City Council and Concurrent Authorities
September 9, 2025

• Telephone listings
• Restaurant directories
• City of Stockton department directories
• Observations by City personnel through sampling, surveillance, inspections and site visits
• Referrals from other agencies
• Citizen reports
• Contact from potential restaurants
• Newspaper, trade journal, and business magazine articles The San Joaquin County Public Health Department's food vendor permit database contains information on potentially all facilities in San Joaquin County which serve food items to the public. This is a comprehensive list that is updated on a regular basis. This list is utilized as the City's primary source for FSE identification. The additional resources listed above are used to identify additional FSEs within the City's sewer service area which are not included in the County's database.

Legal Authority
City of Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 13.40 (FOG Ordinance) provides legal authority for the City to implement the FOG Control Program. The ordinance prohibits discharges that cause or threaten to cause obstruction of flow in sewers, contains authority to require pretreatment prior to discharge to the sewer, contains authority to inspect dischargers and sample discharges, and provides for enforcement and penalties for non-compliance.

The FOG Ordinance is applicable to commercial and institutional generators of FOG discharges. Residential customers and industrial facilities are not regulated under this ordinance. The City will continue to use public outreach to educate customers and reduce FOG and pipe-blocking substances from residential discharges. Industrial facilities are regulated under the City's Industrial Pretreatment Program Ordinance (SMC Chapter 13.08).

Inspections and Monitoring
All FSEs are inspected on a regular basis to determine compliance with FOG Ordinance regulations and to provide public education and outreach.

The City has two full-time Environmental Control Officers, two full-time Senior Environmental Control Officers and one full-time Technical Services Supervisor to perform FOG duties as necessary.

Inspection procedures include:
- Determination of compliance with FOG Ordinance requirements. - Determination of grease interceptor condition, operation and maintenance. - Measurement of grease interceptor grease and solids content.

EXHIBIT 1

FATS, OILS, AND GREASE (FOG) CONTROL ACTION PLAN

- Evaluation of Kitchen Best Management Practices (BMPs). - Review of all FOG control related records and documents. - Distribution and discussion of educational and outreach materials. - Review and evaluation of any prior FOG control deficiencies. - Follow-up inspections at all FSEs with deficiencies are conducted within 30 days of the original inspection.
- Second follow-up inspections if the deficiency was not remedied by the time of the first re-inspection are performed within 15 days of the initial re-inspection.

Continuing re-inspections are performed as necessary.
- Inspections of all FSEs suspected of causing or contributing to an SSO are performed within 5 working days of the occurrence of the SSO. - All new or substantially remodeled FSEs are typically inspected within 90 days of start-up or remodel completion.

Enforcement
The City has implemented a FOG Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) to establish general responsibilities for enforcement of the FOG Ordinance. The ERP is an effective way to ensure that the City of Stockton takes fair, consistent and equitable enforcement actions against FSEs for violations of the FOG Ordinance. It is the intention of the Municipal Utilities Department to move quickly and responsibly in all enforcement actions.

Public Education and Outreach
Public education and outreach promoting proper handling and disposal of FOG and pipe-blocking substances is an ongoing effort throughout Stockton. The City has developed various communication methods to promote education and share information to the Stockton community, including:
- Implementation of a collaborative program with the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works Department to share information about water pollution prevention that includes the proper disposal of FOG, sediment, debris, and household items like “flushable” wipes, paper, cloth and plastic products during frequent recycling and e-waste events and in City produced materials and webpages such as:
www.stocktonrecycles.com.
- Strong presence at various community events that includes a mini toilet that adds lighthearted humor to demonstrate the risks of improperly disposing of household items such as wipes and FOG.
- Distribution of FOG kits including a pot/pan scraper and lid to encourage the proper disposal of FOG for residential customers.
- The City website at www.stocktonca.gov/fog and social media accounts to disseminate FOG messages for residential and commercial customers, including EXHIBIT 1

FATS, OILS, AND GREASE (FOG) CONTROL ACTION PLAN

the local Household Hazardous Waste Facility available to the community free of charge.
- Direct mail to water and wastewater customers providing information on the proper disposal of various items, including FOG.
- School presentations to local K-6 students.
- The City’s FOG Inspection Program provides education and outreach materials to all FSEs. FOG inspectors discuss materials with FSE managers and owners and answer all questions.

Budget and Staffing
The FOG Program is a component of the City of Stockton Pretreatment Program. The Pretreatment Program is funded through the Municipal Utilities Department Enterprise Fund, which is funded by sewer service-related fees, including FOG inspection and reinspection fees established by Council resolution.

The FOG Program presently supports a staff of approximately 2.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees:
- FOG Inspectors (Environmental Control Officers): 1.0 FTE - Senior Environmental Control Officer: 0.50 FTE
- FOG Program Manager (Technical Services Supervisor): 0.25 FTE - Clerical Support: 0.25 FTE
Effectiveness Measures
FCAP effectiveness is reviewed and analyzed on a regular basis. Effectiveness measures include:

FSE record of compliance with SMC regulations as determined by FOG inspection reports.

Evaluation of FOG caused SSOs from data obtained through video inspection (CCTV) of sanitary sewers.

EXHIBIT 1
Appendix 11
FOG Enforcement Response Plan
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
Appendix 12
GIS SSO Display Sample
EXHIBIT 1
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
V
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T T
T
T
T
#
#
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
YY
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WY
WY
WY
YW
YW
WY
YW
YW
WY
YW
WY
WY
WY WY
YW
WY
WY
YW
WY
YW
YW
YW
YW
WY
WY
WY WY
WY
WY
WY
YW
WY
WY
WY
YW
YW
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
YW
YW
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
YW
WY
WY
WY
YW
YW
WY
YW
WY
YW
YW
YW
YW
YW
YW
YW
WY
WY
WY
YW
VT
TV
VT
VT
VT
VT

TV TV TV
VT R
FYFFE

FAYETTE
L
NAVY

LDLIFE CROMWELL

LUCE GILMORE

MORADA HAMMER LN
MCCLOY
WAIN

V WAKE LD

LINCOLN

JOAN MORADA MOSHER SLOUGH LEVEE S DA
E

LORETTA
PARMA

FOPPIANO

INCOLN WESTMORA

SUTHERLAND

T WINDSAIL ST LAKES
Y

EIGHTSANDSTONE
A HOLT
L
FIELD

EDA MOSHER SLOUGH LEVEE N

SNEDEKER
OTTO

FRENCH CAMP
C
WAL

EL CAMINO
VOLPI

ZACCARIA
S
IVATE
ER
BR
PALOMA

PORTOLA
ARCH

HIG HMOOR

CREEK NA
DENVE

PENELOPE
MULLER
OAK
YA
LATIGO
MORADA
K TA
KER
BALSAM
KENNY

IND GLENCANNON
LENCOE

JOURNEY
LACK O

AT CORTEZ SAN MIGUEL AM
HUDSON
SHER
N
SQUALL
PINTER
GTON

BORDEAUX
LOS

TITLEIST
FIFTH
E
ERIE

WALL SEY N
OOD

FLINT DOMINION

UNIVERSAL
LENNON
DECAR
RAC
AM
FRIAR
SS RUN
TION
BOCKER

CAVANAUGH

SAN FRANCIS GLASGOW
SUMAC

BOARDWALK
RRANO

HAMMER LN S FR

JASMINE MAC
VIS

IRIS CASTLE OAK
LIKALA

LORETTA
E

PORTAGE

SANTA ROSA OYA
NEVADA
JAGGER
EDLO
COZAD
EDAN

PRINCESS WALLER

KIRSTEN

BRYAN QUASHNICK

BARCELONA
ENVIEW

NKER HILL ADAH

EIGHT MILE
ALLEY
ERIAL

IRATION

C JESSE MIZENER
P

ROLERSON
GERBER
TOWN
LEBAR
SECOND

HAMMER MILL TOMMYDON

STANLEY
ETTNER

PRESIDIO
ANJON
CILY
JACOBS

SCHOONER
Y

OAK RIMINI
DAVIS

EDWARDS GILLISS

PRIVATE
DDINGS

BLUE STONE
M

VALENCIAD

EL GRECO

OLIVIA ON

HACIENDA
IRENE

RAL SAN LUIS

JE MOSHER SLOUGH LEVEE N
ERIA
HOWARD
MARC
FO
RM

NANAK DAHLIA OR R E COSMO S

GOLD RIVER

PRIVATE
ECO

EL CAMPO

LOS CERR

EL CAMPO

MORSE MADRONE HIBISCUS

TAMARISK M

RINGO AK

BEAR CREEK OAKLEAF WILLORA DU PONT SANTA CLARANE GNEK RANGL SUNNY

BEAR CREEK EVEE

YETTNER

TUSCANY MASSI BEAR CREEK N
METRO
MORSE

BEAR CREEK LEVEE N

BEAR CREEK LEVEE S MARLETTE
G

H LEVEE S CORA POST MORSE

BEAR CREEK LEVEE S MEA
P
ANTHE
CO
A

SILVANA
AKS
EA
PISA
SHRINE
HAYE
MADDIE
A
LEWOOD

BRIDLE D
CA OLA
D W
BRUZZI
GAM
OPO

S NEE CR
L O

VALMORA
P
BUC
Y C
RITZ V
LAN

MANTHEY
C

JILL HOUSE
C
CALEB

PRIVATE
FT M
V E
ION
7 15E
15F
15F
15B 15C 15D
15A
10A
10B
10C
10D 10K
10F
10G
10H
10J
10I
10K
15G
15I
10L
15H
10E
15J 15K
9D
9A
9C
9F
9E
9G
6A
6B
6C
6C
12C
6D
7A
12B
7B
7E
7D
6F
7C
8C
8D
8E
13A
14A
1 1
10 2
3 5
3 4
4 6E
6 8
8 8A
8B
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
2012 - 7/28/2014
±0 0.375 0.75 1.5 2.25 3Miles SSO by Type and Year
Collection System Boundaries
City of Stockton Boundary
YW Lateral, 2012
YW Lateral, 2013
YW Lateral, 2014
# Other, 2013
VT Main, 2012
TV Main, 2013
VT Main, 2014
Monthly PM
Quarterly PM
Semi-Annual PM
Annual PM
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 25-0288, Version: 1

ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE EL

DORADO STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY CONNECTIVITY PROJECT

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

1. Transfer funds in the amount of $35,000 from the Grant Match, Project No. WT21016, to the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No. WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL-5008(210).

2. Approve findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code section 3.68.070 in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process.

3. Award a Professional Services Contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA, in the amount of $348,775.95 for design of the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No. WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL-5008(210).

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

Summary
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a federal-aid program administered by Caltrans and established to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance, manages California's local agency share of HSIP funds.

The El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity project will add bicycle improvements and safety features along the corridor including rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), crosswalks, bulb outs, bicycle video detection, Class II buffered bicycle lanes and cycle track, median refuge islands, and sidewalks. El Dorado Street is currently two lanes in each direction. The project will remove one lane in each direction in order to facilitate the addition of bicycle facilities along the corridor (Attachment A).

On February 26, 2025, the City advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design of the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No. WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL -5008(210). On March 26, 2025, four firms submitted proposals for this project. The Selection Committee evaluated the proposals. The highest ranked firm was BKF Engineers. However, staff was unable to negotiate a mutually agreeable fee for the scope of services needed for this project.

Staff successfully negotiated a fee and scope of services with the second highest ranked firm, Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA.

City of Stockton Page 1 of 4 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-0288, Version: 1
It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution transferring funds and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $348,775.95 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for design services. It is anticipated that the design will be completed by fall 2027.

This project is federally funded and subject to federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements.

DISCUSSION
Background
HSIP is a federal-aid program administered by Caltrans and established to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance, manages California's local agency share of HSIP funds.

In March 2023, the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No.

WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL-5008(210), was approved for HSIP funding in the amount of $2,350,000 for design and construction. This project is 90 percent federally funded and a 10 percent local match is required as part of the grant. In November 2023, the City received authorization from the State to begin design work. The project was included in the 2024-29 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan.

The project limits are along South El Dorado Street between Clayton Avenue and 3rd Street. The project will add bicycle improvements and safety features along the corridor including RRFBs, crosswalks, bulb outs, bicycle video detection, Class II buffered bicycle lanes and cycle track, median refuge islands, and sidewalks. El Dorado Street is currently two lanes in each direction. The project will remove one lane in each direction in order to facilitate the addition of bicycle facilities along the corridor (Attachment A).

Since the project is funded with federal transportation dollars, DBE program rules apply. DBE rules require that the consultant either meet a calculated project specific DBE participation goal or undertake and document good faith efforts to do so. If the apparent low bidder does not meet the project goal, a Good Faith Efforts Evaluation must be made examining several specific factors.

Failure to meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts are grounds for rejecting a consultant’s proposal.

A DBE is a socially and economically disadvantaged small business owned by a woman or by a specified ethnic group that has been properly certified by Caltrans. These groups include:
· African American
· Asian Pacific American
· Native American
· Women
· Hispanic American
· Subcontinent Asian American
City of Stockton Page 2 of 4 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-0288, Version: 1
A DBE goal of 23 percent was established for this project. The goal was calculated by examining the breakdown of the types of work to be performed and the availability of certified DBE companies in our market area to perform the work.

The federal funding restrictions prohibit the use of the Local Employment Ordinance (Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) section 3.68.095), and the Local Business Preference Ordinance (SMC section 3.68.090).

Present Situation
On February 26, 2025, the City advertised an RFP for design of the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No. WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL-5008(210). On March 26, 2025, four proposals were received from the following firms:
· BKF Engineers (Sacramento, CA)
· CSG Consultants (Sacramento, CA)
· Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Oakland, CA)
· Sandis Civil Engineers Surveyors and Planners (Modesto, CA) The Selection Committee evaluated and ranked all proposals based on each firm’s understanding of work, experience with similar kinds of projects, staff qualifications and technical ability, project approach, and familiarity of federal transportation funding procedures.

The highest ranked firm was BKF Engineers. However, staff was unable to negotiate a mutually agreeable fee for the scope of services needed for this project. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. received the second highest ranking, based on the noted criteria, and was determined to be qualified for this project. Staff negotiated a fee in the amount of $348,775.95 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for design services. The fee is approximately 14 percent of the total estimated cost, which is reasonable for a project of this type and complexity. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has proposed a 28 percent DBE participation, which exceeds the DBE goal of 23 percent.

It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution transferring funds and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $348,775.95 for design services for the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No. WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL-5008(210). It is anticipated that the design will be completed by fall 2027.

Findings
Pursuant to SMC section 3.68.070, Council may approve findings which support an exception to the competitive bidding process. These findings include:

1. The City does not have sufficient staff and expertise to design this project.

2. Use of the RFP process is appropriate for this Professional Services Contract because it relies on the evaluation of professional qualifications and performance as the basis for selection of a City of Stockton Page 3 of 4 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-0288, Version: 1
vendor. Use of the criteria helps ensure selection of a vendor that will provide the highest quality professional service, which is in the public interest.

3. The City negotiated a contract following solicitation of competitive proposals in accordance with SMC section 3.68.070.A.3.

FINANCIAL SUMMARY
With the transfer of funds in the amount of $35,000 from the Grant Match, Project No. WT21016, to the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No. WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL-5008(210), there will be sufficient funding to award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $348,775.95 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the project.

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

Attachment A - Vicinity Map
City of Stockton Page 4 of 4 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™
l
1 I

ATTACHMENT A

EL DORADO STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY CONNECTIVITY (CITY PROJECT NO. WT23039 / FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5008(210)) \ \ _l
-\--
\ \ \ t \
\ +' \ I
C. c\-\N�1CR �
I
I
I I \
I
I
I
I
I
VICINITY MAP: N NOTTO SCALE
PROJECT LIMITS •
CITY LIMITS □

CITY OF STOCKTON

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
\
I I
\ \ \ \
r
I \ \
\ I
I
1 1
11 \ \ �, \
I \ \ .\-
, 1 ( \'\ \, \
Il l
�/11
(\ \ \ \; �
�\� \
\1 \
I I ,\�:, i\\ I,\\\\\\
I
I
I
l
7 I
I \\\\ \ \\\ I
Iii I I
I
II I
! 1
1 1
"I
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS AND AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE EL DORADO STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY CONNECTIVITY, PROJECT NO. WT23039/FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5008(210)
On February 26, 2025, the City advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design of the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No.

WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL-5008(210). Four proposals were received; and The project will add bicycle improvements and safety features along the corridor including rectangular rapid flashing beacons, crosswalks, bulb outs, bicycle video detection, Class II buffered bicycle lanes and cycle track, median refuge islands, and sidewalks; and
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. was determined to be the most qualified and second highest ranked firm for this project. Staff negotiated a fee in the amount of $348,775.95 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for design services; and Transfer of funds is needed for the City’s required local match of $35,000; now, therefore,

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

1. The City Council approves the transfer of funds in the amount of $35,000 from the Grant Match, Project No. WT21016, to the El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity, Project No. WT23039/Federal Project No. HSIPL5008(210).

2. The City Council approves findings pursuant to Stockton Municipal Code (SMC) section 3.68.070 in support of an exception to the competitive bidding process.

