the public. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. An REC is defined by American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E1527-21 as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to a release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

As described above, the project site was used for agricultural purposes from the mid-1930s through the mid-1980s. Most currently used agricultural chemicals do not persist for extended periods of time in the environment if applied appropriately; however, some agricultural chemicals can persist in the environment, especially if misapplied. The application of pesticides to agricultural fields can leave trace amounts of the compounds in the soil that may accumulate overtime due to long-term applications. The site’s long-term agricultural use (~50 years) represents a REC to the site.

During the site reconnaissance, Terracon observed one approximately 300-gallon AST on the southwestern portion of the site. Terracon inspected the inside of the AST and observed water inside the tank. Staining, noxious odors, or evidence of a release was not observed in the vicinity of the observed AST. Based on the site observations, the AST does not represent a REC to the site.

During the site reconnaissance, Terracon observed trash piles, consisting of typical municipal litter, used tires, car parts, plastic, wood, concrete, abandoned vehicles, were observed on the northern portion of the site. Staining, noxious odors, or evidence of hazardous materials disposal were not observed. Based on-site observations, the debris materials did not appear to be hazardous in nature and do not represent a REC.

During the site reconnaissance, soil and concrete debris piles were observed on the northern portion of the site. Based on unknown origins of the soil and concrete debris piles, the debris represents a REC to the site.

Based on the scope of services, limitations, and conclusions of this assessment, Terracon recommends further investigation, which is included as MM HAZ-1. With incorporation of MM HAZ- 1, including subsequent testing and completion of any required remediation, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than significant impact. The French Camp Elementary School is located approximately 0.21 mile south the project site. The proposed project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space. The tenant for the building has not been identified. Because of the nature of the proposed project, it is not likely that hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste would be emitted from the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. As part of the Phase I ESA, Terracon reviewed selected federal and State environmental regulatory databases. The site was not identified on the environmental regulatory databases. The surrounding properties listed in the database report appended to the Phase I ESA do not appear to represent RECs to the site at this time based upon regulatory status, apparent topographic gradient, and/or distance from the site. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than significant impact. The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is located approximately 1 mile east of the project site. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Environs of the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area.42 Noise exposure contours were prepared in October 2017 to depict long range average annual noise exposure conditions. The project site is not located within the 2038 long range Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise exposure contours of 60 CNEL or higher.43 In addition to the cumulative noise metric, CNEL, a single event noise contour was also modeled. A commonly used method for determining the potential impact of single events on residential areas is to use sleep disturbance. The Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise (FICAN) recommends using a 10 percent awakening value associated with indoor sound exposure levels (SEL) of 80 decibels (dB). Exhibit 2G in the ALUCP illustrates the FICAN data collected regarding sleep disturbance. The project site is not located within the SEL Noise Exposure Contour.44 The project site is located within the Traffic Pattern (Zone 7a) Safety Zone.45 Zone 7a allows for a maximum nonresidential density of 450 persons per acre.46 The proposed project would comply with this density limit. Although the tenant for the warehouse has not been identified, the proposed project will comply with CBC occupancy rates, which would cap the occupancy of the building at 391 employees. Zone 7a has a 10 percent open land requirements are intended to be applied with respect to an entire zone.47This is typically accomplished as part of a community general plan or a specific plan but also applies to development projects that are 10 acres or more.48 The project site is 42 San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Exhibit 1C Stockton Metropolitan Airport – Airport Influence Area. 43 San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Exhibit 2F: Long Range CNEL Noise Exposure Contours. 44 San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Exhibit 1C Stockton Metropolitan Airport – Airport Influence Area. Exhibit 2G SEL Noise Exposure Contours
45 San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Exhibit 1C Stockton Metropolitan Airport – Airport Influence Area. Exhibit 3A Safety Zone Map 46 San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Table 3A Safety Criteria Matrix. 47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.

EXHIBIT 1

11.70 acres and X percent of the project would remain open space. Warehousing and office uses are not listed under prohibited uses for Zone 7a.49Airspace review is required for objects greater than 100 feet in height.50 The proposed warehouse building would not exceed more than 100 feet and therefore would not require airspace review. Therefore, the proposed project would be compliant with the ALUCP and impacts would be less than significant. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant impact.The project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space in a developed area of the City. Emergency preparedness is managed by the City’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) for disaster preparedness, readiness, City departments response, and mitigation.51 The City adopted its most recent version of its Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in June 2012. The EOP addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The EOP establishes the emergency management organization required to mitigate any significant emergencies and identifies roles and responsibilities required to protect the health and safety of Stockton residents and property. In addition, the EOP establishes operations concepts associated with a field response to emergencies.52The EOP recommends that all businesses develop comprehensive emergency plans but does not require them. Adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less than significant impact. Figure 4.8-1 of the General Plan illustrates that there are no High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) in the City and its SOI. However, approximately 945 acres classified Moderate FHSZ are scattered throughout the City and its SOI. The project site is not located in any of the FHSZ areas. It is located in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to wildlands.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1 Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall contract a qualified firm to complete a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) at the project site.

The Phase II ESA shall further investigate the debris pile on-site through soil 49 San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). May 2016. Amended February 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. Table 3A Safety Criteria Matrix. 50 Ibid.
51 City of Stockton. 2019. Emergency Preparedness. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/fire/emerge.html. Accessed April 1, 2023. 52 City of Stockton. June 2012. Emergency Operations Plan.

EXHIBIT 1
sampling. The project applicant shall implement all measures recommended by the Phase II ESA prior to issuance of grading permits.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Groundwater
The project site is located at the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin), which is about 5,809 square miles. More specifically, the project site is located in the Rock Creek-French Camp Slough Subbasin, consisting of about 473 square miles.

EXHIBIT 1
However, the project site receives water from COSMUD. COSMUD obtains its water from the San Joaquin River, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, and from the Stockton East Water District (SEWD). Groundwater comprised about one-third of the City’s water supplies as of 2015, but it is forecast to comprise 25 percent by 2040.53
The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is identified as a critically overdrafted groundwater basin. Average groundwater use in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is about 809,321 acre-feet per year, of which approximately 95 percent is for agricultural uses and 5 percent for municipal and industrial uses.

Historically, groundwater elevations have declined about 40 to 60 feet, averaging approximately 1.7 feet per year.54
Hydrology
The major drainage pattern in the City is westerly from the Sierra Nevada, and then northerly through the San Joaquin Valley to the San Joaquin Delta. The drainage pattern in the City includes the San Joaquin River, which flows northerly through the southern and western parts of the City.

Several tributaries extend east from the San Joaquin River, including French Camp Slough, which runs west of the project site.

Storm Drainage
The project site is currently made up of pervious surfaces, a fallow, previously cultivated field. There is a stormwater drainage ditch along the eastern edge of the project site along South McKinley Avenue. Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges from construction activities disturbing 1 acre or more of land.

The Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit in effect for Stockton and San Joaquin County is Order No. R5-2015-0024, which was issued by the Central Valley RWQCB in 2015.

Municipal Code Chapter 15.48 requires development and implementation of a SWPPP for development projects over 1 acre of land. The SWPPP shall incorporate an effective combination of BMPs customized to the site using up-to-date standards and practices as identified in the California BMP Handbooks or equivalent pre-approved by the City. Furthermore, Municipal Code Chapter

13.20 requires implementation of a Storm Water Quality Control Plan (SWQCP) for project operation.55An SWQCP is triggered when 5,000 square feet of land is disturbed and addresses stormwater volume reduction, stormwater treatment, and trash reduction.

Flooding
The project site is located primarily in an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood. The strip of land at the west of the project site adjacent to French Camp Slough has a 1 percent annual chance flood.
53 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR. June. 54 Ibid.
55 City of Stockton. 2023. Stockton, California Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Chapter 13.20.

EXHIBIT 1
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than significant impact. Because construction activities would disturb over 1-acre, the proposed project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with applicable federal and State requirements and under its Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). The SWPPP would identify BMPs that are intended to prevent erosion during construction activity.

The proposed project would develop a 184,166-square-foot building on an 11.7-acre project site.

This would result in an increase of impervious areas on the project site from 0 square feet to 373,200 square feet. The proposed project could create sources of polluted runoff due to car leaks and exhaust from cars circulating the project site. However, most runoff from the project site would be directed to an underground mechanical stormwater treatment process and discharge water into the existing ditch north of the project site, which eventually leads to French Camp Slough. The mechanical treatment process would be designed to treat stormwater volumes of up to 21,000 cubic feet and would prevent polluted runoff from degrading nearby surface waters.

The proposed project would comply with the aforementioned policies and code requirements, as well as the preparation and implementation of a SWQCP for project operation. An SWQCP is triggered when 5,000 square feet of land is disturbed and addresses stormwater volume reduction, stormwater treatment, and trash reduction. This could include installation of landscaping and an underground mechanical stormwater treatment system to ensure that stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions and that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are met.56 As such, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, impacts to water quality would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than significant impact. The project site would be served by COSMUD. As such, the percentage of groundwater used at the project site would be determined by COSMUD. The City and San Joaquin Valley region are implementing several policies and programs in order to reduce the regions reliance on groundwater. While the proposed project would create an additional 373,200 square feet of impervious surfaces, which could reduce opportunities for groundwater recharge, the proposed project would direct stormwater runoff to an underground mechanical stormwater treatment, which would assist with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 56 City of Stockton. 2023. Stockton, California, Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Chapter 13.20.