These findings include:
a. The City does not have sufficient staff and expertise to design this project.
b. Use of the RFP process is appropriate for this Professional Services Contract because it relies on the evaluation of professional qualifications and performance as the basis for selection of a vendor. Use of the criteria helps ensure selection of a vendor that will provide the highest quality professional service, which is in the public interest. c. The City negotiated a contract following solicitation of competitive proposals in accordance with SMC section 3.68.070.A.3.

3. The City Council awards a Professional Services Contract between the City of Stockton and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., in the amount of $348,775.95, and the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute same, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED September 9, 2025 .

CHRISTINA FUGAZI
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

KATHERINE ROLAND, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
(for Federal aid projects)
THIS CONTRACT is entered into this day of ____2025, between the CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal corporation (“City”), and KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., whose address is 1300 CLAY STREET, SUITE 900, OAKLAND, CA 94612 (“Consultant”) for the EL DORADO STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY CONNECTIVITY, PROJECT NO. WT23039/FEDERAL PROJECT NO. HSIPL-5008(210), hereinafter referred to as “Project”.

RECITALS
A. Consultant represents that it is licensed in the State of California and is qualified, willing and able to provide the services proposed in the SCOPE OF WORK section of this Contract.

B. City finds it necessary and advisable to use the services of the Consultant for the purposes provided in this Contract.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions in this Contract, City and Consultant agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract, Consultant shall undertake and complete the services described in EXHIBIT A. Consultant shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in Exhibit A and compatible with the standards of the profession.

Consultant agrees that it shall produce a fully complete project that is acceptable to the City.

2. COMPENSATION. City shall pay Consultant for services outlined in EXHIBIT A according to the fee not to exceed the schedule detailed in EXHIBIT B, which is attached to this Contract and incorporated by this reference. Consultant agrees this fee is for full remuneration for performing all services and furnishing all staffing and materials called for in the scope of services. The payments shall be made on a monthly basis upon receipt and approval of Consultant’s invoice. Total compensation for services and reimbursement for costs shall not exceed $348,775.95 or as otherwise mutually agreed to in a Contract Amendment.

3. INSURANCE. During the term of this Contract, Consultant shall maintain in full force and effect at its own cost and expense the insurance coverage as set forth in the attached Exhibit D and shall otherwise comply with the other provisions of Exhibit D.

EXHIBIT 1
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)

4. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. Pursuant to the full language of California Civil Code §2782, design Professional agrees to indemnify, including the cost to defend, City of Stockton and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, or liability that arise out of, or pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Design Professional and its employees or agents in the performance of services under this contract, but this indemnity does not apply to liability for damages arising from the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful acts of the City of Stockton; and does not apply to any passive negligence of the City of Stockton unless caused at least in part by the Design Professional. The City of Stockton agrees that in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the Design Professional exceed that professional’s proportionate percentage of fault. This duty to indemnify shall not be waived or modified by contractual agreement or acts of the parties.

5. SCHEDULE AND TERM. Consultant shall perform the scope of work as described in Exhibit A according to the schedule detailed in EXHIBIT C, which is attached to this Contract and incorporated by this reference. This contract shall commence on the date written above and shall expire on September 30, 2027, unless extended by mutual agreement through the issuance of a Contract Amendment. a. Invoices submitted by Consultant to City must contain a brief description of work performed, time used and City project number. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of approval of invoice by City. b. Upon completion of work and acceptance by City, Consultant shall have sixty (60) days in which to submit final invoicing for payment. An extension may be granted by City upon receiving a written request thirty (30) days in advance of said time limitation. City shall have no obligation or liability to pay any invoice for work performed which Consultant fails or neglects to submit within sixty (60) days, or any extension thereof granted by the City, after work is accepted by City.

6. CONFORMANCE TO APPLICABLE LAWS. Consultant shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and Municipal laws, rules, and ordinances. Consultant shall not discriminate in the employment of persons or in the provision of services under this Contract on the basis of any legally protected classification, including race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or religion of such person. a. TITLE VI
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that “no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial

EXHIBIT 1
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)
assistance.” (42 USC Section 2000d).
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titlevi.htm .

The City of Stockton requires compliance with the requirements of Title VI in all of its programs and activities regardless of funding source. b. DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT POLICY
The City of Stockton has a Discrimination and Harassment Policy (Exhibit E). The purpose of this policy is to reaffirm the City’s commitment to demonstrating respect for all individuals by strictly prohibiting discrimination and harassment, including sexual harassment in the workplace, to define the types of behavior and conduct prohibited by this policy, and to set forth a procedure for reporting, investigating, and resolving complaints of discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
c. LABOR STANDARDS PROVISIONS/CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE
The bidder shall understand that conditions set forth in Chapter 1, Part 7, Division 2 of the California Labor Code shall be considered part of the contract agreement.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=L AB&division=2.&title=&part=7.&chapter=1.&article=2.
d. PREVAILING WAGE RATES
Consultant and any subcontractor shall pay each employee engaged in the trade or occupation not less than the prevailing hourly wage rate. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1770 of the Labor Code, the Director of Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California has determined the general prevailing rates of wages and employer payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, travel time, and subsistence pay as provided for in Section 1773.1, apprenticeship or other training programs authorized by Section 3093 and similar purposes applicable to the work to be done. Consultant performing the work under this contract shall obtain a copy of the wage rate determination and shall distribute copies to each subcontractor. As the wage determination for each craft reflects an expiration date, it shall be the prime Consultant and each subcontractor's responsibility to ensure that the prevailing wage rates of concern is current and paid to the employee.
i. The Consultant performing the work shall be responsible for obtaining a copy of the State wage rate determination. State wage rates may be obtained at

EXHIBIT 1
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)
http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/pwd/Determinations/Northern/Northern.pdf.

The Consultant shall be responsible for posting said wage rates at a prominent location at the work site and shall maintain same in a good readable condition for the duration of the work.
ii. Should the Consultant choose to work on a Saturday, Sunday or on a holiday recognized by the Labor Unions, the Consultant shall reimburse the City the actual cost of engineering, inspection, superintendence, and or other overhead expenses which are directly chargeable to the contract. Should such work be undertaken at the request of the City, reimbursement will not be required. To conform strictly with the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2, of the Labor Code of the State of California. To forfeit as a penalty to City the sum of TWENTY FIVE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($25.00) for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed by Consultant, or by any subcontractor under Consultant, in the execution of this contract, for each calendar day during which any laborer, worker, or mechanic is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours and who is not paid the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work in violation of the provisions of Sections 1770 to 1781 of the Labor Code of the State of California. That all sums forfeited under the provisions of the foregoing sections shall be deducted from the payments to be made under the terms of this contract.
iii. PAYROLL RECORDS The Consultant to whom the contract is awarded shall ensure that the prime and each subcontractor will, in accordance with Section 1776 of the Labor Code, maintain certified payroll records. A copy of said records shall be provided with each invoice to the Public Works Department, Attention: Contract Compliance Officer. It shall be the Consultant’s responsibility to obtain copies of the current prevailing wage rate determination for all subcontractors. Additionally, certified payroll records must be uploaded to the DIR website as required by labor code.
iv. APPRENTICESHIP STANDARDS The Consultant shall comply with the provisions established in Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code concerning the 1) certified approval by local joint apprenticeship committees for the employment and training of apprentices, and 2) contribution of funds to administer and conduct apprenticeship programs, if applicable to the job.
e. APPENDIX A AND E OF THE TITLE VI ASSURANCES

EXHIBIT 1
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest agrees to comply with the Appendix A and E of the Title VI Assurances attached as Exhibit F. f. SANCTIONS
Deliverables must conform with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Such conformity includes compliance with federal sanctions, and Contractor certifies that it has not and will not engage in prohibited transactions with sanctioned persons or entities.

7. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITY. City shall make available to Consultant all data and information in the possession of City which both parties deem necessary to complete the work, and City shall actively aid and assist Consultant in obtaining such information as may be deemed necessary from other agencies and individuals.

8. OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT. Throughout the term of this Contract, Consultant represents and warrants that it has or will have at the time this Contract is executed, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for the Consultant to practice its professions, and Consultant shall, at its own cost and expense, keep in effect during the life of this Contract all such licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals. Consultant shall meet with the Public Works Director or other personnel of City or third parties as necessary on all matters connected with the carrying out of Consultant’s services. Such meetings shall be held at the request of either party hereto. Consultant further warrants that it will follow the best current, generally accepted and professional practices to make findings, render opinions, prepare factual presentations, and provide professional advice and recommendations regarding this project.

9. OWNERSHIP OF WORK. All reports, drawings, designs, plan review comments, work product, and all other documents completed or partially completed by Consultant in the performance of this Contract shall become and remain the property of the City. Any and all copyrightable subject matter in all materials is hereby assigned to the City and the Consultant agrees to execute any additional documents that may be necessary to evidence such assignment. All materials shall be delivered to the City upon completion or termination of the work under this Contract. If any materials are lost, damaged, or destroyed before final delivery to the City, the Consultant shall replace them at its own expense. Consultant shall keep materials confidential.

Materials shall not be used for purposes other than performance of services under this Contract and shall not be disclosed to anyone not connected with these services unless the City expressly provides prior written consent.

10. CONTRACT AMENDMENTS. City reserves the right to make such alterations as may be deemed necessary or advisable and to require such extra work as may be required for the proper completion of the work contemplated by

EXHIBIT 1
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)
Consultant. Any such changes will be set forth in a Contract Amendment which will specify, in addition to the work done in connection with the change made, adjustment of contract time, if any, and the basis of compensation for such work. A Contract Amendment will not become effective until approved by the authorized City official.

11. TERMINATION. The City may terminate this Contract upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to Consultant with the reason for termination stated in the notice. The Contract shall then be deemed terminated and no further work shall be performed by Consultant. If the Contract is so terminated, the Consultant shall be paid for that percentage of work actually completed at the time the notice of termination is received.

12. CONSULTANT STATUS. In performing the obligations set forth in this Contract, Consultant shall have the status of an independent contractor and Consultant shall not be considered to be an employee of the City for any purpose. All persons working for or under the direction of Consultant are its agents and employees, and are not agents of the City. Subcontractors shall not be recognized as having any direct or contractual relationship with the City. The persons engaged in the work, including employees of subcontractors and suppliers, will be considered employees of Consultant. The Consultant shall be responsible for the work of subcontractors, which shall be subject to the provisions of this Contract. The Consultant is responsible to the City for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors and persons directly or indirectly employed by them.
a. If in the performance of this Contract any third persons are employed by Consultant, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. All terms of employment including hours, wages, working conditions, discipline, hiring, and discharging or any other term of employment or requirement of law shall be determined by Consultant.
i. It is further understood and agreed that Consultant must issue W-2 forms or other forms as required by law for income and
employment tax purposes for all of Consultant’s personnel. ii. As an independent contractor, Consultant hereby indemnifies and holds City harmless from any and all claims that may be made against the City based upon any contention by any third party that employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Contract.

13. ASSIGNMENT. Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Contract or any interest or obligation in the Contract without the prior written consent of the City, and then only upon such terms and conditions as City may set forth in writing.

Consultant shall be solely responsible for reimbursing subcontractors.

EXHIBIT 1
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)

14. HEADINGS NOT CONTROLLING. Headings used in the Contract are for reference purposes only and shall not be considered in construing this Contract.

15. NOTICES. Any and all notices herein required shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To Consultant: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. To City: Public Works Director 1300 Clay Street City of Stockton
Suite 900 22 E. Weber Ave., Rm. 301
Oakland, CA 94612 Stockton, CA 95202

16. LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND PERMITS. Prior to the City’s execution of this Contract and prior to the Consultant’s engaging in any operation or activity set forth in this Contract, Consultant shall obtain a City of Stockton business license, which must be kept in effect during the term of this Contract. Consultant covenants that it has obtained all certificates, licenses, permits and the like required to perform the services under this Contract.

17. RECORDS AND AUDITS. City reserves the right to periodically audit all charges made by Consultant to City for services under this Contract. Upon request, Consultant agrees to furnish City, or a designated representative, with necessary information and assistance.

Consultant agrees that City or its delegate shall have the right to review, obtain, and copy all records pertaining to performance of the Contract. Consultant agrees to provide City or its delegate with any relevant information requested, and shall permit City or its delegate access to its premises, upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of interviewing employees and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation for the purposes of determining compliance with this Contract.

Consultant agrees to maintain such records for a period of three years from the date that final payment is made.

18. CONFIDENTIALITY. Consultant shall exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the unauthorized disclosure and use of City reports, information or conclusions.

19. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Consultant covenants that other than this Contract, Consultant has no financial interest with any official, employee, or other representative of the City. Consultant and its principals do not have any financial interest in real property, sources of income or investment that would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services under this Contract. If such an interest arises, Consultant will immediately notify City.

EXHIBIT 1
Professional Services Contract – KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PROJECT NO. WT23039/HSIPL-5008(210)
(Updated 10/18/23)

20. WAIVER. In the event either City or Consultant at any time waive any breach of this Contract by the other, such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or succeeding breach of this Contract, whether of the same or of any other covenant, condition, or obligation.

21. GOVERNING LAW. California law shall govern any legal action pursuant to this Contract with venue for all claims in the Superior Court of the County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch or, where applicable, in the federal District Court of California, Eastern District, Sacramento Division.

22. NO PERSONAL LIABILITY. No official or employee of City shall be personally liable to Consultant in the event of any default or breach by City or for any amount due Consultant.

23. INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION. The response by Consultant to the Request for Proposals and the Request for Proposals on file with the City Clerk are hereby incorporated herein by reference to the extent that such documents do not differ from the provisions and terms of this Contract that shall supersede such response to Request for Proposals. This Contract represents the entire integrated agreement between Consultant and City, supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, between the parties, and may be amended only by written instrument signed by Consultant and City. All exhibits and this contract are intended to be construed as a single document. Should any inconsistency occur between the specific terms of this Contract and the attached exhibits, the terms of this Contract will prevail.

24. FEDERAL PROVISIONS. Consultant shall comply with the Federal Aid Consultant Contract Provisions which are attached hereto as Exhibit “G” and incorporated herein by this reference.

25. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Contract are severable to the extent that should any of its provisions or terms be declared void in whole or in part by operation of law or agreement of the parties, the remainder of the provisions or terms not expressly declared void shall remain enforceable and in full effect.

26. THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing in this Contract shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than City and Consultant.

27. AUTHORITY. The undersigned hereby represent and warrant that they are authorized by the parties to execute this Contract.

EXHIBIT 1
$>2EC:8<G(=F5;?A5G-%"G&)
#
(,,*

'+

G
=LÐ=qL,llЀ;,c-T8п©˜Ð¹†º¿«™¼Ð©†Æ˜Ð˜Éš‘Å¿˜”п©«½Ð
·²Àº‡’¿ÐÁ©˜Ð•ˆÊІ³–Ð˛‰ºÐ¦«»½¿Ð
ªœº˜¬³Š¸ÇÐȺ«Â¿ž³Ð
#%''##'

  =CCÐ
e0

q=M9Ð=tÐHO:-eÐ
qq2nuÐ


 Bq<3f?P-ÐgWEQ(Ð I!Ð"\J#Ð
$=q„Ð%F-hAÐ
`aiX~4*ÐpÐvYÐ8ZjKÐ



 +5b{w‚Ð'@z
Ðxy[kS6ƒÐ

&

'
' !
$
"
'
'

Ì
Î
ÏÐ ]

&


Í o«§³‹¿ÅºŸ
—Œ°Ð)´® º¨Ð ^ 7
Ð
_º¬µÃÐRŽ±¢Ð
v«¿¯¡Ð }­“£Ð^º¤¾«”¥¶Ä
1OLFCQRGMJ?IV6DPHAESVNKTO@BU %"(&
> -4)V*
V78.";
9V "+V
25/$<V,0V= !:#3'




V

/B30D64G



G
.195G!G@7G
EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton 14

6. Detailed Work Plan
Kimley-Horn has prepared a detailed Work Plan that is based on our understanding of the project and lessons learned from similar projects in the City and other jurisdictions. This project will include replacement of traffic signal infrastructure including signal backplates, 8-inch signal heads, and pedestrian push buttons. The project will also include the upgrade of curb ramps to meet ADA standards. The existing bike lane along the corridor will be upgraded to a buffered bike lane. Lastly, the project will include installation of some RRFBs.

Task 1: Background Research
Kimley-Horn staff (and City staff if available) will walk the entire project corridor to collect relevant information on existing street lights, pedestrian conditions, visible utilities (above- and below-ground), and traffic signal infrastructure.

Task 1.1: Field Review
Once the collection of topographic survey data (see Task 7) is completed, we will review the findings alongside our field visit notes so that any potential conflicts are positively identified and that a plan addressing them is put together prior to starting detailed design.

Task 1.1 Deliverables
 Photo Log of project intersections
Task 1.2: Utility Coordination
Kimley-Horn will compile public utility system maps, as-built traffic signal plans, previous design plans, and details for use in project design, and will submit utility information request letters to privately-owned utility companies with facilities in the public ROW that may be affected by this project. As necessary, we will work with all pertinent utility companies to identify utility conflicts, coordinate utility plan reviews, conduct necessary coordination meetings, and coordinate with the utility companies for any required utility relocations. This includes the preparation of utility letters (Notice to Owner) with project location exhibits. The utility requests will be on City letterhead to avoid paying fees. All affected or potentially affected utilities will be shown on the design plans. Should potholing be required, it will be the responsibility of the utility companies.