EXHIBIT 1
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than significant impact. Grading and site preparation for the proposed project would create new drainage patterns, including surface runoff being directed to the underground mechanical stormwater treatment system and eventually into the existing ditch north of the project site, which eventually leads to French Camp Slough. The mechanical treatment process would be designed to treat stormwater volumes of up to 21,000 cubic feet and would prevent polluted runoff from degrading nearby surface waters. Runoff over exposed soils could result in soil erosion. However, as discussed above, Municipal Code Chapter 15.48 requires that all developments prepare a SWPPP containing BMPs pursuant to NPDES requirements. Areas of 1 or more acres of disturbance must prepare and implement a SWPPP for the prevention of erosion during construction. Therefore, compliance with these policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less than significant impact. The project site is located primarily in an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood. The strip of land at the west of the project site adjacent to French Camp Slough has a 1 percent annual chance flood. While the proposed project would create an additional 373,200 square feet of impervious surfaces, increasing surface runoff during flood events, stormwater at the project site would be directed to an underground mechanical treatment process and discharge water into the existing ditch north of the project site, which eventually leads to French Camp Slough. The mechanical treatment process would be designed to treat stormwater volumes of up to 21,000 cubic feet, which would provide adequate capacity for rain events. This would ensure that project runoff would not exceed existing conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than significant impact. As described above, compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 15.48 would reduce sources of polluted runoff during construction to a less than significant level.

Municipal Code Chapter 13.20 requires implementation of a SWQCP for project operation.57An SWQCP is triggered when 5,000 square feet of land is disturbed and addresses stormwater volume reduction, stormwater treatment, and trash reduction. During project operation, the proposed underground mechanical stormwater treatment system would have adequate capacity to support flows from the project site in the event of a storm event, as explained above. Sidewalks and gutters would be constructed along McKinley Avenue and would direct stormwater runoff from the street to proposed stormwater pipes in McKinley Avenue. These construction and operation features would 57 City of Stockton. 2023. Stockton, California, Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Chapter 13.20.

EXHIBIT 1
ensure that the stormwater runoff would not exceed pre-project conditions, and that there would be no additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located primarily in an area with a 0.2 percent annual chance flood. The strip of land at the west of the project site adjacent to French Camp Slough has a 1 percent annual chance flood.

While the proposed project would create an additional 373,200 square feet of impervious surfaces, increasing surface runoff during flood events, stormwater at the project site would be directed to an underground mechanical stormwater treatment facility, which has the capacity to treat 21,000 cubic feet of stormwater, adequate capacity for rain events. This would ensure that project runoff would not exceed existing conditions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than significant impact. The project site is not near the coast and is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone. As described above, the project site is located in FEMA Flood Zone X, meaning it is outside of the 500-year flood zone and protected by a levee from a 100-year flood. As such, it is not likely that the project site would flood. Additionally, project features such as the underground mechanical stormwater treatment system would reduce any flooding risks. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant impact. The City of Stockton published is Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan in 2020.58 The plan outlines standards for new development, site design controls, source controls, volume reduction measures, treatment controls, and control measure maintenance as well as the process to comply with City and County Standards. As described above, the proposed project would limit impacts to water quality during project construction by creating and implementing a SWPPP with incorporated BMPs. Per the Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan requirements, the applicant would be required to submit their stormwater quality control and maintenance plan to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. Furthermore, Municipal Code Chapter 13.20 requires implementation of a SWQCP for project operation.59 An SWQCP is triggered when 5,000 square feet of land is disturbed and addresses stormwater volume reduction, stormwater treatment, and trash reduction.

Furthermore, the City is subject to the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan.60 The proposed project would get water from COSMUD, which utilizes groundwater. Therefore, COSMUD determines how much groundwater is used at the project site and the proposed project itself would not have a direct impact on groundwater usage. It would be the 58 City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin. 2020. Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan. August. 59 City of Stockton. 2023. Stockton, California Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Chapter 13.20. 60 San Joaquin County Department of Public Works. 2004. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan.

September.

EXHIBIT 1
responsibility of COSMUD to implement the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan where applicable. Therefore, impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Environmental Evaluation
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The physical division of an already established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway, railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a bridge, which would impact mobility within an existing community and an outlying area. The proposed project does not propose construction of any roadway or other structures that would physically divide any portion of the community.

The surrounding area is designated as Industrial, Open Space/Agriculture, and Low Density Residential. The project site is surrounded by a manufacturing plant to the north; South McKinley Avenue and a logistics center and a distribution center to the east; French Camp Slough, a warehouse building and lot, and a single-family residence to the south; and French Camp Slough and vacant land to the west. The proposed project would consist of the development of a warehouse facility on a site that is currently undeveloped. The project site currently has an Industrial land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed project would be in the I-L Zone upon annexation into the City, which allows for warehouse uses and supporting office uses. Therefore, there would be no. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact. The project site is designated Industrial by the General Plan. The Industrial land use designation allows for a wide variety of industrial uses, including the proposed warehousing and office uses. The maximum allowable FAR for the Industrial land use designation is

0.6. The FAR of the proposed project would be approximately 0.4, which is consistent with the maximum allowable FAR for the Industrial land use designation. Upon annexation into the City, the project site would be zoned I-L, which also allows for warehouse uses and supporting office uses.

The proposed project would be required to follow the I-L zoning district standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 16.24.130. Furthermore, per Municipal Code Chapter 16.120, the proposed EXHIBIT 1
project would undergo Design Review prior to the issuance of building permits, to ensure consistency with Stockton Municipal Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the State?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology classifies lands in the City of Fresno and along the San Joaquin River Corridor into three different Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ):

MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.

A majority of the of the City and its SOI have been designated with MRZ-1 mineral classification.61 Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
Less than significant impact. As described above, a majority of the City and its SOI has an MRZ-1 mineral classification, meaning it is unlikely that these areas contain significant mineral deposits.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Impacts would be less than significant.
61 City of Stockton. 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft Environmental Impact Report.

EXHIBIT 1
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Less than significant impact. As described above, a majority of the City and its SOI have an MRZ-1 mineral classification, meaning it is unlikely that these areas contain significant mineral deposits.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resources recovery site. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.13 Noise
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?

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

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

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
This analysis is based on the Noise Impact Analysis Report prepared by FCS, dated March 5, 2023, to determine the off-site and on-site noise impacts associated with the proposed project.

Characteristics of Noise
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in dB, a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing.

Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. Noise is typically generated by transportation, specific land uses, and ongoing human activity.

The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB. The 0 point on the dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes of 3 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. A change of 3 dB is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments. While a change of 5 A-weighted decibel (dBA) is the minimum readily perceptible change to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness.

EXHIBIT 1
Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, the dBA was derived to relate noise to the sensitivity of humans, it gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. The A-weighted sound level is the basis for several various sound level metrics, including the day/night sound level (Ldn) and the CNEL, both of which represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night. Day-Night Level (DNL) is like the CNEL scale but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening hours. CNEL and DNL are within one dBA of each other and are normally exchangeable.In addition, the equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time-varying noise over a sample periodand Lmaxis the highest exponential time-averaged sound level that occurs during a stated time period.

Common sources of noise in urban environments include mobile sources, such as traffic, and stationary sources, such as mechanical equipment or construction operations. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on each construction site and, therefore, would change the noise levels as construction progresses. Construction-period noise levels are higher than background ambient noise levels, but they eventually cease once construction is complete.

Impact Analysis
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant impact.

Construction Noise Impacts
For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if construction activities would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The City has not adopted construction-related noise thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration. The General Plan also does not contain quantitative noise standards that are specific or applicable to construction activities. Municipal Code Section 16.60.030(A) prohibits construction activities from occurring between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when the noise causes a disturbance across a residential property line, but it is not anticipated that construction for the proposed project would occur during these hours. The Municipal Code does not establish quantitative standards for construction noise. Thus, to assess the significance of the proposed project’s construction noise impacts, the following criteria are adopted:

Construction activities would result in noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leqat the property lines of nearby residential land uses.

EXHIBIT 1
Residential land uses are the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site. A small residential neighborhood is located approximately 450 feet southwest of the project site along South McKinley Avenue. The 60 dBA Leq criteria reflects the General Plan’s “normally acceptable” land use and noise compatibility for residential land uses. Therefore, the criteria measures whether the proposed project’s noise levels would be considered “normally acceptable” for residential land uses.

Construction Equipment Operational Noise
Construction of the proposed project would generate noise during the approximately 8-month schedule of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and other construction activities. The proposed project is anticipated to utilize a standard five-day work week, and construction would occur during standard daytime hours, which are generally between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Construction would not occur during the nighttime hours specified in Municipal Code Section 16.60.030(A) (i.e., 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Therefore, construction would not result in violations of this regulation.

Noise from grading activities is typically the foremost concern when evaluating a project’s construction noise impact, as grading activities often require extensive use of heavy-duty, diesel- powered earthmoving equipment. For the proposed project, grading would have the greatest—and noisiest—construction vehicle requirements, as multiple grading vehicles would be required to grade the approximate 11.7-acre project site. Other construction phases would have reduced vehicle requirements. For example, building construction could at times require a crane truck, several construction forklifts, and skid steer loaders. These vehicles are much less powerful than the types of heavy-duty graders and scrapers that would be required to grade the project site, and consequently have lower operational noise levels. Given this consideration, the following analysis assesses noise impacts that may result from the proposed project’s grading activities.

Grading for the proposed project is estimated to last approximately four weeks. The bulk of grading activities would be characterized by extensive use of graders and scrapers, which would be utilized across the project site to level the site and establish proper slopes and drainages. These are mobile vehicles that would operate by driving across the project site, grading the land as they go. Their construction noise levels at surrounding residential land uses would be higher when they operate closer to the project site’s boundaries that are nearest to residential land uses, and lower when they operate farther away. As such, on average, daily noise levels from these vehicles at the nearest residential land uses are likely to be no greater than 58.8 dBA Leq on any given grading workday. At other, farther residential land uses, noise levels would be further reduced. Noise levels would not exceed the 60 dBA Leqthreshold criteria for residential land uses. As a result, construction-related noise impacts to residential land uses would be considered less than significant.