Task 1.2 Deliverables
 Copies of Utility Request Letters
Task 2: Environmental Services
Kimley-Horn understands that the City will prepare and file the necessary CEQA documentation for the project. Therefore, this scope does not include any Kimley-Horn staff time for CEQA documentation support. Should it be determined to be needed, Kimley-Horn can provide CEQA documentation support upon request for a separate scope and fee.

As the project is funded by the HSIP program; compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required. It is understood Caltrans will serve as the NEPA lead agency. This scope is prepared based on the signed PES included in the RFP. Based on available project information, Kimley-Horn assumes the project will qualify for a categorical exclusion (CE) pursuant to Section 23 USC 326, 23 CFR 771 activity (c)(22) supported by a Community Impact Assessment Memorandum (CIA Memo), Phase I initial Site Assessment (Phase I ISA), and Biological Resources Technical Memorandum. It is assumed that Caltrans staff would prepare and file the NEPA CE. This scope assumes there are no environmental permits (e.g., Clean Water Act 401 or 404 permits, Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement) required. Should permits become necessary, Kimley-Horn can provide permitting services under a separate scope and fee.

Task 2.1: Community Impact Assessment Memorandum
Kimley-Horn will prepare a brief CIA Memorandum in compliance with the latest Caltrans guidance and template in the Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference. Based on the direction provided in the signed PES, issues discussed in the CIA Memorandum will include potential property and parking access limitations during construction, emergency response access and coordination during construction, and potential impacts to bus stops and routes. This scope includes revisions in response to one consolidated round of City comments and one consolidated round of Caltrans comments.

Task 2.2: Phase I Initial Site Assessment
Kimley-Horn shall evaluate the project area for the presence of Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) and prepare a Phase I ISA in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard E-1527-21 per Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference, Environmental Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 10, “Guidelines for Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, and Contamination”, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312). Exceptions to the ASTM standard about this project will include the following: no title searches, property appraisals, or interviews will be performed for the

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton 15
project area. This scope includes revisions in response to one consolidated round of City comments and one consolidated round of Caltrans comments.

Task 2.3: Biological Resources Technical Memorandum
HT Harvey, as a subconsultant to Kimley-Horn, will prepare a Biological Resources Technical Memorandum, as noted in the signed PES. It is understood that the Project corridor crosses Walker Slough, which could be a biological resource. However, the Project would occur within the existing roadway and structure, and no structural work is anticipated to the bridge over Walker Slough. As such, it is not anticipated that permits or impacts would occur at Walker Slough, and the Biological Resources Technical Memorandum would qualitatively address the Project’s potential to impact biological resources.

Task 2 Deliverables
 Community Impact Assessment Memorandum
 Phase 1 ISA
 Biological Resources Technical Memorandum
Task 3: Plans, Specifications, and Estimate
Kimley-Horn will prepare 65%, 95%, and 100% Final (signed and sealed) plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimates. As part of this task, we will also complete a lighting analysis at the 65% design stage. We will deliver the PS&E package within seven months from the Notice to Proceed.

Task 3.1: 65% PS&E
Kimley-Horn will develop a 65% PS&E package to begin the project. The 65% design will include the following sheets:
 Title Sheet
 General Notes
 Horizontal Control and Key Map (two sheets)
 Typical Sections (three sheets)
 Demolition Plan – 40 scale
 Civil Layout Plan (ten sheets)
Signing and Striping (five sheets)
 Curb Ramp Sheets - high-level layout only
 Median Refuge Island Sheets (three sheets)
 Standard Detail Sheets (four sheets)
 Traffic Signal Sheets
 Street Lighting Sheets
For the 65% technical specifications submittal, we will prepare a refined technical specification based on the City’s base specifications. The revised 65% specifications will include additional details specific to the 65% design. We will update the engineer’s estimate based on the revised 65% design. The engineer’s estimate will be based on construction costs that we have seen for recent projects of similar size and scope.

As we have done on many similar projects for the City, we will perform a lighting analysis at along the project limits focusing on the photometrics and lighting levels using the City’s standard luminaries and the guidelines from the IES. We will confirm that minimum lighting levels and uniformity ratios are met, providing the City with recommendations on safety lighting placements in order to meet these minimums.

Task 3.1 Deliverables
 65% Plans
Task 3.2: 95% PS&E
 65% Technical Specifications
 65% Engineer’s Estimate
 Lighting Analysis Summary
Kimley-Horn will review the City’s 65% PS&E comments and address them in the 95% design and will organize a design review meeting

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton 16
with the City to discuss the comments. We will provide the complete design of curb ramps, including elevations, tie-in points, and station/offset labels. For the traffic signal modifications, we will include completed pole and equipment schedules.

For the technical specifications submittal, we will prepare a refined technical specification based on the City’s base specifications and the specifications submitted at 65%. The revised specifications will include additional details specific to the 95% design. Kimley-Horn will develop the 95% technical specifications to include specific provisions regarding construction requirements, materials, and compensation.

The applicable City standard details will be provided in an appendix to the special provisions. We will update the engineer’s estimate based on the revised 65% design. The engineer’s estimate will be based on construction costs that we have seen for recent projects of similar size and scope.

Kimley-Horn will prepare a comment resolution matrix summarizing the comments received on the 65% PS&E documents and the resolutions for each comment. This matrix will be submitted with the 95% PS&E documents. Based on the review comments on the 65% PS&E, the approved version of the 65% PS&E will be advanced to the 95% completion level.

At this design stage, we will work with the City to prepare and submit the Caltrans LAPM ROW Certification Form since any utilities that may need adjustment will have already been identified. Notice to Owner letters (if needed) will be completed under Task 1.2.

Task 3.2 Deliverables
 65% Design Comments Resolution Matrix
 95% Plans
Task 3.3: 100% Check Set
 95% Technical Specification
 95% Engineer’s Estimate
 ROW Certification Form
Upon completion of the 95% design review, Kimley-Horn will organize a design review meeting to discuss comments. KimleyHorn will prepare a comment resolution matrix which will summarize the comments received on the 95% PS&E documents and the resolutions for each comment. This matrix will be submitted with the 100% check print PS&E documents.

Based on the review comments on the 95% PS&E, the approved version of the 95% PS&E will be advanced to the 100% check print completion level. Kimley-Horn will submit the draft 100% PS&E to the City for a final plan check review.

Task 3.3 Deliverables
 95% Design Comments Resolution Matrix
 100% Check Plans
 100% Check Technical Specifications
 100% Check Engineer’s Estimate

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton 17
Task 3.4: 100% Final
Final plans, specifications, and estimates will be prepared following completion of the City’s plan check review. The final full-sized (24” x 36”) hard copy plans will be wet-signed by the professional engineer in responsible charge. The Final PS&E will be submitted to the City for use in advertising and constructing the project. One digital file of each of the plans, specifications, and estimate will be submitted to the City for record.

Task 3.4 Deliverables
 100% Complete Plans (wet signed and sealed, Mylar)
 100% Check Technical Specifications (wet signed and sealed)  100% Check Engineer’s Estimate (wet signed and sealed) Task 3.5: Quality Control
As part of this task, Kimley-Horn will complete independent quality control checks at each design stage. The quality control checks will include intra- and interdisciplinary checks of the plans which will be focused on presentation as well as constructability of the project.

Findings from the quality control checks will be incorporated into each of the PS&E packages prior to submittal. A signed quality control checklist will be submitted with each design deliverable.

Task 4: Coordination/Meetings
The coordination and meeting activities for this project will include the following:
 Attend one project kick-off meeting, one pre-construction meeting, and a post-construction meeting  Prepare and complete updates to the project schedule as needed (Microsoft Project)  Arrange and attend conference calls and field meetings with the City to discuss and present the proposed designs and review design plan comments (up to four – one per submittal)
 Attend meetings or the submittal of plans and grant compliance documents in addition to those described above and to coordinate utility service and adjustments. Any necessary modifications to the final design requested by the utility company will be provided upon written authorization from the City and for an additional fee to be agreed upon prior to starting work.

Task 4 Deliverables
 Meeting agendas and notes
Task 5: Public Outreach
As part of this task, Kimley-Horn will prepare materials for and host up to 2 (two) public outreach meetings to inform community members about the project. The Kimley-Horn team recommends that these meetings be held after the development of the conceptual (30% plans) and after the 95% plans are completed to 1) incorporate community feedback into the project and to 2) provide updates to community members about project status and potential construction timelines.

Task 6: Design Support During Construction
Bidding and construction phase engineering support will include answering City staff questions during the bid and award of the contract, review of submittals, responding to contractor requests for information (RFIs), review of contract change orders, preparation of addenda, and preparation of record drawings.

Bidding and construction phase engineering support services will be provided on a time-and-materials basis, based on hourly billing rates, up to the maximum number of hours as indicated in the separately sealed Cost Proposal. Kimley-Horn will notify the City upon reaching approximately 80% of the approved level of effort and will provide recommendation or request additional contract authorization, if necessary. Additional services will be provided if requested by the City, subject to additional fee.

Task 6 Deliverables
 Answers to bidder questions
 RFI responses
 Review of submittals
 Assistance with change orders

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT 1
City of Stockton 18
City of Stockton, Convert Signals to Mast Arms on MLK, Jr. HSIP Cycle 8 Boulevard, Stockton, CA
Task 7: Topographic Surveys/Preserving and Perpetuating Survey Monuments The Kimley-Horn team will perform a detailed (non-aerial) ground topographic surveying and base mapping along the project limits. We will establish horizontal and vertical control derived from local City-approved NAD83, California State Plane Coordinates and NAVD88 benchmarks. Land surveying will include mapping research, horizontal and vertical control, boundary, and ROW surveying. We will coordinate closely with the City to attain the necessary mapping, documentation, traffic control, and permitting required for this project. All survey monuments will be identified, listed, and shown on construction plans. We will include language in the PS&E package to preserve all monumentation affected by the work being performed.

The topographic survey will be conducted at all five of the project intersections. The survey limits at each project intersection will include 400 feet in each direction from beginning and end of each curb return. The width of the survey will cover the full roadway and approximately five feet beyond the back of existing sidewalks. The ground survey will include, but not be limited to, the following: edge of pavement (or road), sidewalks, curbs, gutters, medians, fences, poles, signs, signals, cabinets, driveways, trees, landscaping, ditches, culverts, grade breaks, striping and markings, storm drain structures, inlets, sanitary sewer manholes, cleanouts, water valves, meters, fire hydrants, gas valves, fiber, and all visible underground and overhead facilities within the project limits. Typical roadway cross-sections will be taken at 25-foot intervals or closer and will include all grade breaks, center crown, quarter crown, change in directions, and curve points.

Tactile, ramps, grade breaks and other curb ramp details will be located, including main joints and pedestrian striping as well as ground, utility, and traffic features to five feet behind the back of sidewalk and will include height of overhead utilities. The survey will locate all inlets and manholes related to sewer and storm drain and will include pipe inverts, pipe sizes, and flow direction.

Task 7 Deliverables
 Topographic Survey
 Signed acknowledgement of Monument Preservation Form

7. Examples with Similar Work
Kimley-Horn’s team members have worked together on numerous traffic safety projects for the City and other public agencies across California. Our long history of serving the City provides us with a solid understanding of the City’s traffic patterns and existing conditions as well as the City’s design standards and details, enabling us to hit the ground running on this project. We have included examples of projects below and in the following pages that are similar to the scope and size of this project.

City of Stockton, BRT Phase III on Hammer Lane, Stockton, CA Kimley-Horn completed the environmental documents (CEQA and NEPA) and the detailed PS&E documents for the installation of TSP treatments at 24 intersections along Hammer Lane. This BRT project was the third phase of the City’s and SJRTD’s overall BRT Program.

The BRT alignment included Caltrans intersections located at I-5 and Highway 99, and one County of San Joaquin intersection. KimleyHorn secured encroachment permits from Caltrans and the County for the BRT work to be done on their ROW and completed the Request for Authorization (RFA) for construction. The project elements included new advanced traffic controllers and cabinets, CCTV systems, TSP system elements including optical and GPS-based elements, ADA treatments, and the development and implementation of signal timings with TSP. The design also included the connection and integration of video security cameras from BRT stations within the City’s communications system for SJRTD to gain real-time feeds from the cameras. The City’s video cameras were routed to the Stockton Police Department for video monitoring and surveillance. We converted all traffic signal databases to new advanced traffic controllers, prepared and implemented new coordinated signal timings, bench-tested all new traffic controllers with TSP, tested and calibrated the TSP equipment in the field, and integrated and field-implemented new traffic controllers, including signal timings and TSP operations at the project intersections.

The City will install approximately 17 miles of Class II bike routes and approximately 1.8 miles of Class III bicycle lanes, all citywide. One of the bike routes will be enhanced with sharrows and additional signage. This project will also install signs along existing bicycle routes where necessary to increase awareness of and to encourage use of these routes. Kimley-Horn’s services included field reviews to determine and document existing conditions of the project segments and the bicycle facility plans, which included signs, posts, and pavement marking details as well as signing and striping plans.

City of Stockton, Installation and Upgrade of Bicycle Facilities (Class II and Class III), Stockton, CA

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT 1
196.54% Overhead% Name John Pulliam Kevin Aguigui Elbert Chang Ryan Dole 195.57% Overhead% w/o FCCM
Category/Title Principal-in- Charge Project Manager QA/QC QA/QC 10% Fee% Direct Rate $112.17 $137.71 $111.96 $104.35 $99.81 $84.90 $67.83 $56.76 $39.01 Billing Rate $365.78 $449.07 $365.10 $340.28 $325.48 $276.86 $221.19 $185.09 $127.21 Task 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 14 2 23 $ 4,760.62

1.1 1 4 2 14 2 23 $ 4,760.62
0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 17% 9% 61% 9%
Task 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 9 95 0 124 $ 25,111.65

2.1 9 9 36 54 $ 11,145.77

2.3 11 59 70 $ 13,965.89
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% 7% 77% 0%
Task 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 4 18 2 42 $ 9,454.27

3.1 18 4 18 2 42 $ 9,454.27
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 43% 10% 43% 5%
Task 4 1 8 6 6 0 69 142 510 22 764 $ 155,898.79

4.1 0 $-

4.2 1 2 25 52 220 9 309 $ 61,552.57

4.3 2 32 72 240 9 355 $ 71,250.47

4.4 2 8 18 50 4 82 $ 16,857.91

4.5 2 6 6 4 18 $ 6,237.84
0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 9% 19% 67% 3%
Task 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 2 15 $ 3,027.68

5.1 4 9 2 15 $ 3,027.68
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 27% 0% 60% 13%
Task 6 0 2 0 0 18 0 9 4 33 $ 8,056.23

6.1 2 18 9 4 33 $ 8,056.23
0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 55% 0% 27% 12%
Task 7 0 4 0 0 20 8 20 4 56 $ 13,313.63

7.1 4 20 8 20 4 56 $ 13,313.63
0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 36% 14% 36% 7%
Task 8 0 2 0 0 8 0 14 8 32 $ 6,721.97

8.1 2 8 14 8 32 $ 6,721.97
0% 6% 0% 0% 25% 0% 44% 25%
Task 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 $ 1,294.08

9.1 2 4 6 $ 1,294.08
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 67% 0%
1 16 7 6 0 163 165 693 44 1095
$365.78 $7,185.09 $2,555.69 $2,041.69 $0.00 $45,127.59 $36,496.61 $128,269.21 $5,597.26 $ 227,638.92 $ 121,137.03
$ 5,515.00
$ 750.00 $ 500.00
DBE $ 82,838.35DBE $ 9,000.00
DBE
$ 22,533.68
$ 348,775.95
DBE % 23.8%
Background ResearchBackground Research
CITY OF STOCKTON, Rev 2 - June 30, 2025
El Dorado Street Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Connectivity Federal Project No. HSIP-5008(210), City Project No. WT23039 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Sr.

Professional II
Sr.