Construction-related Traffic Noise
Haul trips, construction worker vehicle trips, and other construction-related trips would occur over the course of the proposed project’s construction. Haul trips typically have the greatest potential to result in substantial off-site noise increases along nearby roadways. However, the project site is anticipated to be balanced, meaning that it would not require any haul trips to export or import fill EXHIBIT 1
material. Construction worker vehicle trips and vendor deliveries would generate intermittent noise as these vehicles drive by roadside sensitive receptors, but they would not be capable of sustaining noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leq. As a result, noise from the proposed project’s construction vehicles would be considered less than significant.

Off-site Mobile Source Operational Noise Impacts
For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project’s off-site mobile sources (i.e., vehicle traffic) would generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed project and any nearby roadways. The City has not adopted mobile operational-related noise thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration, but the City’s General Plan contains policies that would apply to the proposed project’s mobile source operational noise impacts. General Plan Policy SAF-2.5A prohibits new industrial land uses from exposing existing noise-sensitive land uses to noise levels in excess of 70 dBA CNEL. Municipal Code Section 16.60.040 establishes a more stringent 65 dBA Ldnstandard for noise-sensitive land uses. As such, the following analysis adopts the stricter Code-based 65 dBA Ldnstandard for assessment of the proposed project’s mobile source operational noise impacts.

According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Advanced Mobility Group, the proposed project would generate an estimated 378 daily vehicle trips, including 40 AM peak-hour trips and 44 PM peak-hour trips.62The applicant anticipates that of these daily vehicle trips, approximately 20 would consist of heavy-duty truck trips. Individually, this level of traffic would not correspond with roadway noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Ldn, which is approximately the noise level of a busy arterial roadway.

As proposed project-related traffic would not generate daily noise levels in excess of 65 dBA Ldn, the proposed project’s mobile source operational noise impact would be considered less than significant.

On-site Operational Noise Impacts
For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project’s on-site noise sources (i.e., parking lot operations, on-site truck loading, etc.) would generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels surrounding the proposed project.

The City has not adopted operational-related noise thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration. The following criteria to determine significance are based on the City’s applicable General Plan and Municipal Code noise standards, or whichever is more stringent for the given receptor or noise source. The proposed project’s noise impact from on-site operational sources would be considered significant if any of the following were to occur:

On-site operational sources would expose adjoining industrial land uses to noise levels in excess of 80 dBA Lmaxor 70 dBA Ldn.
62 Advanced Mobility Group. 2022. Traffic Impact Study for Industrial Development @ 6505 South McKinley Avenue East, Stockton, California. Accessed March 9, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
On-site operational sources would expose nearby residential land uses to noise levels in excess of 75 dBA Lmaxor 55 dBA Leqduring daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., or 65 dBA Lmax or 45 dBA Leq during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

The proposed project would generate noise from a variety of on-site noise sources, such as parking lot activities, new exterior mechanical equipment sources, and truck loading and unloading.

Potential impacts from these noise sources are discussed below.

Parking Lot Activities
The proposed project’s parking facilities and the intermittent noises associated with them (e.g., doors slamming, engines starting, etc.) would have a nominal effect on surrounding exterior noise levels. According to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) equations for the prediction of parking facility noise impacts, a facility with an hourly activity of 44 vehicles (equivalent to the proposed project’s maximum hourly trip generation) would be expected to result in a noise level of just 43 dBA Leqat a reference distance of 50 feet. Thus, nearby industrial and noise-sensitive land uses would not be exposed to parking-related noise levels in excess of the threshold criteria.

Mechanical Equipment Operations
At the time of preparation of this analysis, details were not available pertaining to the proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems for the project; therefore, a reference noise level for typical rooftop mechanical ventilation systems was used. Noise levels from commercially available rooftop mechanical ventilation equipment range from 50 dBA to 60 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. Thus, industrial land uses adjoining the project site would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the minimum 70 dBA Ldn criteria as a result of this equipment. Residential land uses that are over 400 feet from the project site would experience noise levels that are well below 30 dBA Leq and likely inaudible altogether. Thus, nearby industrial and noise-sensitive land uses would not be exposed to mechanical equipment operational noise levels in excess of the threshold criteria.

Truck Loading Activities
Noise would also be generated by truck loading and unloading activities at the loading docks along the south side of the proposed project. Typical maximum noise levels from truck loading and unloading activity are 70 dBA Lmaxas measured at 50 feet. These maximum noise levels include noise from associated truck loading/unloading activity, including trucks maneuvering, truck trailer loading, truck trailer unloading, backup alarms or beepers, and truck docking noise.

The nearest adjoining industrial uses are located over 100 feet from the proposed project’s loading areas and thus would be exposed to loading/unloading noise levels that are well below the minimum 70 dBA Ldn criteria as a result.

At the nearest residential land uses that are over 450 feet away, maximum noise levels from unloading/loading activities would attenuate to below 50 dBA Lmax. Because the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 20 truck trips per day, such unloading/loading activities would be intermittent and would not be expected to cause sustained noise levels in excess of 45 dBA Leqat EXHIBIT 1
residential land uses, because noise generated by these activities would not be continuous. Thus, nearby industrial and noise-sensitive land uses would not be exposed to truck loading/unloading- noise levels in excess of the threshold criteria.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. This section analyzes both construction and operational groundborne vibration and noise impacts. Groundborne vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions within the ground that have an average motion of zero. Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate vibration waves through various soil and rock strata to the foundations of nearby buildings.

Groundborne noise is generated when vibrating building components radiate sound, or noise generated by groundborne vibration. In general, if groundborne vibration levels do not exceed levels considered to be perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Therefore, this analysis focuses on determining exceedances of groundborne vibration levels.

A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards. Municipal Code Section 16.32.100 prohibits the generation of ground vibration that “is perceptible without instruments by the average person at any point along or beyond the property line of the parcel containing the activities, cause discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or peace of residents whose property abuts the property lines of the parcel, and interferes with the operations of equipment and facilities of adjoining parcels.” However, vibrations from temporary construction or demolition activities and motor vehicle operations are exempt from this regulation. Therefore, the FTA’s vibration impact criteria are utilized for the purpose of this analysis. The FTA has established industry accepted standards for vibration impact criteria and impact assessment. These guidelines are published in its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.63
Short-term Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would require a variety of large, steel-tracked earthmoving vehicles. Of the variety of equipment used during construction, the large vibratory rollers that are anticipated to be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Large vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.201 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

The nearest off-site structure to the project construction footprint is a barn structure located south of the project site. The façade of this closest structure would be located approximately 270 feet from the construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.005 in/sec PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA’s 63 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Accessed September .

EXHIBIT 1
Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 in/sec PPV for this type of structure, a building of nonengineered timber construction. Therefore, project construction activities would not generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards, and the impact to off-site receptors from short-term groundborne vibration associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any new permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments beyond the boundary line of the project property. Additionally, there are no active sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity that would produce vibration levels that would be perceptible without instruments within the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of established standards and there would be no impact related to operational groundborne vibration. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip nor public airport.

The nearest airport, Stockton Metropolitan Airport, is located 1.2 miles east of the project site.

According to the airport’s noise exposure map, the project site is located well outside of the 60 dBA CNEL airport noise contours.64 Therefore, aircraft noise associated with nearby airport activity would not expose people residing or working near the project site to excessive noise levels. On this basis, implementation of the proposed project would not expose persons residing or working in the project vicinity to noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of normally acceptable standards for the proposed land use development, and no impact would occur. Moreover, the proposed project is not a noise-sensitive land use; its development at the project site would not present a land use and noise compatibility issue.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
64 San Joaquin County. 2018. San Joaquin County’s Aviation System Stockton Metropolitan Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. February.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
According to the California Department of Finance (CDF), the estimated population of the City in January 2022 was 322,489.65This represents a 0.43 percent decrease from the 2021 population of 323,884.66The General Plan is projected to attract an additional 132,200 residents from 2018 levels, bringing the total population to 452,800 by the year 2040.67 The General Plan specifies that the City has approximately 100,300 homes with an average of 3.23 people per household.

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. Unplanned direct population growth would occur if the project produced a population growth not anticipated and evaluated by the City of Stockton in its General Plan. The proposed project would not include residential uses and therefore is not anticipated to create a population increase. While some employees could relocate to the City for employment at the proposed project, it is unlikely that a significant number of employees would do so.

Furthermore, the proposed project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction. These employees would be temporary and limited to the project construction period.

Given that the temporary construction-period spans approximately nine months, the local labor pool 65 California Department of Finance (CDF). 2022. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State, 2021-2022, with 2020 Census Benchmark. Website: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-population-estimates-for-cities-counties- and-the-state-2021-2022-with-2020-census-benchmark/. Accessed April 1, 2023. 66 1 - (322,489/323,884) = .0043, or .43%
67 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 Draft EIR. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
would be expected to satisfy labor demands of the project. As a result, construction workers would not require permanent relocation, resulting in population growth in the City.

Thus, the proposed project would not induce significant indirect population growth. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and does not contain any residential structures. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any people our housing. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

2.15 Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Fire
The project site is currently within the French Camp-McKinley Fire Protection District. Should the project site be annexed, the Stockton Fire Department (SFD) would provide fire protection services.

SFD operates 13 stations and is staffed by 182 sworn fire personnel and 35 civilian employees.68 There are five divisions within the SFD: Engine and Truck Company, Training Division, Communications Division, Hazardous Materials (Haz Mat) Division, Swift Water and Dive Rescue Team, and Urban Search and Rescue Team.69
The average response time from Station 5 to a fire call is approximately 6.5 minutes, which is typical for stations located on the City’s periphery. The City is currently exploring the options for construction and staffing of an additional South Stockton fire station to improve Fire Department services and response times to the South Stockton area, including new industrial development. The station is expected to be financed by a Community Facilities District under which a special tax would be imposed upon new development within the district. The closest fire station to the project site is Stockton Fire Station 5, located approximately 1.9 miles northwest at 3499 Manthey Road.

Police
Law enforcement services to the project site are currently provided by the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department. Upon annexation of the project site, law enforcement services would be provided by the Stockton Police Department (SPD). SPD is divided into six divisions: Field Operations 68 City of Stockton. 2022. Fire Department. Website: http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/fire/default.html.

Accessed June 21, 2022.
69 City of Stockton. 2022. Neighborhood Fire Stations. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/fire/neighb.html. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
Division, Special Operations Division, Investigations Division, Technical Services Division, Administrative Services Division, and Department support sections. For the year 2020-2021, SPD handled 654,463 requests for service with an average response time of 5 minutes or less.70,71As of 2018, the average response time for priority one calls in Stockton was 5 to 6 minutes.72 The SPD is staffed by 485 sworn personnel and 227 civilian support employees.73The closest police station to the project site is located at 7000 Michael Canlis Boulevard approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site.

Schools
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.74The 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.

Parks
The City of Stockton Community Services Department maintains and operates 66 neighborhood, community, and regional parks.75 The General Plan calls for at least 2 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 residents and 3 acres of community parks and regional parks per 1,000 residents by 2040.76 The City currently has 215 acres of neighborhood parks and 411 acres of community park, and 180 acres of regional parks. To meet the goal outline in the General Plan, the City must add 430 acres of neighborhood parks,77 557 acres of community parks,78 and 790 acres of regional parks by 2040.79 The closest park to the site is William Long Park, located approximately 1.70 miles northwest of the project site.

Other Public Facilities
Other public facilities include libraries, community recreation centers, public infrastructure, and hospitals. Library services are provided by Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library system. The closest library to the project site is Weston Ranch Branch Library, located approximately 2 miles northwest of the project site at 1453 West French Camp Road. 70 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Website: http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/Adopted_Plan.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.
71 City of Stockton. 2022. FY 2022-23 Proposed Annual Budget. Proposed budget. http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/2022- 23_Proposed_Budget_Book.pdf
72 City of Stockton. 2018. 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft Environmental Impact Report. 73 Stockton Police Department (SPD). 2020. Strategic Plan 2020-2022. Website: http://ww1.stocktonca.gov/-/media/Stockton- Website/Departments/Police-Homepage/Images/Docs/SPD-Strategic-Plan-2020_2022-Final- Draft.pdf?la=en&hash=8C5CFC572E581225C2AF4B0679590C59593CCE00. Accessed April 1, 2023. 74 Stockton Unified School District (SUSD). 2022. SUSD Fast Facts. Website:
https://www.stocktonusd.net/site/Default.aspx?PageID=356. Accessed April 1, 2023. 75 City of Stockton. 2022. Parks and Community Centers. Website: http://www.stocktonca.gov/discover/pcc.html. Accessed April 1, 2023.
76 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Website: http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/Adopted_Plan.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.
77 [(322,489/1000) x 2] - 215 = 430
78 [(322,489/1,000) x 3] - 411 = 557
79 [(322,489/1,000) x 3] - 180 = 790
EXHIBIT 1
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space in a developed area of the City. Adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building. Construction of the proposed project could increase demand for fire protection services. To address increases, Municipal Code Section 16-17.260, the project applicant would be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee. Payment of these fees would be used to ensure that SFD could maintain service levels given any indirect population increase associated with the proposed project.80 Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Police protection?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space in a developed area of the City. Construction of the proposed project could increase demand for police. However, in compliance with Municipal Code Section 16-

17.260, the project applicant would be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee. Payment of these fees would be used to ensure that SPD could serve the proposed project and any associated increase in population.81 Therefore, with the payment of required Public Facilities Fees, impacts would be less than significant impact.
c) Schools?
Less than significant impact. District-wide, MUSD student enrollment in kindergarten to sixth grade exceeds available capacity, but the high school enrollment does not do so. The MUSD collects required school impact fees and coordinates with residential developers to ensure that sufficient capacity exists within the school system to accommodate the indirect student population generated by development of the project.

The proposed project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space in a developed area of the City. The proposed project contains warehouse and office uses and does not propose any residential units. Therefore, any increase in population is unlikely or would be negligible. Additionally, the project applicant would be subject to a Developer Fee Rate from SUSD of 80 City of Stockton. 2022. Public Facility Fees. Website:
https://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/communityDevelop/cdPff.html. Accessed April 1, 2023. 81 Ibid.

EXHIBIT 1
$0.61 per square foot of development 82With payment of the required impact fees, impacts to school facilities would be less than significant.
d) Parks?
Less than significant impact.The proposed project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space in a developed area of the City. This could increase the demand for park use in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, as described in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project does not propose any residential units and an increase in population is unlikely. As noted above, the project applicant would be required to pay the Public Facility Fees. Payment of these fees would be used to help the City meet its goals of 2 acres of neighborhood parks and 3 acres of community and regional parks per resident by 2040. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Other public facilities?
Less than significant impact. The project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space in a developed area of the City. Other public facilities include libraries, community recreation centers, public infrastructure, and hospitals. Library services are provided by Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library system. The closest library to the project site is Weston Ranch Branch Library, located approximately 2 miles northwest of the proposed project site at 1453 West French Camp Road. The closest hospital to the site is San Joaquin General Hospital, located approximately 3,918 feet southwest of the project site at 500 West Hospital Road. As described in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project does not propose any residential units and an increase in population is unlikely or would be negligible. The Public Facility Fees are used to increase the service area and capacity of nearly all public facilities and would help cover the cost of any required additional facilities. Therefore, payment of required development fees would result in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
82 Stockton Unified School District (SUSD). 2022. Developer Fees Rates & Reports. Website: https://www.stocktonusd.net/Page/402.

Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

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

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The City of Stockton Community Services Department maintains and operates 66 neighborhood, community, and regional parks.83 The General Plan calls for at least 2 acres of neighborhood parks per 1,000 residents and 3 acres of community parks and regional parks per 1,000 residents.84The closest park to the site is William Long Park, located approximately 1.70 miles northwest of the proposed project site at 4535 Woodchase Lane. The closest community center is Taft Community Center, located 1.73 miles northwest of the project site at 398 Downing Avenue. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and facilities. As described above, the proposed project contains warehouse and office uses, and does not propose any residential units. Therefore, an increase in population that would increase the use of parks is unlikely. Additionally, prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant will be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee, which would be used to build additional public facilities, including parks when necessary.85 As described above, there are multiple parks available for use in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the proposed project would be served by adequate recreational facilities and would not substantially increase physical deterioration of a recreational facility. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 83 City of Stockton. 2022. Parks and Community Centers. Website: http://www.stocktonca.gov/discover/pcc.html. Accessed April 1, 2022.
84 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. Website: http://www.stocktonca.gov/files/Adopted_Plan.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.
85 City of Stockton. 2022. Public Facility Fees. Website:
https://www.https://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/communityDevelop/cdPff.html. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No impact.The proposed project contains warehouse and office uses and does not propose any residential units. Therefore, an increase in population that would increase the use of parks is unlikely. As described above, there are multiple parks available for use in the vicinity of the project site. The closest park to the site is William Long Park, located approximately 1.70 miles northwest of the proposed project site, and the closest community center is Taft Community Center, located 1.73 miles from the project site. Furthermore, prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant would be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee, which would be used to help increase the service areas of and build additional public facilities, including and parks when necessary.86 The proposed the proposed project does not include the construction of expansion of any recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As such, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
86 City of Stockton. 2022. Public Facility Fees. Website:
https://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/communityDevelop/cdPff.html. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.17 Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Environmental Evaluation
Setting
The following analysis is based on the TIS dated February 21, 2022, prepared by Advanced Mobility Group and included in Appendix G.87
Street Network
The following transportation facilities provide access to the project site.

Regional Roadways
I-5 is major north–south freeway connecting San Diego to the south and Seattle to the north. In the project area, I-5 extends southward from Stockton as an eight-to-six-lane divided freeway. I-5 connects to I-205, approximately 8 miles to the south of Stockton. I-205 connects to I-580, 13 miles to the west of the connection between I-5 and I-205. I-205 and I-580 provide access to regional employment centers in Pleasanton, San Ramon, and the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Near the project site, I-5 is a six-lane freeway. Primary access to the project site from I-5 is provided via interchanges at French Camp Road and West Mathews Road. The interchange of I-5/French Camp Road is configured as a partial cloverleaf with northwest/southeast loops. The interchange of I- 5/West Mathews Road is configured as a tight diamond interchange.

SR-99 is located approximately three miles to the east of I-5 near the project area. SR-99 is a north– south freeway that provides access to Sacramento to the north and Bakersfield to the south.

Residents rely primarily on SR-99 for access to the Central Valley (cities like Fresno, Modesto, and 87 Advanced Mobility Group. 2022. Traffic Impact Study for Industrial Development @ 6505 South McKinley Avenue East, Stockton, California. March 9.

EXHIBIT 1
Merced). Near the project site, SR-99 is a six-lane freeway. Primary access to the project site is provided via an interchange at Arch Airport Road/Arch Road.

Local Roadways
South McKinley Avenue East is a two-lane north–south local street adjacent to the proposed project. The roadway starts from South El Dorado Street to the north and ends at French Camp Road to the south. Two-way left-turn lane is available adjacent to the project frontage. Sidewalk is available on the southbound side ending at the first proposed project driveway east of the project site. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).

El Dorado Street is a four-lane north–south major arterial roadway that provides connections from downtown Stockton to the southern portion of the City. It is located west of the project site and serves as a major transit route in Stockton. The roadway is proposed as a Class IV facility near the project site as part of the 2017 Stockton Bicycle Master Plan. The speed limit is 45 mph near the project site.