Professional I Professional Analyst Project Support
TOTAL
HOURS
TOTAL
COST
Task 2 Percentage of Work
Utility CoordinationUtility Coordination
Task 1 Percentage of Work
Environmental ServicesCIA MemoHazardous Materials/WastePlans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E)30% PS&E 65% PS&E95% PS&E100% PS&EQuality Control
Task 3 Percentage of WorkTask 5 Percentage of Work
Coordination/MeetingsCoordination/Meetings
Task 4 Percentage of Work
Public OutreachPublic OutreachDesign Support During ConstructionDesign Support During Construction Task 6 Percentage of WorkTask 8 Percentage of Work
Preserving and Perpetuating Survey MonumentsPreserving and Perpetuating Survey Monuments Task 7 Percentage of Work
As-Built DrawingsAs-Built Drawings
Task 8 Percentage of Work
Outside Printing/Courier ServicesUNICO EngineeringPothole (Assume 2 @ $4500/EA)Wiltec (Traffic Counts)H.T. Harvey & Associates

TOTAL HOURS
Subtotal Labor:

TOTAL COST:

Other Direct CostsEscalationTravel/Mileage

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT 1
Summary of changes: -Removed the utility locating sub (KH will assume this role), reduced the total number of potholes to 2 (just for new poles at the intersection of 8th and El Dorado),reduced the fee on the survey sub (refined scope for topographic survey limits), removed traffic counts sub (City will provide required traffic counts). reallocated staffhours to create a better balance between senior and junior staff. Removed 30% submittalDesign assumptions - Demo sheets: at 40 scale, not 20; Paving sheets: prepare at 95% submittal; Curb ramp/bulbouts: minimal annotations at 65% where we confirmgrading works ID Task Name Start Finish Duration
1 NTP (assumed after City Council approval) Tue 9/16/25 Tue 9/16/25 0 days 2 Task 4: Coordination and Meetings Tue 9/16/25 Fri 3/12/27 389 days 3 Project Management and Administration Tue 9/16/25 Fri 3/12/27 389 days4 Project Kick-off Meeting Wed 9/24/25 Wed 9/24/25 0 days 5 Project Meetings Thu 9/25/25 Fri 4/3/26 137 days
6 Task 1: Background Research Thu 10/2/25 Wed 1/28/26 85 days7 Field Review Thu 10/2/25 Wed 10/8/25 5 days 8 Utility Letter A Thu 11/27/25 Wed 12/3/25 5 days
9 Utility Letter B Thu 12/4/25 Wed
12/10/25
5 days
10 Utility Letter C Thu 1/22/26 Wed 1/28/26 5 days
11 Potholing Thu 12/18/25 Wed
12/31/25
10 days
12 Task 2: Environmental Services Thu 10/2/25 Wed
12/10/25
50 days
13 NEPA Clearance Thu 10/2/25 Wed
11/26/25
40 days
14 CEQA Clearance Thu 11/27/25 Wed
12/10/25
10 days
15 Task 3: Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) Thu 10/9/25 Fri 5/8/26 152 days16 Prepare 30% PS&E Thu 10/9/25 Wed 10/22/25
10 days
17 City Review Thu 10/23/25 Wed 11/5/25 10 days18 Prepare 65% PS&E Thu 11/6/25 Wed 11/26/25
15 days
19 City Review Thu 11/27/25 Wed
12/17/25
15 days
20 Prepare 95% PS&E Thu 1/1/26 Wed 1/21/26 15 days21 City Review Thu 1/22/26 Wed 2/25/26 25 days22 Right-of-Way Certification (to City) Mon 2/2/26 Fri 2/6/26 5 days23 Right-of-Way Certification Submittal to Caltrans (by City)
Fri 2/6/26 Fri 2/6/26 0 days
24 Right-of-Way Certification Review (by Caltrans) Mon 2/9/26 Fri 2/20/26 10 days 25 RFA Submittal by City (to Caltrans) Mon 2/23/26 Fri 3/6/26 10 days26 E-76 for Construction (anticipated) Mon 3/9/26 Fri 4/3/26 20 days27 Prepare 100% Check Print Mon 4/6/26 Fri 4/17/26 10 days28 City Review Mon 4/20/26 Fri 5/1/26 10 days29 100% Complete (mylars) Mon 5/4/26 Fri 5/8/26 5 days30 Task 5: Public Outreach Thu 10/23/25 Thu 1/22/26 66 days 31 Meeting #1 Thu 10/23/25 Thu 10/23/25 1 day32 Meeting #2 Thu 1/22/26 Thu 1/22/26 1 day33 Task 5: Design Support During Construction Mon 5/25/26 Fri 6/11/27 275 days 34 Bidding Support (Project Advertisement) Mon 5/25/26 Fri 7/3/26 30 days35 Construction Contract Award (anticipated) Fri 9/25/26 Fri 9/25/26 0 days36 Construction NTP (anticipated) Fri 12/18/26 Fri 12/18/26 0 days37 Construction Support (assumed) Mon 12/21/26 Fri 6/4/27 120 days 38 As-Built Drawings Mon 6/7/27 Fri 6/11/27 5 days
39 Task 6: Preserving & Perpetuating Survey Monuments Thu 10/9/25 Fri 6/11/27 437 days40 Conduct Topographic Survey Thu 10/9/25 Wed 10/22/25
10 days
41 Preserving and Perpetuating Survey Monuments Mon 6/7/27 Fri 6/11/27 5 days NTP (assumed after City Council approval)
Project Kick-off Meeting
Utility Letter A
Utility Letter B
Utility Letter C
NEPA Clearance
CEQA Clearance
Prepare 30% PS&E
City Review
Prepare 65% PS&E
City Review
Prepare 95% PS&E
City Review
Right-of-Way Certification (to City)Right-of-Way Certification Submittal to Caltrans (by City) Right-of-Way Certification Review (by Caltrans)
RFA Submittal by City (to Caltrans)
E-76 for Construction (anticipated)
Prepare 100% Check Print
City Review
100% Complete (mylars)
Meeting #1
Meeting #2
Construction Contract Award (anticipated)
Construction NTP (anticipated)
As-Built Drawings
Sep '25 Oct '25 Nov '25 Dec '25 Jan '26 Feb '26 Mar '26 Apr '26 May '26 Jun '26 Jul '26 Aug '26 Sep '26 Oct '26 Nov '26 Dec '26 Jan '27 Feb '27 Mar '27 Apr '27 May '27 Jun '27

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT 1
REV 2024-03-25
Insurance Requirements
(Professional Services)
Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.

MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(Not required if consultant provides written verification it has no employees)

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriates to the Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $5,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $5,000,000 aggregate.

If the Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Stockton requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Stockton.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT 1
REV 2024-03-25
Additional Insured Status
The City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or if not available, through the addition of both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 if a later edition is used). Additional insured Name of Organization shall read “City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers.” Policy shall cover City of Stockton, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for all locations work is done under this contract.

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

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

Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the City of Stockton.

Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City of Stockton a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor may acquire against the City of Stockton by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT 1
REV 2024-03-25
provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Stockton has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of Stockton. The City of Stockton may require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or City of Stockton. The CGL and any policies, including Excess liability policies, may not be subject to a self-insured retention (SIR) or deductible that exceeds $25,000 unless approved in writing by City of Stockton. Any and all deductibles and SIRs shall be the sole responsibility of Contractor or subcontractor who procured such insurance and shall not apply to the Indemnified Additional Insured Parties. City of Stockton may deduct from any amounts otherwise due Contractor to fund the SIR/deductible. Policies shall NOT contain any self-insured retention (SIR) provision that limits the satisfaction of the SIR to the Named. The policy must also provide that Defense costs, including the Allocated Loss Adjustment Expenses, will satisfy the SIR or deductible. City of Stockton reserves the right to obtain a copy of any policies and endorsements for verification.

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

Claims Made Policies (Professional & Pollution only)
If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

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

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced w ith another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.

Verification of Coverage

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT 1
REV 2024-03-25
Contractor shall furnish the City of Stockton with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsements Pages of the CGL and any Excess policies listing all policy endorsements. All certificates and endorsements and copies of the Declarations & Endorsements pages are to be received and approved by the City of Stockton before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The City of Stockton reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. City of Stockton reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.

Subcontractors
Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City of Stockton is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.

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

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

Certificate Holder Address
The address for mailing certificates, endorsements and notices shall be:

City of Stockton
Its Officers, Officials, Employees, and Volunteers
400 E Main St, 3rd Floor – HR
Stockton, CA 95202

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT 1
APPENDIX A of the Title VI Assurances
During the performance of this Agreement, the contractor, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as CONSULTANT) agrees as follows:
a. Compliance with Regulations: CONSULTANT shall comply with the regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the REGULATIONS), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement.
b. Nondiscrimination: CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed by it during the AGREEMENT, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or disability in the selection and retention of sub-applicants, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment.

CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the agreement covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Regulations.
c. Solicitations for Sub-agreements, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by CONSULTANT for work to be performed under a Sub- agreement, including procurements of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub-applicant or supplier shall be notiÞed by CONSULTANT of the CONSULTANT’S obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. d. Information and Reports: CONSULTANT shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the recipient or FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations or directives.

Where any information required of CONSULTANT is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, CONSULTANT shall so certify to the recipient or FHWA as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts CONSULTANT has made to obtain the information. e. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of CONSULTANT’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this agreement, the recipient shall impose such agreement sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT 1
i. withholding of payments to CONSULTANT under the Agreement within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 90 days; and/or ii. cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. Page 34 of 39 May 2023 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language
f. Incorporation of Provisions: CONSULTANT shall include the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6) in every sub-agreement, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto.

CONSULTANT shall take such action with respect to any sub-agreement or procurement as the recipient or FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance, provided, however, that, in the event CONSULTANT becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub-applicant or supplier as a result of such direction, CONSULTANT may request the recipient enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, CONSULTANT may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States.

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT 1
Appendix E of the Title VI Assurances
(US DOT Order 1050.2A)
During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) agrees to comply with the following nondiscrimination statutes and authorities; including but not limited to:

Pertinent Nondiscrimination Authorities:
 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21.
 The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal-aid programs and projects);
 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex);
 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27;
 The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age);
 Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 4 71, Section 4 7123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex);
 The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not);
 Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38;

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT 1
 The Federal Aviation Administration's Nondiscrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex);
 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations;  Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100);
 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq).

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
+Federal-Aid Consultant Contract Provisions

EL DORADO STREET PEDESTRIAN BICYCLIST SAFETY CONNECTIVITY City Project No. WT23039/Federal-Aid Project No. HSIP-5008(210)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE II CONSULTANT’S REPORTS OR MEETINGS ....................................................................... 4 ARTICLE III STATEMENT OF WORK ...................................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE IV PERFORMANCE PERIOD ................................................................................................... 6 ARTICLE V ALLOWABLE COSTS AND PAYMENTS ............................................................................. 6 ARTICLE VI TERMINATION ................................................................................................................... 10 ARTICLE VII COST PRINCIPLES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS..................................... 11 ARTICLE VIII RETENTION OF RECORD/AUDITS ................................................................................ 11 ARTICLE IX AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 12 ARTICLE X SUBCONTRACTING .......................................................................................................... 13 ARTICLE XI EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES .............................. 15 ARTICLE XII STATE PREVAILING WAGE RATES ............................................................................... 16 ARTICLE XIII CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................................... 19 ARTICLE XIV REBATES, KICKBACKS OR OTHER UNLAWFUL CONSIDERATION ......................... 19

ARTICLE XV PROHIBITION OF EXPENDING LOCAL AGENCY, STATE, OR FEDERAL FUNDS FOR LOBBYING ..................................................................................................................................... 20 ARTICLE XVI NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE AND STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE .................... 20 ARTICLE XVII DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION .................................................... 21 ARTICLE XVIII DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE) PARTICIPATION ................... 22 ARTICLE XIX INSURANCE .................................................................................................................... 28 ARTICLE XX FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 29 ARTICLE XXI CHANGE IN TERMS ........................................................................................................ 29

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
ARTICLE XXII CONTINGENT FEE ......................................................................................................... 29 ARTICLE XXIII DISPUTES ..................................................................................................................... 30 ARTICLE XXIV INSPECTION OF WORK ............................................................................................... 30 ARTICLE XXV SAFETY ......................................................................................................................... 30 ARTICLE XXVI OWNERSHIP OF DATA ................................................................................................ 31 ARTICLE XXVII CLAIMS FILED BY LOCAL AGENCY’s CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR .............. 31 ARTICLE XXVIII CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA .................................................................................... 32 ARTICLE XXIX NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION....................................... 32 ARTICLE XXX EVALUATION OF CONSULTANT ................................................................................. 33 ARTICLE XXXI PROMPT PAYMENT ..................................................................................................... 33 ARTICLE XXXII TITLE VI ASSURANCES ............................................................................................. 33 ARTICLE XXXIII NOTIFICATION ........................................................................................................... 38 ARTICLE XXXIV CONTRACT ................................................................................................................ 38 ARTICLE XXXV SIGNATURES .............................................................................................................. 39 Additional California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Exhibits Incorporated:

Exhibit 10-O2 “Consultant Contract Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Commitment”

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023

ARTICLE I INTRODUCTION
A. This AGREEMENT is between the following named, hereinafter referred to as, CONSULTANT and the following named, hereinafter referred to as, LOCAL AGENCY:

The name of the “CONSULTANT” is as follows:

KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Incorporated in the State of CALIFORNIA
The Project Manager for the “CONSULTANT” will be
KEVIN AGUIGUI The name of the “LOCAL AGENCY” is as
follows:

CITY OF STOCKTON
The Contract Administrator for LOCAL AGENCY will be ZULEMA RODRIGUEZ B. The work to be performed under this AGREEMENT is described in Article III Statement of Work and the approved CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal dated 06/30/2025. The approved CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal is attached hereto Exhibit B and incorporated by reference. If there is any conflict between the approved Cost Proposal and this AGREEMENT, this AGREEMENT shall take precedence.

C. CONSULTANT agrees to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless LOCAL AGENCY, its officers, officials, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, demands, liability, costs, losses and expenses, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ and expert witness fees, arising out of any failure to comply with applicable law, any injury to or death of any person(s), damage to property, loss of use of property, economic loss or otherwise arising out of the performance of the work described herein, to the extent caused by a negligent act or negligent failure to act, errors, omissions, recklessness or willful misconduct incident to the performance of this AGREEMENT on the part of CONSULTANT, except such loss or damage which was caused by the sole negligence, or willful misconduct of LOCAL AGENCY, as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The provisions of this section shall survive termination or suspension of this AGREEMENT.

D. CONSULTANT in the performance of this AGREEMENT, shall act in an independent capacity. It is understood and agreed that CONSULTANT (including CONSULTANT's employees) is an independent contractor and that no relationship of employer-employee exists between the Parties hereto. CONSULTANT's assigned personnel shall not be entitled to any benefits payable to employees of City.

E. LOCAL AGENCY is not required to make any deductions or withholdings from the compensation payable to CONSULTANT under the provisions of the AGREEMENT, and is not required to issue W-2 Forms for income and employment tax purposes for any of CONSULTANT's assigned personnel. CONSULTANT, in the performance of its obligation hereunder, is only subject to the control or direction of the LOCAL AGENCY as to the designation of tasks to be performed and the results to be accomplished.

F. Any third party person(s) employed by CONSULTANT shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT hereby indemnifies and holds LOCAL AGENCY harmless from any and all claims that may be made against City based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this AGREEMENT.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
G. Except as expressly authorized herein, CONSULTANT's obligations under this AGREEMENT are not assignable or transferable, and CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any work, without the prior written approval of the LOCAL AGENCY. However, claims for money due or which become due to CONSULTANT from City under this AGREEMENT may be assigned to a financial institution or to a trustee in bankruptcy, without such approval. Notice of any assignment or transfer whether voluntary or involuntary shall be furnished promptly to the LOCAL AGENCY.

H. CONSULTANT shall be as fully responsible to the LOCAL AGENCY for the negligent acts and omissions of its contractors and subcontractors or subconsultants, and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by them, in the same manner as persons directly employed by CONSULTANT.

I. No alteration or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid, unless made in writing and signed by the parties authorized to bind the parties; and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein, shall be binding on any of the parties hereto.

J. The consideration to be paid to CONSULTANT as provided herein, shall be in compensation for all of CONSULTANT’s expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem, unless otherwise expressly so provided.

ARTICLE II CONSULTANT’S REPORTS OR MEETINGS
A. CONSULTANT shall submit progress reports at least once a month. The report should be sufficiently detailed for the LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator to determine, if CONSULTANT is performing to expectations, or is on schedule; to provide communication of interim findings, and to sufficiently address any difficulties or special problems encountered, so remedies can be developed.

B. CONSULTANT’s Project Manager shall meet with LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator, as needed, to discuss progress on the AGREEMENT.

ARTICLE III STATEMENT OF WORK
A. CONSULTANT Services
See Exhibit A, Scope of Services of the Professional Services Contract.

B. Right of Way
See Exhibit A, Scope of Services of the Professional Services Contract.

C. Surveys
See Exhibit A, Scope of Services of the Professional Services Contract.

D. Subsurface Investigations
See Exhibit A, Scope of Services of the Professional Services Contract.

E. Local Agency Obligations
All data applicable to the project and in possession of LOCAL AGENCY, another agency, or government agency that are to be made available to CONSULTANT are referred to in the AGREEMENT. Any other assistance or services to be furnished to CONSULTANT are to be stated clearly.

F. Conferences, Site Visits, Inspection of Work
This AGREEMENT provides for conferences as needed, visits to the site, and inspection of the work by representatives of the LOCAL AGENCY, State, and/or FHWA. Costs incurred by

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
CONSULTANT for meetings, subsequent to the initial meeting shall be included in the fee.

G. Checking Shop Drawings
For AGREEMENTs requiring the preparation of construction drawings, make provision for checking shop drawings. Payment for checking shop drawings by CONSULTANT may be included in the AGREEMENT fee, or provision may be made for separate payment.

H. CONSULTANT Services During Construction
The extent, if any of CONSULTANT’s services during the course of construction as material testing, construction surveys. etc., are specified in the AGREEMENT together with the method of payment for such services.

I. Documentation and Schedules
AGREEMENTs where appropriate, shall provide that CONSULTANT document the results of the work to the satisfaction of LOCAL AGENCY, and if applicable, the State and FHWA. This may include preparation of progress and final reports, plans, specifications and estimates, or similar evidence of attainment of the AGREEMENT objectives.

J. Deliverables and Number of Copies
The number of copies or documents to be furnished, such as reports, brochures, sets of plans, specifications, or Right of Way parcel maps shall be specified. Provision may be made for payment for additional copies.