French Camp Road is a two to four-lane minor arterial roadway to the west of the project site that connects Weston Ranch to South McKinley Road and provides a connection to I-5. Traffic coming from the north (Stockton and Sacramento) on I-5 will use this road to get to the project site. Class II facilities are available to the west of the intersection with I-5. The speed limit is 30 mph near the project site.

Arch Airport Road is a three to six-lane east–west major arterial roadway that connects French Camp Road in the west to Arch Road in the east. It serves as a connection between I-5 and SR-99.

Traffic coming from the north (Stockton and Sacramento) on SR-99 will use this roadway to get to the proposed project. Class I facilities are available on near the project site on the Arch Airport Road overpass between French Camp Road and Sperry Road. The speed limit is 45 mph.

Sperry Road is a two to four-lane east–west minor arterial roadway that connects South McKinley Avenue East in the west to Arch Airport Road in the east. The speed limit is 35 mph near the project site.

Arch Road is a two to four-lane east–west arterial roadway to the east of the project site that connects Arch Airport Road to Austin Road and provides access to SR-99 and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Stockton Intermodal Facility. Traffic coming from the south (Tracy, Manteca, Bay Area) on SR-99 will use this road to get to the project site. The speed limit is 30 mph.

West and East Mathews Road is a two to four-lane east–west arterial roadway that connects from Ash Street in the east to South Wolfe Road in the east and provides a connection to I-5. Traffic coming from the south (Tracy, Manteca, Bay Area) on I-5 will use this road to get to the project site.

It is located west of the project site and serves as a transit route in Stockton. The speed limit is 25 mph.

Ash Street is a two-lane local road that connects French Camp Road and East Mathews Road. The speed limit is 25 mph.

EXHIBIT 1
Harland Road is a two-lane local road that extends from French Camp Road and to the southern city limits. The speed limit is 25 mph.

As noted above:

Sidewalks are provided on the southbound side of South McKinley Avenue.

Class I bicycle facilities are located on the Arch Airport Road overpass between French Camp Road and Sperry Road.88
A Class II bicycle facility is located on French Camp Road west of its intersection with I-5.89 A Class IV bicycle facility is located on El Dorado Street.90They are proposed on Sperry Road, Arch Airport Road east of Airport Way, and French Camp Road from I-5 SB On/Off Ramp intersection to Arch Airport Road overpass.

Transit Service
Transit service within the study area is provided by San Joaquin Regional Transit District. There are several bus stops located within the vicinity of the project area provided by the Number 510 local bus service line. The El Dorado and French Camp stop on the 510 bus line is located approximately

0.8-mile from the project site.

Study Intersections

1. French Camp Road/I-5 Southbound Ramp

2. French Camp Road/I-5 Northbound Ramp

3. French Camp Road/Arch Airport Road

4. French Camp Road/El Dorado Street

5. Arch Airport Road/Airport Way

6. McKinley Avenue/Sperry Road

7. Arch Airport Road/SR 99 Single Point

8. French Camp Road/South McKinley Avenue

9. French Camp Road/Ash Street

10. Ash Street/Harland Road

11. East Matthews Road/El Dorado Street

12. East Matthews Road/I-5 Northbound Ramp

13. East Matthews Road/I-5 Southbound Ramp

88 A Class I Bikeway is a Bike Path provides a separate right-of-way and is designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with vehicle and pedestrian crossflow minimized.
89 A Class II Bikeway is a Bike Lane provides a restricted right-of-way and is designated for the use of bicycles with a striped lane on a street or highway. Vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian crossflow are permitted. 90 A Class IV Bikeway isa Separated Bikeway/Cycle Track provides a cycle track or protected bike lane for the exclusive use of bicycles, physically separated from motor traffic with a vertical feature.

EXHIBIT 1
Regional Regulations
Caltrans Standards
Facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans include freeway segments, ramps, ramp terminals, and arterials. Caltrans is responsible for the maintenance and operation of State routes and highways. In Stockton, Caltrans facilities include I-5 and SR-99. Although Caltrans has not designated a Level of Service (LOS) standard, Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies indicates attempts to maintain LOS of a State highway facility between the LOS “C/D” threshold. When existing State highway facilities are operating at higher LOS than noted above, 20-year forecasts or general plan buildout analysis for the facility should be considered to establish equitable project contributions to local development impact fee programs that address cumulative traffic impacts.

CEQA no longer requires an LOS analysis. However, an LOS analysis is provided in the TIS included in Appendix G.

County Standards
SJCOG is responsible for the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). SJCOG is responsible for designated county roadways and intersections of regional significance. The minimum acceptable LOS for CMP designated roadways and intersections is LOS D4. Therefore, the TIS uses LOS D as the minimum acceptable standard and mitigation measures are recommended where service levels are below LOS D along roadways and intersections designated in the CMP . CEQA no longer requires an LOS analysis. However, an LOS analysis is provided in the TIS included in Appendix G.

Local Regulations
General Plan Goal TR-4: Effective Transportation Assessments Ensure that traffic related-related impacts of proposed land uses are evaluated and mitigated.

Policy TR-1.1 Ensure that roadways safely and efficiently accommodate all modes and users, including private, commercial, and transit vehicles, as well as bicycles and pedestrians and vehicles for disabled travelers.

Policy TR-4.1 Utilize Level of Service (LOS) information to aid understanding of potential major increase to vehicle delay at key intersections.

Action TR-4.1A Strive for Level of Service (LOS) D or better for both daily roadway segment and peak-hour intersections operations, except for the following additional exceptions in the project area roadways:

French Camp Road, I-5 to Val Dervin Parkway–LOS F (Because of the physical constraints that limit the improvements that could be constructed.) Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
EXHIBIT 1
Less than significant impact.This section assesses whether the proposed project is consistent with applicable regional and local transportation programs, plans ordinances, and policies that were summarized in the Regulatory Framework, above.

Transit Facilities
As described above, the project site is located 0.8-mile from the nearest 510 bus stop. As such, employees taking the 510 bus stop could reasonably walk to the project site. The proposed project would not conflict with General Plan policies related to transit service.

Bicycle Facilities
As described above, there is a Class I bicycle facility located on the Arch Airport Road overpass 1.3 miles from the project site, a Class II bicycle facility on French Camp Road 1.7 miles from the project site, and a Class IV bicycle facility located on El Dorado Street. Class IV bicycle facilities are proposed on Sperry Road, Arch Airport Road, and French Camp Road in the City’s Circulation Element. A Class I bicycle path is currently located along portions of Sperry Road.

There are no bicycle facilities at close walking distance from the project site. According to the Stockton Bicycle Master Plan, there are no plans for future bicycle facilities near the project site. The proposed project will not decrease safety or access to the surrounding area, so it will have no impact on bicycle facilities.

Pedestrian Facilities
As described above, there are existing sidewalks to the north of the project site on South McKinley Avenue. The width of the sidewalks are 8 feet. However, there is a sidewalk gap along South McKinley Avenue adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would install sidewalk along this gap. Therefore, the proposed project would be compliant with General Plan Policy TR-1.1 and access to pedestrian facilities from the project site is expected to be adequate.

The proposed project would not conflict with policies in the General Plan or the Stockton Bicycle Master Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant impact. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for the proposed project was completed using the General Plan model for the base Cumulative Year and the Cumulative Plus Project Analysis. The City’s VMT threshold for office land use is 15 percent below the Citywide average for home-based work VMT per employee. The VMT threshold for other land uses is on a case-by-case basis.

Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, the estimate daily trips generated by the proposed project would be approximately 378 daily trips.

One of the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) near the area, TAZ 232, contains similar industrial and office land use as the proposed project. The City of Stockton VMT guidelines stipulated use of home-based EXHIBIT 1
work (HBW) VMT for the proposed project. The VMT per employee from TAZ 232 was used to represent the No Build (NB) condition. The VMT per employee for the With Project (WP) condition was then estimated (project TAZ 276). The estimated VMT per employee for the NB and WP is summarized in Table 12 below.

Table 12: VMT per Employee Summary
TAZ VMT/HBW EMP VMT per Employee
2015 NB 232 8271 401 20.6
2015 WP 276 4782 216 22.1
2040 NB 232 9496 439 21.6
2040 WP 276 4773 216 22.1
Notes:

EMP = employees
NB = No Build condition
TAZ = Traffic Analysis Zones
VMT/HBW = Home Based Work
WP = With Project condition
Source: Advanced Mobility Group. 2022. Traffic Impact Study for Industrial Development @ 6505 South McKinley Avenue East, Stockton, California. March 9.

The City’s significance thresholds for daily VMT are 18.56 for the year 2015 and 15.78 for the year 2040. The NB scenario daily VMT per employee estimate without the proposed project was approximately 21.6 for the year 2040. The WP scenario daily VMT per employee estimate was approximately 22.1. The VMT per employee estimate for 2040 in the WP is approximately 40 percent higher than the threshold required by the City. As such, the project would be required to implement several TDM strategies in order to reduce VMT per employee. These TDM strategies and considerations are included in MM TRANS-1. Based on CAPCOA research, the location of the project within an area that is within 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.

Table 13: TDM Reduction Measures
TDM Measure/Strategy
Estimated VMT
Reduction Description
Land Use/Location
Destination Accessibility 13% 4.2 miles from Downtown/Job Center Neighborhood/Site Enhancements
Pedestrian Network Improvements 2% Project provides pedestrian improvements on-site and connecting off-site
EXHIBIT 1
TDM Measure/Strategy
Estimated VMT
Reduction Description
Provide Electric Vehicle Parking 2% Project provides electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and EV only parking
Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR)
Required CTR Program 21% Includes TDM Coordinator, rideshare program, encourage alternative work
schedules, trip reduction marketing
Freight Transport Management 4% Freight Transport Management Program would be used
Price Workplace Parking 2% Project will implement workplace parking pricing
Total TDM Reduction 38% –
Notes:
* Measures are referenced in "Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures" report in CAPCOA With implementation of MM TRANS-1, impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Collisions reported at study intersections near the project frontage on S McKinley Avenue were obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database for a period of five years from January 2017 to December 2021.

There were 21 crashes reported in this area, with no fatal or severe injuries. The total collisions at the two nearest intersections on French Camp Road/S McKinley Avenue and South McKinley Avenue/Sperry Avenue are one (1) and zero (0) respectively. This is not considered high. As such, the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) determined that existing corridor conditions and collision patterns would not necessitate any potential improvement countermeasures at this time.

Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways along South McKinley Avenue. At driveways, a clear line of site should be provided between the vehicle waiting at the driveway and the approaching vehicle. The vehicle waiting to either cross, turn left, or turn right, through the driveway should have sufficient time to make that maneuver without requiring the through traffic to drastically alter their speed.

The recommended sight distance standards include a stopping site distance of 250 feet for a design speed of 35 mph. Field observations conducted for the TIS found that this site distance of both proposed driveways would be compliant with this standard.

In addition, based on Municipal Code Section 16.36.140, the required sight area dimension is a 30 feet by 30 feet sight triangle from the corner of the property line. Any improvements, vegetation, or other obstructions within that sight triangle area must be less than 30 inches from the ground. Sight EXHIBIT 1
Distance at both driveways is adequate since all landscaping on South McKinley Avenue would be maintained below 30 inches high.

Furthermore, the TIS evaluates project truck circulation. As a vehicle approach the project site from French Camp Road to the south on South McKinley Avenue East, the vehicle would encounter a horizontal curve on the road that leads to the driveway. Any vehicle driveway northbound might meet a large truck waiting on the median to enter the driveway. Because of the horizontal curve, a fast driving vehicle might not be able to stop in time and could rear end a large truck. As such, MM TRANS-2 requires that trucks only be allowed to exit and not enter the southernmost project driveway.

Because collision risk in the area is low and site distance and truck circulation would be adequate, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than significant impact. The project consists of the construction of a warehouse building and associated office space in a developed area of the City. Emergency preparedness is managed by the City’s OES for disaster preparedness, readiness, City departments response, and mitigation.91 The City adopted its most recent version of its EOP in June 2012. The EOP addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The EOP establishes the emergency management organization required to mitigate any significant emergencies and identifies roles and responsibilities required to protect the health and safety of Stockton residents and property. In addition, the EOP establishes operations concepts associated with a field response to emergencies.92The EOP recommends that all businesses develop comprehensive emergency plans but does not require them. Adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building. Furthermore, the TIS evaluated truck circulation at the project site and determined that it would be adequate with implementation of MM TRANS-2.

Therefore, it can be assumed that large emergency vehicles would be able to circulate the project site safely. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1 Transportation Demand Management
The project shall implement the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as detailed in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA):

1. Pedestrian Network Improvements.
91 City of Stockton. 2019. Emergency Preparedness. Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/fire/emerge.html. Accessed April 1, 2023. 92 City of Stockton. June 2012. Emergency Operations Plan.

EXHIBIT 1
Provide a safe and accessible pedestrian network that links the project site to other areas. The proposed project would provide design elements that enhance walkability and connectivity, including low-speed internal roadways. The proposed project will also close the City’s sidewalk gap and provide a connection to the City’s existing sidewalk network.

2. Electric Vehicle Parking and Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network The project will provide NEV parking, charging facilities, striping, and signage.

3. Commuter Trip Reduction Program
The proposed project would implement a Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR) program. The following strategies would be implemented as part of the program:
a. Implement a Commuter Trip Reduction Program
i. TDM Coordinator:

This person would be responsible for implementing and managing the proposed project’s TDM plan, ensure all employees are aware of all available transportation options, and serve as the point of contact for all employees to answer any TDM-related questions. The following services would be provided by the TDM Coordinator:

Provide information packets to all new employees.

Set up and maintain an on-site and/or online TDM board/kiosk with information on non-auto transportation alternatives and promotional programs.

Provide trip planning assistance to employees considering an alternative mode, including carpool/vanpool ride-matching and bicycle buddy matching services.

The appointed Transportation Coordinator would provide
transportation information packets to all new residents and employees upon move-in. The packets would include local and regional bikeway maps, bicycling resources, local and regional transit maps, locations of nearest transit stops, local and regional transit schedules of adjacent routes, trip planning resources, ride-matching/sharing programs, and contact information for the Transportation Coordinator. The new tenant information packets would also be made available to employees via the on-site and/or online TDM board.
ii. TDM Marketing/TDM board
The TDM Coordinator will maintain an on-site TDM board with information on transportation alternatives. The information provided should contain information on:

Local and regional transit routes
Ride-matching services and any available discount/incentive programs Trip planning resources in San Joaquin County and the City of Stockton Safety tips for cyclists and pedestrians
To be effective, the coordinator will need to update the board with up- to-date information, commuter alerts, and new proposed TDM measures or incentives. Along with this board, the TDM Coordinator EXHIBIT 1
will also need to continuously promote TDM measures through marketing. Marketing can be accomplished through the following measures:
- Yearly survey of employees on their modes of transportation to work - Marketing campaigns/events to encourage alternative travel modes - Produce courses/guides that promote the benefits of alternative transportation
iii. Ride Sharing/Carpooling
TDM Coordinator would set up a ride sharing/carpooling program that can increase vehicle occupancy and reduces the number of vehicles driving the same trip, resulting in decreased TDM. To encourage carpooling, the proposed project would provide a designated on-site passenger loading space and provide an on-site and/or online message board for coordinating rides.

The coordinator would also provide information on the Van Go! Rideshare service as part of the TDM Board and the new employee guide. This service can be used throughout San Joaquin County and is booked through an online website or mobile application. Up to three people in the group can use this service with the first 5 miles driven costs $4 per person. Any additional miles after those first five miles using the service cost $0.50 per person.
iv. Alternative Work Schedule Program
TDM Coordinator would setup an alternative work schedules program that can help reduce peak-period commute and accommodate ride sharing. Alternative work schedules include:

Flextime: Employees can work within a given time period rather than a rigid schedule. For example, a company typically working from 8:00 to 4:30 can have some employees work from 7:30 to 4:00 and others from 9:00 to 5:30.

Compressed Work Week: Employees work longer but fewer days. They can do a 4/40 schedule (four 10-hour work weeks), or a 9/80 schedule (9-hour work days and a day off every two weeks).
a. Price Parking Program
A Price Parking Program is meant to charge employees for parking at the work site instead of providing free parking. By charging for parking, employees will be encouraged to find alternative modes of transportation to work. The revenue received by the price parking program would be used to fund parts of the CTR program.

The parking program would charge daily parking instead of monthly parking to increase parking prices and decrease accessibility of employees paying parking. Employees would pay through an electronic pay box. Guests and employees who only drive occasionally would pay through the TDM Coordinator at the front office/counter.

EXHIBIT 1
b. Freight Transport Management
A Freight Transport Management Program would be implemented to mitigate truck traffic and would be coordinated by a Logistics Manager. This manager can improve fright transportation efficiency with the following measures:

Improve scheduling and routing to reduce freight vehicle mileage and empty backhauls.

The Logistics Manager can schedule freight deliveries making sure that they deliver as much shipment as possible. This will reduce the number of freight trips with half hauls or trips with empty backhauls.

Organize regional delivery systems so fewer vehicle trips are needed to distribute goods.

The Logistics Manager can contact regional warehouses to allow sharing of resources and freight consolidation. If two
warehouses within the same area are delivering similar
products, they can coordinate and share a single truck instead of using two trucks for the delivery.

Implement weight distance charges.

A special impact fee would be charged to freight based on the number of miles traveled.

Change freight delivery times to reduce congestion.

The Logistics Manager would schedule more truck deliveries between the off-peak hours instead of peak hours.

MM TRANS-2 The proposed project shall only allow trucks to exit and not enter from the southernmost project driveway in order to prevent collisions.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

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

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

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?

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

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
Water
The project area is served by COSMUD. COSMUD obtains its water from the San Joaquin River, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin and from the SEWD. Surface water from the San Joaquin River is diverted at the Intake Pump Station on Empire Tract in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and treated at the City’s Delta Water Treatment Plant (DWTP), with supplemental surface water from the Mokelumne River diverted and conveyed by Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID), and treated at the City’s DWTP , when the City’s supplies from the San Joaquin River are curtailed. Water provided by SEWD is treated surface water from the New Melones (Stanislaus River) and New Hogan (Calaveras River) Reservoirs.93
93 City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department. 2021. Water Master Plan Update. January.

EXHIBIT 1
Wastewater
The Stockton RWCF provides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment of municipal wastewater collected from the City. The project site does not currently have access to a wastewater line.

Stormwater
The project site is currently entirely pervious surfaces.

Solid Waste
The project site is in the Waste Management service area for waste pickup services. Solid waste collected by Waste Management is taken to the Forward Landfill in Manteca or the North County Landfill in Lodi. Construction and demolition material and some commercial loads are processed at the East Stockton Transfer Station. Residuals form the East Stockton Transfer Station are disposed at Forward Landfill.94
Electricity and Gas
PG&E would provide electricity and gas to the project site.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant impact.

Water
The project site is currently within the service are for the Stockton potable water system, and connection to the system will be available upon annexation. The proposed project would install a 16- inch water line parallel to the existing water lines in South McKinley Avenue. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant would be required to submit information regarding new on-site infrastructure and any modifications to the existing water infrastructure. The applicant would be required to pay a water service connection fee to COSMUD. Any construction of water infrastructure would be required to comply with the utility construction BMPs established from an SWPPP .