ARTICLE IV PERFORMANCE PERIOD
A. This AGREEMENT shall go into effect on 09/09/2025, contingent upon approval by LOCAL AGENCY, and CONSULTANT shall commence work after notification to proceed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Contract Administrator. The AGREEMENT shall end on 09/30/2027, unless extended by AGREEMENT amendment.

B. CONSULTANT is advised that any recommendation for AGREEMENT award is not binding on LOCAL AGENCY until the AGREEMENT is fully executed and approved by LOCAL AGENCY. [Use paragraph C below in addition to paragraphs A & B above for on-call AGREEMENTs. On-call AGREEMENTs shall be 5 years maximum.]

ARTICLE V ALLOWABLE COSTS AND PAYMENTS
[Choose either Option 1, 2, 3, or 4]
[Option 1 - Use paragraphs A through K below for Cost-Plus-Fixed Fee AGREEMENTs] A. The method of payment for this AGREEMENT will be based on actual cost plus a fixed fee. LOCAL AGENCY will reimburse CONSULTANT for actual costs (including labor costs, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental costs, overhead and other direct costs) incurred by CONSULTANT in performance of the work. CONSULTANT will not be reimbursed for actual costs that exceed the estimated wage rates, employee benefits, travel, equipment rental, overhead, and other estimated costs set forth in the approved CONSULTANT’S Cost Proposal, unless additional reimbursement is provided for by AGREEMENT amendment. In no event, will CONSULTANT be reimbursed for overhead costs at a rate that exceeds LOCAL AGENCY’s approved overhead rate set forth in the Cost Proposal. In the event, that LOCAL AGENCY determines that a change to the work from that specified in the Cost Proposal and AGREEMENT is required, the AGREEMENT time or actual costs reimbursable by LOCAL AGENCY shall be adjusted by AGREEMENT amendment to accommodate the changed work. The maximum total cost as specified in Paragraph “I” of this Article shall not be exceeded, unless authorized by AGREEMENT amendment.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
B. The indirect cost rate established for this AGREEMENT is extended through the duration of this specific AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT’s agreement to the extension of the 1-year applicable period shall not be a condition or qualification to be considered for the work or AGREEMENT award.

C. In addition to the allowable incurred costs, LOCAL AGENCY will pay CONSULTANT a fixed fee of $348,775.95. The fixed fee is nonadjustable for the term of the AGREEMENT, except in the event of a significant change in the scope of work and such adjustment is made by AGREEMENT amendment.

D. Reimbursement for transportation and subsistence costs shall not exceed the rates specified in the approved Cost Proposal.

E. When milestone cost estimates are included in the approved Cost Proposal, CONSULTANT shall obtain prior written approval for a revised milestone cost estimate from the Contract Administrator before exceeding such cost estimate.

F. Progress payments will be made monthly in arrears based on services provided and allowable incurred costs. A pro rata portion of CONSULTANT’s fixed fee will be included in the monthly progress payments. If CONSULTANT fails to submit the required deliverable items according to the schedule set forth in Article III Statement of Work, LOCAL AGENCY shall have the right to delay payment or terminate this AGREEMENT.

G. No payment will be made prior to approval of any work, nor for any work performed prior to approval of this AGREEMENT.

H. CONSULTANT will be reimbursed promptly according to California Regulations upon receipt by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator of itemized invoices in duplicate. Invoices shall be submitted no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the performance of work for which CONSULTANT is billing. Invoices shall detail the work performed on each milestone and each project as applicable. Invoices shall follow the format stipulated for the approved Cost Proposal and shall reference this AGREEMENT number and project title. Final invoice must contain the final cost and all credits due LOCAL AGENCY including any equipment purchased under the provisions of Article XI Equipment Purchase. The final invoice should be submitted within sixty (60) calendar days after completion of CONSULTANT’s work. Invoices shall be mailed to LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator at the following address:

CITY OF STOCKTON
22 E. WEBER AVENUE, ROOM 301, STOCKTON, CA 95202
I. The total amount payable by LOCAL AGENCY including the fixed fee shall not exceed $348,775.95.

J. For personnel subject to prevailing wage rates as described in the California Labor Code, all salary increases, which are the direct result of changes in the prevailing wage rates are reimbursable.

ARTICLE VI TERMINATION
A. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by LOCAL AGENCY, provided that LOCAL AGENCY gives not less than thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate. Upon termination, LOCAL AGENCY shall be entitled to all work, including but not limited to, reports, investigations, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date, whether completed or not.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
B. LOCAL AGENCY may temporarily suspend this AGREEMENT, at no additional cost to LOCAL AGENCY, provided that CONSULTANT is given written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of temporary suspension. If LOCAL AGENCY gives such notice of temporary suspension, CONSULTANT shall immediately suspend its activities under this AGREEMENT. A temporary suspension may be issued concurrent with the notice of termination.

C. Notwithstanding any provisions of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT shall not be relieved of liability to LOCAL AGENCY for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach of this AGREEMENT by CONSULTANT, and City may withhold any payments due to CONSULTANT until such time as the exact amount of damages, if any, due City from CONSULTANT is determined.

D. In the event of termination, CONSULTANT shall be compensated as provided for in this AGREEMENT. Upon termination, LOCAL AGENCY shall be entitled to all work, including but not limited to, reports, investigations, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date, whether completed or not.

ARTICLE VII COST PRINCIPLES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A. The CONSULTANT agrees that 48 CFR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, shall be used to determine the allowability of individual terms of cost.

B. The CONSULTANT also agrees to comply with Federal procedures in accordance with 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

C. Any costs for which payment has been made to the CONSULTANT that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 48 CFR 31 or 2 CFR 200 are subject to repayment by the CONSULTANT to LOCAL AGENCY.

D. When a CONSULTANT or Subconsultant is a Non-Profit Organization or an Institution of Higher Education, the Cost Principles for Title 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards shall apply.

ARTICLE VIII RETENTION OF RECORD/AUDITS
For the purpose of determining compliance with Gov. Code § 8546.7, the CONSULTANT, Subconsultants, and LOCAL AGENCY shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, Independent CPA Audited Indirect Cost Rate workpapers, and other evidence pertaining to the performance of the AGREEMENT including, but not limited to, the costs of administering the AGREEMENT. All parties, including the CONSULTANT’s Independent CPA, shall make such workpapers and materials available at their respective offices at all reasonable times during the AGREEMENT period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment under the AGREEMENT and records for real property and equipment acquired with federal funds must be retained for three (3) years after final disposition. LOCAL AGENCY, Caltrans Auditor, FHWA, or any duly authorized representative of the Federal government having jurisdiction under Federal laws or regulations (including the basis of Federal funding in whole or in part) shall have access to any books, records, and documents of the CONSULTANT, Subconsultants, and the CONSULTANT’s Independent CPA, that are pertinent to the AGREEMENT for audits, examinations, workpaper review, excerpts, and transactions, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested without limitation.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023

ARTICLE IX AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer.

B. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing.

C. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by LOCAL AGENCY will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT.

D. CONSULTANT and subconsultant AGREEMENTs, including cost proposals and Indirect Cost Rates (ICR), may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT audit, an incurred cost audit, an ICR Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, LOCAL AGENCY, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s work papers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference if directed by LOCAL AGENCY at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, LOCAL AGENCY or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.

E. CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal may be subject to a CPA ICR Audit Work Paper Review and/or audit by the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (IOAI). IOAI, at its sole discretion, may review and/or audit and approve the CPA ICR documentation. The Cost Proposal shall be adjusted by the CONSULTANT and approved by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report. Refusal by the CONSULTANT to incorporate the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report will be considered a breach of the AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.

1. During IOAI’s review of the ICR audit work papers created by the CONSULTANT’s independent CPA, IOAI will work with the CPA and/or CONSULTANT toward a resolution of issues that arise during the review. Each party agrees to use its best efforts to resolve any audit disputes in a timely manner. If IOAI identifies significant issues during the review and is unable to issue a cognizant approval letter, LOCAL AGENCY will reimburse the CONSULTANT at an accepted ICR until a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) compliant ICR (e.g. 48 CFR Part 31; GAGAS (Generally Accepted Auditing Standards); CAS (Cost Accounting Standards), if applicable; in accordance with procedures and guidelines of the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Audit Guide; and other applicable procedures and guidelines) is received and approved by IOAI.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
Accepted rates will be as follows:
a. If the proposed rate is less than one hundred fifty percent (150%) - the accepted rate reimbursed will be ninety percent (90%) of the proposed rate. b. If the proposed rate is between one hundred fifty percent (150%) and two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be eighty-five percent (85%) of the proposed rate.
c. If the proposed rate is greater than two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be seventy-five percent (75%) of the proposed rate.

2. If IOAI is unable to issue a cognizant letter per paragraph E.1. above, IOAI may require CONSULTANT to submit a revised independent CPA-audited ICR and audit report within three (3) months of the effective date of the management letter. IOAI will then have up to six (6) months to review the CONSULTANT’s and/or the independent CPA’s revisions.

3. If the CONSULTANT fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph E, or if IOAI is still unable to issue a cognizant approval letter after the revised independent CPA audited ICR is submitted, overhead cost reimbursement will be limited to the accepted ICR that was established upon initial rejection of the ICR and set forth in paragraph E.1. above for all rendered services. In this event, this accepted ICR will become the actual and final ICR for reimbursement purposes under this AGREEMENT.

4. CONSULTANT may submit to LOCAL AGENCY final invoice only when all of the following items have occurred: (1) IOAI accepts or adjusts the original or revised independent CPA audited ICR; (2) all work under this AGREEMENT has been completed to the satisfaction of LOCAL AGENCY; and, (3) IOAI has issued its final ICR review letter. The CONSULTANT MUST SUBMIT ITS FINAL INVOICE TO LOCAL AGENCY no later than sixty (60) calendar days after occurrence of the last of these items. The accepted ICR will apply to this AGREEMENT and all other agreements executed between LOCAL AGENCY and the CONSULTANT, either as a prime or subconsultant, with the same fiscal period ICR.

ARTICLE X SUBCONTRACTING
A. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT or otherwise, shall create any contractual relation between the LOCAL AGENCY and any Subconsultants, and no subagreement shall relieve the CONSULTANT of its responsibilities and obligations hereunder. The CONSULTANT agrees to be as fully responsible to the LOCAL AGENCY for the acts and omissions of its Subconsultants and of persons either directly or indirectly employed by any of them as it is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT's obligation to pay its Subconsultants is an independent obligation from the LOCAL AGENCY's obligation to make payments to the CONSULTANT.

B. The CONSULTANT shall perform the work contemplated with resources available within its own organization and no portion of the work shall be subcontracted without written authorization by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator, except that which is expressly identified in the CONSULTANT’s approved Cost Proposal.

C. Any subagreement entered into as a result of this AGREEMENT, shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this entire AGREEMENT to be applicable to Subconsultants unless otherwise noted.

D. CONSULTANT shall pay its Subconsultants within Fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of each payment made to the CONSULTANT by the LOCAL AGENCY.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
E. Any substitution of Subconsultants must be approved in writing by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator in advance of assigning work to a substitute Subconsultant.

F. Prompt Progress Payment
CONSULTANT or subconsultant shall pay to any subconsultant, not later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of each progress payment, unless otherwise agreed to in writing, the respective amounts allowed CONSULTANT on account of the work performed by the subconsultants, to the extent of each subconsultant’s interest therein. In the event that there is a good faith dispute over all or any portion of the amount due on a progress payment from CONSULTANT or subconsultant to a subconsultant, CONSULTANT or subconsultant may withhold no more than 150 percent of the disputed amount. Any violation of this requirement shall constitute a cause for disciplinary action and shall subject the licensee to a penalty, payable to the subconsultant, of 2 percent of the amount due per month for every month that payment is not made.

In any action for the collection of funds wrongfully withheld, the prevailing party shall be entitled to his or her attorney’s fees and costs. The sanctions authorized under this requirement shall be separate from, and in addition to, all other remedies, either civil, administrative, or criminal. This clause applies to both DBE and non-DBE subconsultants.

G. Prompt Payment of Withheld Funds to Subconsultants
The LOCAL AGENCY may hold retainage from CONSULTANT and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the LOCAL AGENCY, of the contract work, and pay retainage to CONSULTANT based on these acceptances. The LOCAL AGENCY shall designate one of the methods below in the contract to ensure prompt and full payment of any retainage kept by CONSULTANT or subconsultant to a subconsultant.

The LOCAL AGENCY shall hold retainage from CONSULTANT and shall make prompt and regular incremental acceptances of portions, as determined by the LOCAL AGENCY of the contract work and pay retainage to CONSULTANT based on these acceptances. CONSULTANT or subconsultant shall return all monies withheld in retention from all subconsultants within 15 days after receiving payment for work satisfactorily completed and accepted including incremental acceptances of portions of the contract work by the LOCAL AGENCY. Any delay or postponement of payment may take place only for good cause and with the LOCAL AGENCY’s prior written approval. Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating CONSULTANT or subconsultant to the penalties, sanctions, and other remedies specified in Section 3321 of the California Civil Code. This requirement shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative or judicial remedies otherwise available to CONSULTANT or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by CONSULTANT; deficient subconsultant performance and/or noncompliance by a subconsultant. This clause applies to both DBE and nonDBE subconsultants.

Any violation of these provisions shall subject the violating CONSULTANT or subconsultant to the penalties, sanctions and other remedies specified therein. These requirements shall not be construed to limit or impair any contractual, administrative, or judicial remedies otherwise available to CONSULTANT or subconsultant in the event of a dispute involving late payment or nonpayment by CONSULTANT, deficient subcontract performance, or noncompliance by a subconsultant.

ARTICLE XI EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND OTHER CAPITAL EXPENDITURES A. Prior authorization in writing by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator shall be required before CONSULTANT enters into any unbudgeted purchase order, or subcontract exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) for supplies, equipment, or CONSULTANT services. CONSULTANT shall provide an evaluation of the necessity or desirability of incurring such costs.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
B. For purchase of any item, service, or consulting work not covered in CONSULTANT’s approved Cost Proposal and exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), with prior authorization by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator, three competitive quotations must be submitted with the request, or the absence of proposal must be adequately justified.

C. Any equipment purchased with funds provided under the terms of this AGREEMENT is subject to the following:

1. CONSULTANT shall maintain an inventory of all nonexpendable property. Nonexpendable property is defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more. If the purchased equipment needs replacement and is sold or traded in, LOCAL AGENCY shall receive a proper refund or credit at the conclusion of the AGREEMENT, or if the AGREEMENT is terminated, CONSULTANT may either keep the equipment and credit LOCAL AGENCY in an amount equal to its fair market value, or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale, in accordance with established LOCAL AGENCY procedures; and credit LOCAL AGENCY in an amount equal to the sales price. If CONSULTANT elects to keep the equipment, fair market value shall be determined at CONSULTANT’s expense, on the basis of a competent independent appraisal of such equipment. Appraisals shall be obtained from an appraiser mutually agreeable to by LOCAL AGENCY and CONSULTANT, if it is determined to sell the equipment, the terms and conditions of such sale must be approved in advance by LOCAL AGENCY.

2. Regulation 2 CFR 200 requires a credit to Federal funds when participating equipment with a fair market value greater than five thousand dollars ($5,000) is credited to the project.

ARTICLE XII STATE PREVAILING WAGE RATES
A. No CONSULTANT or Subconsultant may be awarded an AGREEMENT containing public work elements unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to Labor Code §1725.5. Registration with DIR must be maintained throughout the entire term of this AGREEMENT, including any subsequent amendments.

B. The CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the applicable provisions of the California Labor Code requiring the payment of prevailing wages. The General Prevailing Wage Rate Determinations applicable to work under this AGREEMENT are available and on file with the Department of Transportation's Regional/District Labor Compliance Officer (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/construction/labor-compliance). These wage rates are made a specific part of this AGREEMENT by reference pursuant to Labor Code §1773.2 and will be applicable to work performed at a construction project site. Prevailing wages will be applicable to all inspection work performed at LOCAL AGENCY construction sites, at LOCAL AGENCY facilities and at off-site locations that are set up by the construction contractor or one of its subcontractors solely and specifically to serve LOCAL AGENCY projects. Prevailing wage requirements do not apply to inspection work performed at the facilities of vendors and commercial materials suppliers that provide goods and services to the general public.

C. General Prevailing Wage Rate Determinations applicable to this project may also be obtained from the Department of Industrial Relations website at http://www.dir.ca.gov.

D. Payroll Records

1. Each CONSULTANT and Subconsultant shall keep accurate certified payroll records and supporting documents as mandated by Labor Code §1776 and as defined in 8 CCR §16000 showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by the CONSULTANT or

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
Subconsultant in connection with the public work. Each payroll record shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalty of perjury, stating both of the following:
a. The information contained in the payroll record is true and correct. b. The employer has complied with the requirements of Labor Code §1771, §1811, and §1815 for any work performed by his or her employees on the public works project.