COSMUD adopted their Water Master Plan Update (WMPU) in January 2021. The WMPU outlines strategies and plans to increase water delivery capacity in order to meet the anticipated demand in COSMUDs service area. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
The proposed project would extend a 10-inch sanitary sewer line connecting to a 24-inch sanitary sewer line extending approximately 2,400 feet north of the project site near the intersection at Sperry Road (Exhibit 6). Arch Airport Road and South McKinley Avenue, approximately 2,000-feet north of the project site. On-site sewer lines would be installed to provide service to future development, and the on-site system would connect to the proposed sewer extension. An on-site 94 City of Stockton. June 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR.

EXHIBIT 1
pump station would be included in the proposed extension. The proposed project would be required to pay a sewer connection fee. Impacts related to this extension of the sanitary sewer line are evaluated as off-site improvements in all Sections 2.1 through 2.19 of this document. Furthermore, the applicant would be required to pay a sewer hook-up fee. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater
The proposed project would create pervious surfaces on a large portion of the project site, which would cause increased stormwater runoff, and require the construction of stormwater control infrastructure. The proposed project would direct stormwater to an underground mechanical stormwater treatment facility including two parallel underground storage pipes, where water quality treatment would occur. Then, water would be directed to the existing ditch north of the project site, which eventually leads to French Camp Slough. The mechanical treatment process would be designed to treat stormwater volumes of up to 21,000 cubic feet. Furthermore, the proposed project would construct a sidewalk and gutter to collect stormwater runoff from McKinley Avenue. The street runoff would be direct to proposed storm pipes within McKinley Avenue. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Electricity and Natural Gas
The project site would be serviced by PG&E for electricity and gas. The proposed project site would connect to existing overhead electricity lines at South McKinley Avenue. The proposed design of the building does not provide a natural gas service connection.

For the reasons described above impacts would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project would develop 179,000 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space on a vacant site. This would result in an increase in potable water usage at the project site. Table 14 below shows COSMUD’s supply and demand projections through the year 2040 for normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.

Table 14: Water Supply Demand Comparison for Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years in the COSMUD Service Area
COSMUD Water Supply/Demand 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Supply 75,700 75,700 92,100 92,100
Demand 36,856 39,217 41,749 44,465
Difference 38,844 36,483 50,351 47,635
Single Dry Year
Supply 69,700 69,700 86,100 86,100
EXHIBIT 1
COSMUD Water Supply/Demand 2025 2030 2035 2040
Demand 36,856 39,217 41,749 44,465
Difference 32,844 30,483 44,351 41,365
Multiple Dry Year
Supply 69,700 69,000 86,100 86,100
Demand 36,856 39,217 41,749 44,465
Difference 32,844 30,483 44,351 41,635
Source: City of Stockton. June 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR.

As shown above, COSMUD is expected to have a surplus water supply through the year 2040, even under the multiple dry year scenario. The projected water demand for the proposed project is 16 acre-feet annually. As such, it can be expected that COSMUD would have enough water supplies to provide the amount of water that would be needed for operation of the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than significant impact. The project site is not presently connected to a wastewater collection and treatment system and contains no individual wastewater disposal systems. Once the project site is annexed into the City, it would be served by the City’s existing wastewater collection and treatment system. The proposed project would convert vacant land to 179,000 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space, which would increase wastewater usage on- site. The RWCF has the capacity to treat 55 million gallons of sewage per day.95 Currently, the RWCF collects and treats an average of 33 million gallons of wastewater daily (mgd). The General Plan EIR predicts an average dry weather flow of 40.2 mgd for the year 2035 and 46.3 mgd in the year 2045.96 The proposed project is expected to generate 16 acre-feet or approximately 0.01 mgd per day, which is less than 0.001 percent of the expected dry weather flow in 2035. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is wastewater treatment capacity for the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than significant impact. Significant impacts could occur if the proposed project would exceed the existing permitted landfill capacity or violate federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. As described above, Waste Management would provide solid waste pickup services for the project site. 95 City of Stockton. Wastewater (Sewer). Website:
http://www.stocktonca.gov/government/departments/municipalUtilities/utilSewer.html. Accessed January 31, 2023. 96 City of Stockton. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR. June.

EXHIBIT 1
Construction waste would be taken to the East Stockton Transfer Station before being taken to Forward Landfill. Operational Waste would be taken to either Forward Landfill or the North County Landfill & Recycling Center. As shown in Table 15 below, the total remaining capacity between the two landfills is expected to be 60,120,669.

Table 15: Landfill Capacities
Facility
Max Permitted
Throughput
(tons per day)
Maximum Permitted
Capacity (cubic yards)
Remaining Capacity
(cubic yards)
Forward Landfill 8,668 59,160,000 24,720,669
North County Landfill and Recycling Center 835 41,200,000 35,400,000 Total 9,503 100,360,000 60,120,669
Source: CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Search. Website: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed January 31, 2023.

Because no demolition is required at the project site, the proposed project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of construction water. According to CalRecycle, warehouse uses typically produce 1.42 pounds of waste per 100 square feet per day and office uses typically produce

0.6 pounds per 100 square feet per day. The proposed project would develop 179,000 square feet of warehouse space and 5,000 square feet of office space. Therefore, it can be expected to produce 284.18 pounds of solid waste of 0.14 tons per day.97 This is less than 0.001 percent of the daily permitted throughput at Forward Landfill and North County Landfill combined, and would thus have a negligible impact on the landfills’ capacity. Therefore, there would be sufficient capacity to dispose of waste generated from the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant. e) Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than significant impact. AB 939 requires local jurisdictions to achieve at least a 50 percent solid waste diversion rate. Stockton Municipal Code Section 8.28.060 requires diversion of at least 50 percent of solid waste generated by construction, demolition, or renovation. AB 1826 requires recycling of organic matter by businesses that generate amounts over 2 cubic yards of solid waste per week. The proposed project would produce approximately 284.18 pounds of solid waste.

According to the EPA, 1 cubic yard of uncompacted municipal solid waste is approximately 138 pounds. This means that the proposed project would produce slightly over 2 cubic yards of solid waste.98As such, the proposed project would be required to comply with AB 1826 by providing recycling for organic matter . Impacts would be less than significant. 97 (179,000 square feet of warehouse space*1.42 pounds of solid waste/100 square feet/1 day) + (5,000 square feet of office space*0.6 pounds of solid waste/100 square feet/ 1 day) = 284.18 pounds of solid waste per day = .14209 tons 98 United States environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors for Solid Waste. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf. Accessed February 9, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
Mitigation Measures
None required.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.19 Wildfire
If located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

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

Environmental Evaluation
Setting
A State Responsibility Area (SRA) is an area of the State in which the financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires has been determined by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4125, to be primarily the responsibility of the State. A Local Responsibility Area (LRA) is an area designated by CAL FIRE pursuant to Government Code Section 51178 that is not within an SRA and is managed at the local level. The proposed project is located in an LRA.99
Figure 4.8-1 of the General Plan illustrates that there are no High or Very High FHSZs in the City and its SOI. However, approximately 945 acres classified Moderate FHSZ are scattered throughout the City and its SOI. The project site is not located in any of the Moderate FHSZ areas. 99 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2009. Contra Costa County: Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended By CAL FIRE. Website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6660/fhszl_map7.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than significant impact. The City adopted its most recent version of its EOP in June 2012. The EOP addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The EOP establishes the emergency management organization required to mitigate any significant emergencies and identifies roles and responsibilities required to protect the health and safety of Stockton residents and property. The EOP recommends that all businesses develop comprehensive emergency plans but does not require them.100
The closest fire station to the project site is Stockton Fire Station 5, located approximately 1.9 miles northwest at 3499 Manthey Road. Adequate emergency access to the project site would be provided by two 35-foot-wide driveways along South McKinley Avenue at the north and south ends of the project site and continue around the perimeter of the proposed building. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than significant impact. As described above, the project site is not located in a FHSZ. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is relatively flat. Additionally, the proposed project would require the removal of undeveloped lands and vegetation, reducing the risk of wildfires. The proposed project would be reviewed and approved by the SFD for compliance with the California Building, Electrical, Fire, and Mechanical Codes, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.68.040.101 Because the project site is not in an area that is at risk of wildland fires as designated by CAL FIRE, is located near developed areas, and would require removal of undeveloped lands and vegetation, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than significant. The proposed project would consist of new construction on a currently vacant and undeveloped site. The proposed project would connect to existing underground water lines, overhead electric lines, and telephone lines on South McKinley Avenue. The proposed project would require a 4-foot-deep trench for a new sewer line and new water main in South McKinley Avenue, extending approximately 2,400 feet deep north of the site, near the intersection of Sperry Road.

However, the new sewer line would be underground in an already urbanized area and would not exacerbate fire risk. Additionally, the proposed project would follow all requirements of the CBC and 100 City of Stockton. June 2012. Emergency Operations Plan. 101 City of Stockton. 2022. Stockton, Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Section 2.78.040 Fire Prevention Division- Established.

EXHIBIT 1
Municipal Code Section 2.68.040.102Therefore, infrastructure resulting from the proposed project would not exacerbate fire risks. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than significant impact. As described above, the project site is not located in a FHSZ. The project site is located partially within a FEMA 500-year Flood Zone and partially within a FEMA 100- year Flood Zone.103However, as described in Section 2.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to flooding would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the project site is relatively flat and, as described in Section 2.7, Geology and Soils, the project site is not subject to landslide risks. Therefore, the proposed project would not be subject to landslides or post-slope fire instability and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
None required.
102 City of Stockton. 2022. Stockton, Municipal Code, Charter, and Civil Service Rules. Section 2.78.040 Fire Prevention Division- Established.
103 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Website: https://hazards- fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd. Accessed May 16, 2022.

EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?