2. The payroll records enumerated under paragraph (1) above shall be certified as correct by the CONSULTANT under penalty of perjury. The payroll records and all supporting documents shall be made available for inspection and copying by LOCAL AGENCY representatives at all reasonable hours at the principal office of the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall provide copies of certified payrolls or permit inspection of its records as follows:
a. A certified copy of an employee's payroll record shall be made available for inspection or furnished to the employee or the employee's authorized representative on request. b. A certified copy of all payroll records enumerated in paragraph (1) above, shall be made available for inspection or furnished upon request to a representative of LOCAL AGENCY, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations. Certified payrolls submitted to LOCAL AGENCY, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards shall not be altered or obliterated by the CONSULTANT.
c. The public shall not be given access to certified payroll records by the CONSULTANT.

The CONSULTANT is required to forward any requests for certified payrolls to the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator by both email and regular mail on the business day following receipt of the request.

3. Each CONSULTANT shall submit a certified copy of the records enumerated in paragraph (1) above, to the entity that requested the records within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of a written request.

4. Any copy of records made available for inspection as copies and furnished upon request to the public or any public agency by LOCAL AGENCY shall be marked or obliterated in such a manner as to prevent disclosure of each individual's name, address, and social security number. The name and address of the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant performing the work shall not be marked or obliterated.

5. The CONSULTANT shall inform LOCAL AGENCY of the location of the records enumerated under paragraph (1) above, including the street address, city and county, and shall, within five (5) working days, provide a notice of a change of location and address.

6. The CONSULTANT or Subconsultant shall have ten (10) calendar days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of written notice requesting the records enumerated in paragraph (1) above. In the event the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant fails to comply within the ten (10) day period, he or she shall, as a penalty to LOCAL AGENCY, forfeit one hundred dollars ($100) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated.

Such penalties shall be withheld by LOCAL AGENCY from payments then due. CONSULTANT is not subject to a penalty assessment pursuant to this section due to the failure of a Subconsultant to comply with this section.

E. When prevailing wage rates apply, the CONSULTANT is responsible for verifying compliance with certified payroll requirements. Invoice payment will not be made until the invoice is approved by the

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator.

F. Penalty

1. The CONSULTANT and any of its Subconsultants shall comply with Labor Code §1774 and §1775. Pursuant to Labor Code §1775, the CONSULTANT and any Subconsultant shall forfeit to the LOCAL AGENCY a penalty of not more than two hundred dollars ($200) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done under the AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT or by its Subconsultant in violation of the requirements of the Labor Code and in particular, Labor Code §§1770 to 1780, inclusive.

2. The amount of this forfeiture shall be determined by the Labor Commissioner and shall be based on consideration of mistake, inadvertence, or neglect of the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant in failing to pay the correct rate of prevailing wages, or the previous record of the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant in meeting their respective prevailing wage obligations, or the willful failure by the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant to pay the correct rates of prevailing wages. A mistake, inadvertence, or neglect in failing to pay the correct rates of prevailing wages is not excusable if the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant had knowledge of the obligations under the Labor Code. The CONSULTANT is responsible for paying the appropriate rate, including any escalations that take place during the term of the AGREEMENT.

3. In addition to the penalty and pursuant to Labor Code §1775, the difference between the prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each worker was paid less than the prevailing wage rate shall be paid to each worker by the CONSULTANT or Subconsultant.

4. If a worker employed by a Subconsultant on a public works project is not paid the general prevailing per diem wages by the Subconsultant, the CONSULTANT of the project is not liable for the penalties described above unless the CONSULTANT had knowledge of that failure of the Subconsultant to pay the specified prevailing rate of wages to those workers or unless the CONSULTANT fails to comply with all of the following requirements:
a. The AGREEMENT executed between the CONSULTANT and the Subconsultant for the performance of work on public works projects shall include a copy of the requirements in Labor Code §§ 1771, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813, and 1815. b. The CONSULTANT shall monitor the payment of the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages by the Subconsultant to the employees by periodic review of the certified payroll records of the Subconsultant.
c. Upon becoming aware of the Subconsultant’s failure to pay the specified prevailing rate of wages to the Subconsultant’s workers, the CONSULTANT shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify the failure, including but not limited to, retaining sufficient funds due the Subconsultant for work performed on the public works project. d. Prior to making final payment to the Subconsultant for work performed on the public works project, the CONSULTANT shall obtain an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury from the Subconsultant that the Subconsultant had paid the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages to the Subconsultant’s employees on the public works project and any amounts due pursuant to Labor Code §1813.

5. Pursuant to Labor Code §1775, LOCAL AGENCY shall notify the CONSULTANT on a public works project within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of a complaint that a Subconsultant has failed to pay workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023

6. If LOCAL AGENCY determines that employees of a Subconsultant were not paid the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and if LOCAL AGENCY did not retain sufficient money under the AGREEMENT to pay those employees the balance of wages owed under the general prevailing rate of per diem wages, the CONSULTANT shall withhold an amount of moneys due the Subconsultant sufficient to pay those employees the general prevailing rate of per diem wages if requested by LOCAL AGENCY.

G. Hours of Labor
Eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. The CONSULTANT shall forfeit, as a penalty to the LOCAL AGENCY, twenty-five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the execution of the AGREEMENT by the CONSULTANT or any of its Subconsultants for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code, and in particular §§1810 to 1815 thereof, inclusive, except that work performed by employees in excess of eight (8) hours per day, and forty (40) hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day and forty (40) hours in any week, at not less than one and one-half (1.5) times the basic rate of pay, as provided in §1815.

H. Employment of Apprentices

1. Where either the prime AGREEMENT or the subagreement exceeds thirty thousand dollars ($30,000), the CONSULTANT and any subconsultants under him or her shall comply with all applicable requirements of Labor Code §§ 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 in the employment of apprentices.

2. CONSULTANTs and subconsultants are required to comply with all Labor Code requirements regarding the employment of apprentices, including mandatory ratios of journey level to apprentice workers. Prior to commencement of work, CONSULTANT and subconsultants are advised to contact the DIR Division of Apprenticeship Standards website at https://www.dir.ca.gov/das/, for additional information regarding the employment of apprentices and for the specific journey-to- apprentice ratios for the AGREEMENT work. The CONSULTANT is responsible for all subconsultants’ compliance with these requirements.

Penalties are specified in Labor Code §1777.7.

ARTICLE XIII CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. During the term of this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with LOCAL AGENCY that may have an impact upon the outcome of this AGREEMENT or any ensuing LOCAL AGENCY construction project. The CONSULTANT shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this AGREEMENT or any ensuing LOCAL AGENCY construction project which will follow.

B. CONSULTANT certifies that it has disclosed to LOCAL AGENCY any actual, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest that may exist relative to the services to be provided pursuant to this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT agrees to advise LOCAL AGENCY of any actual, apparent or potential conflicts of interest that may develop subsequent to the date of execution of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT further agrees to complete any statements of economic interest if required by either LOCAL AGENCY ordinance or State law.

C. The CONSULTANT hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor shall it acquire any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of services under this AGREEMENT.

D. The CONSULTANT hereby certifies that the CONSULTANT or subconsultant and any firm affiliated with the CONSULTANT or subconsultant that bids on any construction contract or on any

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
Agreement to provide construction inspection for any construction project resulting from this AGREEMENT, has established necessary controls to ensure a conflict of interest does not exist. An affiliated firm is one, which is subject to the control of the same persons, through joint ownership or otherwise.

ARTICLE XIV REBATES, KICKBACKS OR OTHER UNLAWFUL CONSIDERATION The CONSULTANT warrants that this AGREEMENT was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration either promised or paid to any LOCAL AGENCY employee.

For breach or violation of this warranty, LOCAL AGENCY shall have the right, in its discretion, to terminate this AGREEMENT without liability, to pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or to deduct from this AGREEMENT price or otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration.

ARTICLE XV PROHIBITION OF EXPENDING LOCAL AGENCY, STATE, OR FEDERAL FUNDS

FOR LOBBYING
A. The CONSULTANT certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No State, Federal, or LOCAL AGENCY appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any local, State, or Federal agency, a Member of the State Legislature or United States Congress, an officer or employee of the Legislature or Congress, or any employee of a Member of the Legislature or Congress in connection with the awarding or making of this AGREEMENT, or with the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of this AGREEMENT.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this AGREEMENT, the CONSULTANT shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions.

B. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by 31 U.S.C. §1352. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for each such failure.

C. The CONSULTANT also agrees by signing this document that he or she shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower tier subagreements, which exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

ARTICLE XVI NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE AND STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE A. The CONSULTANT’s signature affixed herein and dated shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the CONSULTANT has, unless exempt, complied with the nondiscrimination program requirements of Gov. Code §12990 and 2 CCR § 8103.

B. During the performance of this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT and its subconsultants shall not deny the AGREEMENT’s benefits to any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
veteran status, nor shall they unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. CONSULTANT and subconsultants shall insure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment.

CONSULTANT and subconsultants shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code §12990 et seq.), the applicable regulations promulgated there under (2 CCR §11000 et seq.), the provisions of Gov. Code §§11135-11139.5, and the regulations or standards adopted by LOCAL AGENCY to implement such article. The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission implementing Gov. Code §12990 (a-f), set forth 2 CCR §§8100-8504, are incorporated into this AGREEMENT by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full.

C. CONSULTANT shall permit access by representatives of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the LOCAL AGENCY upon reasonable notice at any time during the normal business hours, but in no case less than twenty-four (24) hours’ notice, to such of its books, records, accounts, and all other sources of information and its facilities as said Department or LOCAL AGENCY shall require to ascertain compliance with this clause.

D. CONSULTANT and its subconsultants shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other Agreement.

E. CONSULTANT shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under this AGREEMENT.

F. The CONSULTANT, with regard to the work performed under this AGREEMENT, shall act in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §2000d et seq.). Title VI provides that the recipients of federal assistance will implement and maintain a policy of nondiscrimination in which no person in the United States shall, on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or subject to discrimination under any program or activity by the recipients of federal assistance or their assignees and successors in interest.

G. The CONSULTANT shall comply with regulations relative to non-discrimination in federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation (49 CFR 21 - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Specifically, the CONSULTANT shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by 49 CFR §21.5, including employment practices and the selection and retention of Subconsultants.

H. CONSULTANT, subrecipient or subconsultant will never exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by 49 CFR 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering the LOCAL AGENCY components of the DBE Program Plan, CONSULTANT, subrecipient or subconsultant will not, directly, or through contractual or other arrangements, use criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the DBE Program Plan with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin.

ARTICLE XVII DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION
A. The CONSULTANT’s signature affixed herein shall constitute a certification under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the CONSULTANT or any person associated

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer or manager:

1. Is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any federal agency;

2. Has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded, or determined ineligible by any federal agency within the past three (3) years;

3. Does not have a proposed debarment pending; and

4. Has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past three (3) years.

B. Any exceptions to this certification must be disclosed to LOCAL AGENCY. Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of recommendation for award, but will be considered in determining responsibility. Disclosures must indicate the party to whom the exceptions apply, the initiating agency, and the dates of agency action.

C. Exceptions to the Federal Government excluded parties (https://sam.gov/content/home) maintained by the U.S. General Services Administration are to be determined by FHWA.

ARTICLE XVIII DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (DBE) PARTICIPATION A. CONSULTANT, subrecipient (LOCAL AGENCY), or subconsultant shall take necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that DBEs have opportunities to participate in the contract (49 CFR 26).

To ensure equal participation of DBEs provided in 49 CFR 26.5, the LOCAL AGENCY shows a contract goal for DBEs. CONSULTANT shall make work available to DBEs and select work parts consistent with available DBE subconsultants and suppliers.

CONSULTANT shall meet the DBE goal shown elsewhere in these special provisions or demonstrate that they made adequate Good Faith Efforts (GFE) to meet this goal. It is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to verify at date of proposal opening that the DBE firm is certified as a DBE by using the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP) database and possesses the most specific available North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and work code applicable to the type of work the firm will perform on the contract. Additionally, the CONSULTANT is responsible to document the verification record by printing out the CUCP data for each DBE firm. A list of DBEs certified by the CUCP can be found at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/civil-rights/dbe-search.

All DBE participation will count toward the California Department of Transportation’s federally mandated statewide overall DBE goal. Credit for materials or supplies CONSULTANT purchases from DBEs counts towards the goal in the following manner:
 100 percent counts if the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer.  60 percent counts if the materials or supplies are purchased from a DBE regular dealer.  Only fees, commissions, and charges for assistance in the procurement and delivery of materials or supplies count if obtained from a DBE that is neither a manufacturer nor regular dealer. 49 CFR 26.55 defines "manufacturer" and "regular dealer." This AGREEMENT is subject to 49 CFR 26 entitled “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs”. CONSULTANTs who enter into a federally-funded agreement will assist the LOCAL AGENCY in a good faith effort to achieve California's statewide overall DBE goal.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
B. The goal for DBE participation for this AGREEMENT is 23 %. Participation by DBE CONSULTANT or subconsultants shall be in accordance with information contained in Exhibit 10- O2: Consultant Contract DBE Commitment attached hereto and incorporated as part of the AGREEMENT. If a DBE subconsultant is unable to perform, CONSULTANT must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another DBE subconsultant, if the goal is not otherwise met.

C. CONSULTANT can meet the DBE participation goal by either documenting commitments to DBEs to meet the AGREEMENT goal, or by documenting adequate good faith efforts to meet the AGREEMENT goal. An adequate good faith effort means that the CONSULTANT must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal that, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to meet the DBE goal. If CONSULTANT has not met the DBE goal, complete and submit Exhibit 15-H: Proposer/Contractor Good Faith Efforts to document efforts to meet the goal. Refer to 49 CFR 26 for guidance regarding evaluation of good faith efforts to meet the DBE goal.

D. Contract Assurance
Under 49 CFR 26.13(b):

CONSULTANT, subrecipient or subconsultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. CONSULTANT shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR 26 in the award and administration of federal-aid contracts.

Failure by the CONSULTANT to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to:
(1) Withholding monthly progress payments;
(2) Assessing sanctions;
(3) Liquidated damages; and/or
(4) Disqualifying CONSULTANT from future proposing as non-responsible E. Termination and Replacement of DBE Subconsultants
CONSULTANT shall utilize the specific DBEs listed to perform the work and supply the materials for which each is listed unless CONSULTANT or DBE subconsultant obtains the LOCAL AGENCY’s written consent. CONSULTANT shall not terminate or replace a listed DBE for convenience and perform the work with their own forces or obtain materials from other sources without authorization from the LOCAL AGENCY. Unless the LOCAL AGENCY’s consent is provided, the CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any payment for work or material unless it is performed or supplied by the listed DBE on the Exhibit 10-02: Consultant Contract DBE Commitment form.

Termination of DBE Subconsultants
After execution of the AGREEMENT, termination of a DBE may be allowed for the following, but not limited to, justifiable reasons with prior written authorization from the LOCAL AGENCY:

1. Listed DBE fails or refuses to execute a written contract based on plans and specifications for the project.

2. The LOCAL AGENCY stipulated that a bond is a condition of executing the subcontract and the listed DBE fails to meet the LOCAL AGENCY’s bond requirements.

3. Work requires a consultant's license and listed DBE does not have a valid license under Contractors License Law.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023

4. Listed DBE fails or refuses to perform the work or furnish the listed materials (failing or refusing to perform is not an allowable reason to remove a DBE if the failure or refusal is a result of bad faith or discrimination).

5. Listed DBE's work is unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the contract.

6. Listed DBE is ineligible to work on the project because of suspension or debarment.

7. Listed DBE becomes bankrupt or insolvent or exhibits credit unworthiness.

8. Listed DBE voluntarily withdraws with written notice from the Contract.

9. Listed DBE is ineligible to receive credit for the type of work required.

10. Listed DBE owner dies or becomes disabled resulting in the inability to perform the work on the Contract.

11. The LOCAL AGENCY determines other documented good cause.

CONSULTANT must use the following procedures to request the termination of a DBE or portion of a DBE’s work:

1. Send a written notice to the DBE of the CONSULTANT’s intent to use other forces or material sources and include one or more justifiable reasons listed above. Simultaneously send a copy of this written notice to the LOCAL AGENCY. The written notice to the DBE must request they provide any response within five (5) business days to both the CONSULTANT and the LOCAL AGENCY by either acknowledging their agreement or documenting their reasoning as to why the use of other forces or sources of materials should not occur.

2. If the DBE does not respond within five (5) business days, CONSULTANT may move forward with the request as if the DBE had agreed to CONSULTANT’s written notice.

3. Submit CONSULTANT’s DBE termination request by written letter to the LOCAL AGENCY and include:
 One or more above listed justifiable reasons along with supporting documentation.  CONSULTANT’s written notice to the DBE regarding the request, including proof of transmission and tracking documentation of CONSULTANT’s written notice  The DBE's response to CONSULTANT’s written notice, if received. If a written response was not provided, provide a statement to that effect.

The LOCAL AGENCY shall respond in writing to CONSULTANT’s DBE termination request within five (5) business days.

Replacement of DBE Subconsultants
After receiving the LOCAL AGENCY’s written authorization of DBE termination request, CONSULTANT must obtain the LOCAL AGENCY’s written agreement for DBE replacement.

CONSULTANT must find or demonstrate GFEs to find qualified DBE replacement firms to perform the work to the extent needed to meet the DBE commitment.

The following procedures shall be followed to request authorization to replace a DBE firm:

1. Submit a request to replace a DBE with other forces or material sources in writing to the LOCAL AGENCY which must include:
a. Description of remaining uncommitted work item made available for replacement DBE solicitation and participation.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
b. The proposed DBE replacement firm's business information, the work they have agreed to perform, and the following:
 Description of scope of work and cost proposal
 Proposed subcontract agreement and written confirmation of agreement to perform on the Contract
 Revised Exhibit 10-O2: Consultant Contract DBE Commitment

2. If CONSULTANT has not identified a DBE replacement firm, submits documentation of CONSULTANT’s GFEs to use DBE replacement firms within seven (7) days of LOCAL AGENCY's authorization to terminate the DBE. CONSULTANT may request the LOCAL AGENCY's approval to extend this submittal period to a total of 14 days. Submit documentation of actions taken to find a DBE replacement firm, such as:
 Search results of certified DBEs available to perform the original DBE work identified and or other work CONSULTANT had intended to self-perform, to the extent needed to meet DBE commitment
 Solicitations of DBEs for performance of work identified  Correspondence with interested DBEs that may have included contract details and requirements
 Negotiation efforts with DBEs that reflect why an agreement was not reached  If a DBE's quote was rejected, provide reasoning for the rejection, such as why the DBE was unqualified for the work, or why the price quote was unreasonable or excessive
 Copies of each DBE's and non-DBE's price quotes for work identified, as the LOCAL AGENCY may contact the firms to verify solicitation efforts and determine if the DBE quotes are substantially higher
 Additional documentation that supports CONSULTANT’s GFE The LOCAL AGENCY shall respond in writing to CONSULTANT’s DBE replacement request within five (5) business days.

F. Commitment and Utilization
The LOCAL AGENCY’s DBE program must include a monitoring and enforcement mechanism to ensure that DBE commitments reconcile to DBE utilization.

The LOCAL AGENCY shall request CONSULTANT to:

1. Notify the LOCAL AGENCY’s contract administrator or designated representative of any changes to its anticipated DBE participation

2. Provide this notification before starting the affected work

3. Maintain records including:
 Name and business address of each 1st-tier subconsultant  Name and business address of each DBE subconsultant, DBE vendor, and DBE trucking company, regardless of tier
 Date of payment and total amount paid to each business (see Exhibit 9-F: Monthly Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Payment)

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
If CONSULTANT is a DBE CONSULTANT, they shall include the date of work performed by their own forces and the corresponding value of the work.

If a DBE is decertified before completing its work, the DBE must notify CONSULTANT in writing of the decertification date. If a business becomes a certified DBE before completing its work, the business must notify CONSULTANT in writing of the certification date. CONSULTANT shall submit the notifications to the LOCAL AGENCY. On work completion, CONSULTANT shall complete Exhibit 17-O: Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Certification Status Change and submit the form to the LOCAL AGENCY within 30 days of contract acceptance.

Upon work completion, CONSULTANT shall complete Exhibit 17-F: Final Report – Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE), First-Tier Subcontractors and submit it to the LOCAL AGENCY within 90 days of contract acceptance. The LOCAL AGENCY will withhold $10,000 until the form is submitted. The LOCAL AGENCY will release the withhold upon submission of the completed form.

In the LOCAL AGENCY’s reports of DBE participation to Caltrans, the LOCAL AGENCY must display both commitments and attainments.

G. Commercially Useful Function
DBEs must perform a commercially useful function (CUF) under 49 CFR 26.55 when performing work or supplying materials listed on the DBE Commitment form. The DBE value of work will only count toward the DBE commitment if the DBE performs a CUF. A DBE performs a CUF when it is responsible for execution of the work of the AGREEMENT and is carrying out its responsibilities by actually performing, managing, and supervising the work involved. To perform a CUF, the DBE must also be responsible, with respect to materials and supplies used on the AGREEMENT, for negotiating price, determining quality and quantity, ordering the material and installing (where applicable), and paying for the material itself.

CONSULTANT must perform CUF evaluation for each DBE working on a federal-aid contract, with or without a DBE goal. Perform a CUF evaluation at the beginning of the DBE’s work and continue to monitor the performance of CUF for the duration of the project.

CONSULTANT must provide written notification to the LOCAL AGENCY at least 15 days in advance of each DBE's initial performance of work or supplying materials for the Contract. The notification must include the DBE's name, work the DBE will perform on the contract, and the location, date, and time of where their work will take place.

Within 10 days of a DBE initially performing work or supplying materials on the Contract, CONSULTANT shall submit to the LPA the initial evaluation and validation of DBE performance of a CUF using the LAPM 9-J: Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Commercially Useful Function Evaluation. Include the following information with the submittal:
 Subcontract agreement with the DBE
 Purchase orders
 Bills of lading
 Invoices
 Proof of payment
CONSULTANT must monitor all DBE’s performance of CUF by conducting quarterly evaluations

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
and validations throughout their duration of work on the Contract using the LAPM 9-J: DBE Commercially Useful Function Evaluation. CONSULTANT must submit to the LOCAL AGENCY these quarterly evaluations and validations by the 5th of the month for the previous three months of work.

CONSULTANT must notify the LOCAL AGENCY immediately if they believe the DBE may not be performing a CUF.

The LOCAL AGENCY will verify DBEs performance of CUF by reviewing the initial and quarterly submissions of LAPM 9-J: DBE Commercially Useful Function Evaluation, submitted supporting information, field observations, and through any additional LOCAL AGENCY evaluations. The LOCAL AGENCY must evaluate DBEs and their CUF performance throughout the duration of a Contract. The LOCAL AGENCY will provide written notice to the CONSULTANT and the DBE at least two (2) business days prior to any evaluation. The CONSULTANT and the DBE must participate in the evaluation. Upon completing the evaluation, the LOCAL AGENCY must share the evaluation results with the CONSULTANT and the DBE. An evaluation could include items that must be remedied upon receipt. If the LOCAL AGENCY determines the DBE is not performing a CUF, the CONSULTANT must suspend performance of the noncompliant work.

CONSULTANT and DBEs must submit any additional CUF related records and documents within five (5) business days of LOCAL AGENCY’s request such as:
 Proof of ownership or lease and rental agreements for equipment  Tax records
 Employee rosters
 Certified payroll records
 Inventory rosters
Failure to submit required DBE Commercially Useful Function Evaluation forms or requested records and documents can result in withholding of payment for the value of work completed by the DBE.

If CONSULTANT and/or the LOCAL AGENCY determine that a listed DBE is not performing a CUF in performance of their DBE committed work, CONSULTANT must immediately suspend performance of the noncompliant portion of the work. LOCAL AGENCY may deny payment for the noncompliant portion of the work. LOCAL AGENCY will ask the CONSULTANT to submit a corrective action plan (CAP) to the LOCAL AGENGY within five (5) days of the noncompliant CUF determination. The CAP must identify how the CONSULTANT will correct the noncompliance findings for the remaining portion of the DBE's work. LOCAL AGENCY has five (5) days to review the CAP in conjunction with the CONSULTANT’s review. The CONSULTANT must implement the CAP within five (5) days of the LOCAL AGENCY's approval. The LOCAL AGENCY will then authorize the prior noncompliant portion of work for the DBE's committed work.

If corrective actions cannot be accomplished to ensure the DBE performs a commercially useful function on the Contract, CONSULTANT may have good cause to request termination of the DBE.

H. A DBE does not perform a CUF if its role is limited to that of an extra participant in a transaction, AGREEMENT, or project through which funds are passed in order to obtain the appearance of DBE participation. In determining whether a DBE is such an extra participant, examine similar transactions, particularly those in which DBEs do not participate.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
I. If a DBE does not perform or exercise responsibility for at least thirty percent (30%) of the total cost of its AGREEMENT with its own work force, or the DBE subcontracts a greater portion of the work of the AGREEMENT than would be expected on the basis of normal industry practice for the type of work involved, it will be presumed that it is not performing a CUF.

J. CONSULTANT shall maintain records of materials purchased or supplied from all subcontracts entered into with certified DBEs. The records shall show the name and business address of each DBE or vendor and the total dollar amount actually paid each DBE or vendor, regardless of tier.

The records shall show the date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to all firms. DBE CONSULTANT’s shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work.

K. If a DBE subconsultant is decertified during the life of the AGREEMENT, the decertified subconsultant shall notify CONSULTANT in writing with the date of decertification. If a subconsultant becomes a certified DBE during the life of the AGREEMENT, the subconsultant shall notify CONSULTANT in writing with the date of certification. Any changes should be reported to LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator within thirty (30) calendar days.

L. For projects awarded on or after March 1, 2020, but before September 1, 2023: No later than the 10th of the month following the month of any payment(s), the CONSULTANT must submit an invoice for payment along with Exhibit 9-F: Monthly Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Payment to the Caltrans Business Support Unit at [email protected]. Provide a copy to the LOCAL AGENCY administering the contract.

For projects awarded on or after September 1, 2023: Exhibit 9-F is no longer required. Instead, by the 15th of the month following the month of any payment(s), the CONSULTANT must now submit Exhibit 9-P to the LOCAL AGENCY administering the contract. If the CONSULTANT does not make any payments to subconsultants, supplier(s), and/or manufacturers they must report “no payments were made to subs this month” and write this visibly and legibly on Exhibit 9-P.

M. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this AGREEMENT shall contain all of the provisions of this section.

ARTICLE XIX INSURANCE
See Section 3 of the Professional Services Contract.

ARTICLE XX FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
A. It is mutually understood between the parties that this AGREEMENT may have been written before ascertaining the availability of funds or appropriation of funds, for the mutual benefit of both parties, in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that would occur if the AGREEMENT were executed after that determination was made.

B. This AGREEMENT is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to LOCAL AGENCY for the purpose of this AGREEMENT. In addition, this AGREEMENT is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, conditions, or any statute enacted by the Congress, State Legislature, or LOCAL AGENCY governing board that may affect the provisions, terms, or funding of this AGREEMENT in any manner.

C. It is mutually agreed that if sufficient funds are not appropriated, this AGREEMENT may be amended to reflect any reduction in funds.

D. LOCAL AGENCY has the option to terminate the AGREEMENT pursuant to Article VI Termination, or by mutual agreement to amend the AGREEMENT to reflect any reduction of funds.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023

ARTICLE XXI CHANGE IN TERMS
A. This AGREEMENT may be amended or modified only by mutual written agreement of the parties.

B. CONSULTANT shall only commence work covered by an amendment after the amendment is executed and notification to proceed has been provided by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator.

C. There shall be no change in CONSULTANT’s Project Manager or members of the project team, as listed in the approved Cost Proposal, which is a part of this AGREEMENT without prior written approval by LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator.

ARTICLE XXII CONTINGENT FEE
CONSULTANT warrants, by execution of this AGREEMENT that no person or selling agency has been employed, or retained, to solicit or secure this AGREEMENT upon an agreement or understanding, for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees, or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by CONSULTANT for the purpose of securing business. For breach or violation of this warranty, LOCAL AGENCY has the right to annul this AGREEMENT without liability; pay only for the value of the work actually performed, or in its discretion to deduct from the AGREEMENT price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee.

ARTICLE XXIII DISPUTES
Prior to either party commencing any legal action under this AGREEMENT, the parties agree to try in good faith, to settle any dispute amicably between them. If a dispute has not been settled after forty-five (45) days of good-faith negotiations and as may be otherwise provided herein, then either party may commence legal action against the other.

A. Any dispute, other than audit, concerning a question of fact arising under this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by a committee consisting of LOCAL AGENCY’s Contract Administrator and (Insert Department Head or Official), who may consider written or verbal information submitted by CONSULTANT.

B. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after completion of all work under the AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT may request review by LOCAL AGENCY Governing Board of unresolved claims or disputes, other than audit. The request for review will be submitted in writing.

C. Neither the pendency of a dispute, nor its consideration by the committee will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT.

ARTICLE XXIV INSPECTION OF WORK
CONSULTANT and any subconsultant shall permit LOCAL AGENCY, the State, and the FHWA if federal participating funds are used in this AGREEMENT; to review and inspect the project activities and files at all reasonable times during the performance period of this AGREEMENT.

ARTICLE XXV SAFETY
A. CONSULTANT shall comply with OSHA regulations applicable to CONSULTANT regarding necessary safety equipment or procedures. CONSULTANT shall comply with safety instructions issued by LOCAL AGENCY Safety Officer and other LOCAL AGENCY representatives.

CONSULTANT personnel shall wear hard hats and safety vests at all times while working on the

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
construction project site.

B. Pursuant to the authority contained in Vehicle Code §591, LOCAL AGENCY has determined that such areas are within the limits of the project and are open to public traffic. CONSULTANT shall comply with all of the requirements set forth in Divisions 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Vehicle Code.

CONSULTANT shall take all reasonably necessary precautions for safe operation of its vehicles and the protection of the traveling public from injury and damage from such vehicles.

C. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this contract, shall contain all of the provisions of this Article.

D. CONSULTANT must have a Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CAL-OSHA) permit(s), as outlined in Labor Code §6500 and §6705, prior to the initiation of any practices, work, method, operation, or process related to the construction or excavation of trenches which are five (5) feet or deeper.

ARTICLE XXVI OWNERSHIP OF DATA
A. It is mutually agreed that all materials prepared by CONSULTANT under this AGREEMENT shall become the property of City, and CONSULTANT shall have no property right therein whatsoever.

Immediately upon termination, City shall be entitled to, and CONSULTANT shall deliver to City, reports, investigations, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date, whether completed or not, and other such materials as may have been prepared or accumulated to date by CONSULTANT in performing this AGREEMENT which is not CONSULTANT’s privileged information, as defined by law, or CONSULTANT’s personnel information, along with all other property belonging exclusively to City which is in CONSULTANT’s possession. Publication of the information derived from work performed or data obtained in connection with services rendered under this AGREEMENT must be approved in writing by City.

B. Additionally, it is agreed that the Parties intend this to be an AGREEMENT for services and each considers the products and results of the services to be rendered by CONSULTANT hereunder to be work made for hire. CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that the work (and all rights therein, including, without limitation, copyright) belongs to and shall be the sole and exclusive property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City.

C. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed to be any representation by CONSULTANT that the work product is suitable in any way for any other project except the one detailed in this Contract.

Any reuse by City for another project or project location shall be at City’s sole risk.

D. Applicable patent rights provisions regarding rights to inventions shall be included in the contracts as appropriate (48 CFR 27 Subpart 27.3 - Patent Rights under Government Contracts for federalaid contracts).

E. LOCAL AGENCY may permit copyrighting reports or other agreement products. If copyrights are permitted; the AGREEMENT shall provide that the FHWA shall have the royalty-free nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use; and to authorize others to use, the work for government purposes.

ARTICLE XXVII CLAIMS FILED BY LOCAL AGENCY’s CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR A. If claims are filed by LOCAL AGENCY’s construction contractor relating to work performed by CONSULTANT’s personnel, and additional information or assistance from CONSULTANT’s personnel is required in order to evaluate or defend against such claims; CONSULTANT agrees to make its personnel available for consultation with LOCAL AGENCY’S construction contract

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023
administration and legal staff and for testimony, if necessary, at depositions and at trial or arbitration proceedings.

B. CONSULTANT’s personnel that LOCAL AGENCY considers essential to assist in defending against construction contractor claims will be made available on reasonable notice from LOCAL AGENCY.

Consultation or testimony will be reimbursed at the same rates, including travel costs that are being paid for CONSULTANT’s personnel services under this AGREEMENT.

C. Services of CONSULTANT’s personnel in connection with LOCAL AGENCY’s construction contractor claims will be performed pursuant to a written contract amendment, if necessary, extending the termination date of this AGREEMENT in order to resolve the construction claims.

ARTICLE XXVIII CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA
A. All financial, statistical, personal, technical, or other data and information relative to LOCAL AGENCY’s operations, which are designated confidential by LOCAL AGENCY and made available to CONSULTANT in order to carry out this AGREEMENT, shall be protected by CONSULTANT from unauthorized use and disclosure.

B. Permission to disclose information on one occasion, or public hearing held by LOCAL AGENCY relating to the AGREEMENT, shall not authorize CONSULTANT to further disclose such information, or disseminate the same on any other occasion.

C. CONSULTANT shall not comment publicly to the press or any other media regarding the AGREEMENT or LOCAL AGENCY’s actions on the same, except to LOCAL AGENCY’s staff, CONSULTANT’s own personnel involved in the performance of this AGREEMENT, at public hearings, or in response to questions from a Legislative committee.

D. CONSULTANT shall not issue any news release or public relations item of any nature, whatsoever, regarding work performed or to be performed under this AGREEMENT without prior review of the contents thereof by LOCAL AGENCY, and receipt of LOCAL AGENCY’S written permission.

E. Any subcontract entered into as a result of this contract shall contain all of the provisions of this Article.

F. All information related to the construction estimate is confidential, and shall not be disclosed by CONSULTANT to any entity, other than LOCAL AGENCY, Caltrans, and/or FHWA. All of the materials prepared or assembled by CONSULTANT pursuant to performance of this Contract are confidential and CONSULTANT agrees that they shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of City or except by court order. If CONSULTANT or any of its officers, employees, or subcontractors does voluntarily provide information in violation of this Contract, City has the right to reimbursement and indemnity from CONSULTANT for any damages caused by CONSULTANT releasing the information, including, but not limited to, City’s attorney’s fees and disbursements, including without limitation experts’ fees and disbursements.