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

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

Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project would have the potential to impact several special-status wildlife species and other SJMSCP-covered species (valley elderberry longhorn beetle, western pond turtle, giant garter snake, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, song sparrow, least Bell’s vireo, longfin smelt, and Delta smelt). However, MM BIO-1 requires that the applicant obtain an SJMSCP permit from SJCOG and implement all requirements and conditions stated in the permit. MM BIO-2a requires a Construction General Permit from the RWQCB and stormwater planning documents to protect water quality and riparian habitat. MM BIO-2b prohibits work within the riparian corridor and creek bed or banks. MM BIO-2c requires establishment of a long-term water quality maintenance plan and permanent fencing around the riparian area. MM BIO-3 requires pre- construction surveys and potential avoidance buffers for the protection of active bird nests.

EXHIBIT 1
Implementation of these mitigation measures would protect the listed wildlife species and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Furthermore, the proposed project could have an impact on French Camp Slough, which is a protected water through federal and State regulations. However, MMs BIO-2a through MM BIO-2c described above would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

The proposed project could harm potential nursery sites for several species in French Camp Slough.

However, MM BIO-4 requires roosting bat pre-construction surveys and implementation of any necessary avoidance measures. MM BIO-5 requires minimization of light impacts into French Camp Slough. MM BIO-6 requires submittal of a tree report to the City and, if required by SJCOG, implementation of valley oak woodland mitigation. Implementation of these mitigation measures as well as MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Lastly, the proposed project has the potential to damage previously undiscovered archaeological resources, human remains, or TCRs. However, MM CUL-1 requires full-time archaeological monitoring during ground disturbance and procedures to follow in case of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological or historic resources. MM CUL-2 outlines procedures for the event of an accidental discovery of human remains. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measures described above, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project could contribute to a cumulative impact on special-status wildlife species and other SJMSCP-covered species. However, implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6, as described above, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Furthermore, the proposed project has the potential to create a significant cumulative impact through direct GHG emissions from on-site area sources and vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, and indirectly through off-site energy production required for on-site activities, water use, and waste disposal. However, MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1f require various building, equipment, and landscaping features that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

EXHIBIT 1
The proposed project has the potential to create a significant cumulative impact related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment resulting from disturbance of on-site AST and soil and concrete debris piles of unknown origins. However, MM HAZ-1 requires the applicant to contract a qualified firm to complete the Phase II ESA and implement all recommended measures.

This would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

Lastly, the proposed project has the potential to create a significant cumulative impact related to VMT. However, MM TRANS-1 requires several TDMs that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

With implementation of the MMs described above, the proposed project would not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the information provided in the Project Description and the responses to Sections 2.1 through 2.19 of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project’s potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. With implementation of all mitigation measures discussed herein, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2a through MM BIO-2c, MM BIO-3, MM BIO-4, MM BIO-5, MM BIO-6, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM GHG-1a through MM GHG-1f, MM HAZ-1, and MM TRANS-1.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
SECTION 3: LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.357.2562
Project Director ....................................................................................................................... Mary Bean Project Manager .......................................................................................................... Elizabeth Johnson Assistant Project Manager ................................................................................................ Madelyn Dolan Legal Counsel ................................................................................................................... Megan Starr, JD Director of Cultural Resources .......................................................................... Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Director of Noise and Air Quality .............................................................................. Phil Ault, LEED® AP Senior Air Quality Scientist ........................................................................................... Kimberly Johnson Air Quality Scientist .......................................................................................................... Marianne Aydil Air Quality Analyst ........................................................................................................................... Ji Luo Senior Biologist ......................................................................................................... Bernhard Warzecha Environmental Services Intern ...................................................................................... Spencer Churchill Environmental Services Intern .......................................................................................... Laura Campion Publications Manager ............................................................................................................ Susie Harris Publications Coordinator ......................................................................................................... Alec Harris Document Specialist ....................................................................................................... Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................ Karlee McCracken GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................. Sebastian Macias Advanced Mobility Group
Traffic Impact Study
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
SECTION 1: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

1.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND) is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

Author Author Code
Local Agencies
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ............................................................. CVRWQCB Organizations
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo .................................................................... ADAMSBROADWELL-1 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo .................................................................... ADAMSBROADWELL-2 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo .................................................................... ADAMSBROADWELL-3 Blum, Collins & Ho LLP ................................................................................................................. BLUM-1 Mitchell M. Tsai .............................................................................................................................. TSAI-1

1.2 - Responses to Comments

1.2.1 - Introduction
Although a lead agency is not required to provide written responses to comments on proposed Negative Declarations (NDs) or Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Stockton has evaluated the comments received on the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2024081317) (proposed project) Draft IS/MND and has elected to provide responses to the following significant environmental comments. None of the comments received results in substantial revisions to the Draft IS/MND or the need to recirculate the Draft IS/MND, or triggers the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

1.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
30 September 2024
Nicole Moore
City of Stockton
345 North El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, SOUTH MCKINLEY AVENUE EAST INDUSTRIAL PROJECT, SCH#2024081317, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 29 August 2024 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project, located in San Joaquin County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by EXHIBIT 1
1 2
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

EXHIBIT 1
2 CONT
3 4
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “non- federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

EXHIBIT 1
4 CONT
5 6
7 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order forLimited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ EXHIBIT 1
7 CONT
8 9
10 If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
State Agencies
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) Response to CVRWQCB-1
The comment provides introductory remarks. No response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-2
The comment summarizes information related to the Basin Plans under the commenting agency’s jurisdiction. No response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-3
The comment summarizes information related to the Antidegradation Policy and states that the environmental review document should discuss potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality. The Draft IS/MND discusses potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality in Section 2.10, pages 100 to 105. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-4
The comment summarizes information related to the Construction General Permit and preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The City and applicant acknowledge that preparation of a SWPPP will be required as part of the permitting process prior to the start of construction, as required by Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-2a. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-5
The comment summarizes information related to the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit process.

As discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources of the Draft IS/MND (pages 52 through 66), the proposed project would not affect waters of the United States such that permitting under Section 404 would be required. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-6
The comment summarizes information related to the Clean Water Act Section 401 permit process.

As discussed in Section 2.4, Biological Resources of the Draft IS/MND (pages 52 through 66), no direct impacts are proposed to French Camp Slough. However, the construction and operation of the proposed project could have indirect impacts on the water quality of French Camp Slough and downstream reaches through sediment and polluted stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project could result in potential impacts on State and federally protected waters.

EXHIBIT 1
With implementation of MM BIO-2, the proposed project would implement all water quality protection measures imposed by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) and the RWQCB, and therefore any potential indirect impacts on receiving waters would be reduced to less than significant. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-7
Refer to Response to CVRWQCB-6. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-8
The comment summarizes information related to waste discharge requirements. The City and applicant acknowledge that additional permitting through CVRWQCB would be required if construction or groundwater dewatering is proposed. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-9
The comment summarizes information related to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The City and applicant acknowledge that preparation of a NPDES will be required as part of the permitting process prior to the start of construction, as required by MM BIO- 2a. See also Response to CVRWQCB-4. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-10
See response to CVRWQCB-9. No further response is required.

EXHIBIT 1
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
2 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.

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.1Pursuant 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:

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
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
3 4
5 6
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-1)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-1
This comment relates to commenter’s request for documents that was voluntarily withdrawn on November 8, 2024. In withdrawing the records request, commenter specifically acknowledged that relevant documents were available online. Accordingly, the records request is not operative or applicable. Additionally, the City notes that a request for records did not raise any environmental issues or provide comment on the Draft IS/MND and is therefore outside the purview of CEQA. No further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-2
This comment relates to a request for documents that was voluntarily withdrawn by commenter on November 8, 2024.

The City notes that all documents incorporated by reference were available for public review pursuant to CEQA’s requirements. For the documents referenced in the Draft IS/MND, website addresses are available within the footnotes. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-3
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 or the Draft IS/MND and no further response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-4
The comment concerns a request for records that was withdrawn and no longer applicable. The request for records does not raise any environmental issues and is outside the purview of CEQA. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-5
The commenter states their willingness to pay for certain duplication costs. This comment does not raise any environmental issues and is outside the purview of CEQA. No response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-1-6
The commenter provides contact information. No response is required.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1
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
2 1
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
5 4
3 2
CONT
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ADAMSBROADWELL-2)
Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-1
This comment relates to a request for documents that was formally withdrawn on November 8, 2024. In withdrawing the records request, commenter specifically acknowledged that relevant documents were available online. Accordingly, the records request is not operative or applicable. For informational purposes, the City notes that, as discussed in Response to ADAMSBROADWELL1-2, 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 footnotes. No environmental issues related to the proposed are raised in this comment and no further analysis is warranted.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-2
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-2-3
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-2-4
The commenter states their willingness to pay for certain duplication costs. No response is required.

Response to ADAMSBROADWELL-2-5
The commenter provides contact information. No response is required.

EXHIBIT 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT 1

7493-005j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARION N. JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE
TARA C. RENGIFO

Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE

520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________

T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
a s t u k a n @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W

5 2 0 C A P I T O L M A L L , S U I T E 3 5 0
S A C R A M E N T O , C A 9 5 8 1 4 - 4 7 2 1
___________

T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9
k c a r m i c h a e l @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m SO. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE

601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000
SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2

September 26, 2024

Via Email and Overnight 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 to Extend MND Public Comment Period / Untimely Response to CEQA Reference Request - South McKinley East Industrial Project IS/MND (SCH No. 2024081317)

Dear Ms. Moore and Ms. Ocasio:

On behalf of San Joaquin Residents for Responsible Development request
extend the public review and comment period on the Mitigated Negative for the South McKinley East Industrial Project (SCH Number 2024081317 1 by at least 30
days due to the failure to provide timely access to the supporting documents for the MND. This request is made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
2 1 City of Stockton, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South McKinley Avenue East Industrial Project
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2024081317
2 PRC §§
EXHIBIT 1
1 September 26, 2024

Page 2 ends

City Council and Concurrent AuthoritiesJune 3, 2025

City Council and Concurrent Authorities
June 3, 2025