ARTICLE XXIX NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION In accordance with Public Contract Code §10296, CONSULTANT hereby states under penalty of perjury that no more than one final unappealable finding of contempt of court by a federal court has been issued against CONSULTANT within the immediately preceding two-year period, because of CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with an order of a federal court that orders CONSULTANT to comply with an order of the National Labor Relations Board.

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-R
A&E Boilerplate Agreement Language

May 2023

ARTICLE XXX EVALUATION OF CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT’s performance will be evaluated by LOCAL AGENCY. A copy of the evaluation will be sent to CONSULTANT for comments. The evaluation together with the comments shall be retained as part of the AGREEMENT record.

ARTICLE XXXI PROMPT PAYMENT
A. PROMPT PAYMENT FROM LOCAL AGENCY TO CONSULTANT
The LOCAL AGENCY shall make all project progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from CONSULTANT on a professional service contract. If the LOCAL AGENCY fails to pay promptly, the LOCAL AGENCY shall pay interest to the CONSULTANT, which accrues at the rate of 10 percent per annum on the principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied and pro-rated as necessary. Upon receipt of the payment request, the LOCAL AGENCY shall act in accordance with both of the following:
(1) The LOCAL AGENCY shall review each payment request as soon as feasible after receipt to verify it is a proper payment request.
(2) The LOCAL AGENCY must return any payment request deemed improper by the LOCAL AGENCY to the CONSULTANT as soon as feasible, but not later than seven (7) days, after receipt. A request returned pursuant to this paragraph shall include documentation setting forth in writing the reasons why it is an improper payment request.

B. PROMPT PAYMENT CERTIFICATION
For projects awarded on or after September 1, 2023: the CONSULTANT must now submit Exhibit 9-P to the LOCAL AGENCY administering the contract by the 15th of the month following the month of any payment(s). If the CONSULTANT does not make any payments to subconsultants, supplier(s), and/or manufacturers they must report “no payments were made to subs this month” and write this visibly and legibly on Exhibit 9-P.

The LOCAL AGENCY must verify all Exhibit 9-P information, monitor compliance with prompt payment requirements for DBE and non-DBE firms, and address any shortfalls to the DBE commitment and prompt payment issues until the end of the project. The LOCAL AGENCY must email a copy of Exhibit 9-P to [email protected] before the end of the month after receiving the Exhibit 9-P from the CONSULTANT.

ARTICLE XXXII TITLE VI ASSURANCES
Refer to the Professional Services Contract

ARTICLE XXXIII NOTIFICATION
Refer to the Professional Services Contract

ARTICLE XXXIV CONTRACT
Refer to the Professional Services Contract

ARTICLE XXXV SIGNATURES
Refer to the Professional Services Contract

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT 1
/RFDO$VVLVWDQFH3URFHGXUHV0DQXDO ([KLELW2
&RQVXOWDQW&RQWUDFW'%(&RPPLWPHQW
(;+,%,72&2168/7$17&2175$&7'%(&200,70(17
 /RFDO$JHQF\
 &RQWUDFW'%(*RDO

 3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ

 3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ

 &RQVXOWDQW
V1DPH
 3ULPH&HUWLILHG'%(
 † 7RWDO&RQWUDFW$ZDUG$PRXQW

 7RWDO'ROODU$PRXQWIRU$//6XEFRQVXOWDQWV

 7RWDO1XPEHURI$//6XEFRQVXOWDQWV

 'HVFULSWLRQRI:RUN6HUYLFHRU0DWHULDOV
6XSSOLHG
 '%(
&HUWLILFDWLRQ
1XPEHU
 '%(&RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
 '%(
'ROODU
$PRXQW
/RFDO$JHQF\WR&RPSOHWHWKLV6HFWLRQ
 727$/&/$,0(''%(3$57,&,3$7,21
  /RFDO$JHQF\&RQWUDFW
1XPEHU

 )HGHUDO$LG3URMHFW1XPEHU

 &RQWUDFW([HFXWLRQ
'DWH

/RFDO$JHQF\FHUWLILHVWKDWDOO'%(FHUWLILFDWLRQVDUHYDOLGDQGLQIRUPDWLRQRQ WKLVIRUPLVFRPSOHWHDQGDFFXUDWH
 /RFDO$JHQF\5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
V6LJQDWXUH 'DWH
 /RFDO$JHQF\5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
V1DPH 3KRQH
 /RFDO$JHQF\5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
V7LWOH

,03257$17
,GHQWLI\DOO'%(ILUPVEHLQJFODLPHGIRUFUHGLW
UHJDUGOHVVRIWLHU:ULWWHQFRQILUPDWLRQRIHDFKOLVWHG'%(LV UHTXLUHG
3UHSDUHU
V6LJQDWXUH 'DWH
3UHSDUHU
V1DPH 3KRQH

3UHSDUHU
V7LWOH
',675,%87,21
 2ULJLQDO±/RFDO$JHQF\
 &RS\±&DOWUDQV'LVWULFW/RFDO$VVLVWDQFH(QJLQHHU
'/$(
)DLOXUHWRVXEPLWWR'/$(ZLWKLQGD\VRIFRQWUDFW
H[HFXWLRQPD\UHVXOWLQGHREOLJDWLRQRIIHGHUDOIXQGVRQFRQWUDFW $'$1RWLFH
 )RULQGLYLGXDOVZLWKVHQVRU\GLVDELOLWLHVWKLVGRFXPHQWLVDYDLODEOHLQDOWHUQDWHIRUPDWV )RULQIRUPDWLRQFDOO


RU7''



RUZULWH5HFRUGVDQG)RUPV0DQDJHPHQW16WUHHW06 6DFUDPHQWR&$

3DJHRI
-XO\
&LW\RI6WRFNWRQ 
(O'RUDGR6WUHHW3HGHVWULDQDQG%LF\FOLVW6DIHW\&RQQHFWLYLW\ 6WRFNWRQ&$
.LPOH\+RUQDQG$VVRFLDWHV,QF 

 
6XUYH\LQJDQG5LJKWRI:D\
52:

81,&2(QJLQHHULQJ,QF
%OXH5DYLQH5G6XLWH
)ROVRP&$

&HVDU0RQWHVGH2FD





DUHU
V 6LJQDWXUH

EXHIBIT 1
7/10/25
John Pulliam, PE 650.239.0071
Associate
City of Stockton
Legislation Text
File #: 25-0742, Version: 1

ADOPT THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE VAN

BUSKIRK PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to adopt the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environment Quality Act for the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization, Project No. WT24050.

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

Summary
The Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project has been awarded State funding which has enabled design to start on the first phase of the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project improvements. Phase 1 improvements include: renovation of the existing basketball courts; two new basketball courts; a new skate park; bicycle pump track; bicycle trails; new splash pad; community garden; and new multi -purpose lawn. The project scope will include all associated landscape planting and irrigation, lighting, signage, fencing, and site furnishings for those specific recreational features.

The Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared incorporating the comments received from the public and outside agencies (Exhibit 1 of the Resolution). With Council approval of the IS/MND, the City will have obtained the required environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution approving the Final IS/MND and authorizing the filing of a Notice of Determination under CEQA for the project.

DISCUSSION
Background
Van Buskirk Golf Course is a 192-acre parcel located at 1740 Houston Avenue. The property deeded to the City in 1957 by Charles and Bertha Van Buskirk includes the Van Buskirk Golf Course, Community Center, park, and ballfields. A deed restriction limits use to “public recreation or public park purpose.” The deed also identifies that the property would revert to the donor’s heirs if the City became non-compliant with respect to those restricted uses. The Van Buskirk heirs expressed their continued support for recreational purposes and possible educational opportunities.

City of Stockton Page 1 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-0742, Version: 1
On November 17, 2020, by Motion No. 2020-11-17-1403, Council awarded a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $258,857 to Design Workshop, Inc. to develop a Master Plan for the Reuse of Van Buskirk Municipal Golf Course.

In developing the final Master Plan for the Van Buskirk Park, a number of alternatives were prepared and presented to the community and stakeholders for input. A “Preferred Alternative” was created based on community feedback.

On August 22, 2023, by Motion No. 2023-08-22-1501, Council accepted the Concept Master Plan recommended by the 2023 Van Buskirk Master Plan and Biological Resources and Ecosystem Values report.

Construction of the preferred alternative recreational features will take many years to construct depending on the availability of funding. Further, full build-out of the envisioned improvements will likely be completed in phases. While the Master Plan was being developed, staff started applying for State, federal, and other funding sources to help build the Master Plan improvements.

Staff have been successful in receiving funding to construct a Phase 1 project. On April 2, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-04-02-1205, Council approved a grant award from the Statewide Park Program for the Van Buskirk Park Renovation project in the amount of $7,016,086. Staff are also in the process of securing $7,016,086 in funding from the National Park Service’s Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership and $500,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Project Funding. The funding will fund Phase 1 improvements which include: renovation of the existing basketball courts; two new basketball courts; a new skate park; bicycle pump track; bicycle trails; new splash pad; community garden; and new multi-purpose lawn. The project scope will include all associated landscape planting and irrigation, lighting, signage, fencing, and site furnishings for those specific recreational features. The National Park Service is the lead agency for approving National Environmental Policy Act clearance tied to federal funding on the project.

Present Situation
The City is responsible for clearance under CEQA. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the Final IS/MND was published in The Record on June 30, 2025. The NOI provides notice of a 30-day public review/comment period on the draft IS/MND document. Members of the public and other public agencies were allowed to review the draft IS/MND document. The Final IS/MND has been prepared incorporating the comments received from the public and agencies (Exhibit 1 to the Resolution).

The environmental documents, including the public draft IS/MND and the Final IS/MND have been posted on the City’s website. The design of Phase 1 Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project improvements is approximately 50 percent complete.

It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution approving the Final IS/MND and authorize the filing of a Notice of Determination under CEQA for the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization, Project No.

WT24050. Staff anticipates the project to be advertised for construction by the beginning of 2026, pending the receipt of all permitting and completion of the design documents.

City of Stockton Page 2 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™
File #: 25-0742, Version: 1
Public Comments
An NOI to adopt the Final IS/MND was mailed to property owners in the surrounding neighborhood and published in The Record on June 30, 2025, as a display ad in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. Five written comments have been submitted prior to the submission of this staff report.

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

Attachment A - Vicinity Map
City of Stockton Page 3 of 3 Printed on 9/4/2025
powered by Legistar™

VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE c--

VAN BUSKIRK PARK REVITALIZATION,
PROJECT NO. WT24050

CITY OF STOCKTON

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No.

STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE VAN BUSKIRK PARK REVITALIZATION, PROJECT NO.

WT24050
The Van Buskirk Park Revitalization, Project No. WT24050, has been awarded State funding which has enabled design to start on the first phase of the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project improvements; and
Phase 1 improvements include: renovation of the existing basketball courts; two new basketball courts; a new skate park; bicycle pump track; bicycle trails; new splash pad; community garden; and new multi-purpose lawn. The project scope will include all associated landscape planting and irrigation, lighting, signage, fencing, and site furnishings for those specific recreational features; and On November 17, 2020, by Motion No. 2020-11-17-1403, Council awarded a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $258,857 to Design Workshop, Inc. to develop a Master Plan for the Reuse of Van Buskirk Municipal Golf Course; and On August 22, 2023, by Motion No. 2023-08-22-1501, Council accepted the Concept Master Plan recommended by the 2023 Van Buskirk Master Plan and Biological Resources and Ecosystem Values report; and
The draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for public review and comment between June 26, 2025, and July 25, 2025. A Notice of Intent to adopt the Final IS/MND was mailed to property owners in the surrounding neighborhood and published in The Record on June 30, 2025, as a display ad in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073; now, therefore,

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

1. The City Council adopts the Final IS/MND and authorizes the filing of a Notice of Determination under the California Environment Quality Act for the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization, Project No. WT24050, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by this reference.
//
//
//
//

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

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED September 9, 2025 .

CHRISTINA FUGAZI
Mayor of the City of Stockton
ATTEST:

KATHERINE ROLAND, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk of the City of Stockton

INITIAL STUDY /

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

VAN BUSKIRK PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT

STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

VAN BUSKIRK PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT

STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:

City of Stockton
425 North El Dorado Street
Stockton, California 95202
Prepared by:

LSA Associates, Inc.
157 Park Place
Pt. Richmond, California 94801
(510) 236-6810
Project No. 20252166
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. v

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Site ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Background and Objectives .................................................................................. 2-8

2.3 Proposed Project............................................................................................................... 2-9

2.4 Project Approvals............................................................................................................ 2-29

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ......................................... 3-1

3.1 Determination ................................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................. 4-5

4.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................ 4-16

4.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 4-48

4.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 4-57

4.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 4-60

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 4-66

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................... 4-73

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................... 4-80

4.11 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 4-94

4.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 4-99

4.13 Noise.............................................................................................................................. 4-100

4.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 4-116

4.15 Public Services............................................................................................................... 4-117

4.16 Recreation ..................................................................................................................... 4-120

4.17 Transportation............................................................................................................... 4-121

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 4-128

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................... 4-133

4.20 Wildfire.......................................................................................................................... 4-139

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................................. 4-142

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 LSA Associates, Inc. ........................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................... 6-1 EXHIBIT 1

APPENDICES
A: CALEEMOD RESULTS
B: HRA MODEL OUTPUT
C: NOISE MONITORING RESULTS
D: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
E: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
EXHIBIT 1

FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Project Location and Regional Vicinity ..............................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2: Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ...........................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3: Proposed Master Plan ..................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-4: Phase 1 - Proposed Improvements .................................................................................2-15 Figure 2-5: Existing and Proposed Stormwater Retention.................................................................2-19 Figure 2-6: Subsequent Phases – Central Park Area..........................................................................2-23 Figure 2-7: Subsequent Phases – Western Park Area........................................................................2-25 Figure 4-1: CNDDB Occurrences within 1 Mile..................................................................................4-21 Figure 4-2: Noise Monitoring Locations ..........................................................................................4-105 TABLES
Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals.......................................................................................2-29 Table 4.A: Project Construction Emissions (Tons per Year) ...............................................................4-10 Table 4.B: Project Operation Emissions (Tons per Year)....................................................................4-12 Table 4.C: Unmitigated Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors.................................................................................................................................. 4-14 Table 4.D: Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Occurring within 1 Mile of the Project Site..................................................................................................................... 4-17 Table 4.E: Existing Ponds.................................................................................................................... 4-46 Table 4.F: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................4-69 Table 4.G: Hazardous Materials Database Search .............................................................................4-76 Table 4.H: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure By Land Use.........................................................4-102 Table 4.I: Land Use Related Noise Standard ....................................................................................4-102 Table 4.J: Detailed Assessment Construction Noise Criteria ...........................................................4-103 Table 4.K: Vibration Criteria for Annoyance Assessment ................................................................4-103 Table 4.L: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .........................................................................4-104 Table 4.M: Long-Term 24-Hour Ambient Noise Monitoring Results ...............................................4-104 Table 4.N: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels................................................................4-108 Table 4.O: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor...........................................4-109 Table 4.P: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment.............................................4-113 Table 4.Q: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor ..................4-114 Table 4.R: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor .......................4-114 Table 4.S: Trip Generation Summary ...............................................................................................4-122 EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
AC asphalt concrete
ACE Altamont Corridor Express
AFY acre-feet per year
Air District Bay Area Air District
amsl above mean sea level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practice
BPS best performance standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal Water California Water Service Company Stockton District CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
California Register California Register of Historical Resources Caltrans California Department of Transportation
Caltrans Manual Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual CARB California Air Resources Board
EXHIBIT 1
CBC California Building Code
CCalC Central California Information Center
CCAP Climate Change Action Plan
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CIDH cast-in-drilled-hole
City City of Stockton
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
CoIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
Construction
General Permit
NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002
Cortese List Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List
County County of San Joaquin
CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan
CVLN Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation
CWA Clean Water Act
EXHIBIT 1
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibels
DCV design capture volume
DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Delta Reform Act Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPS Distinct Population Segment
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone
EMFAC2021 EMission FACtor model
EO Executive Order
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
FAR floor-area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
General Plan Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
gpy gallons per year
Groundwater
Discharge Permit
Central Valley RWQCB’s Waste Discharge Requirements Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water, Order No. R5-2022-0006-02, NPDES No.

CAG995002
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
EXHIBIT 1
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWA Groundwater Authority
GWP Global Warming Potential
HARP2 Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program
HazMat Hazardous Material
HRA health risk assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I Interstate
in/sec inches per second
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
Justification Report Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans
Ldn day-night average level
LED light-emitting diode
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID Low-Impact Development
Lmax maximum instantaneous noise level
LOS level(s) of service
LSZ low-salinity zone
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MEI maximally exposed individual
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
EXHIBIT 1
MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity
mpg miles per gallon
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MT metric ton(s)
MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices N2O nitrous oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
park Van Buskirk Park
PCC Portland cement concrete
PCE Primary Constituent Element
PF Public Facilities
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter EXHIBIT 1
ppb parts per billion
ppd pounds per day
ppt parts per thousand
PPV peak particle velocity
PR Parks and Recreation
PRC Public Resources Code
project Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Region-wide MS4
Permit
NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Order No. R5- 2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324
RMS root-mean-square
ROG reactive organic gases
RWCF Regional Wastewater Control Facility
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Joaquin RTD San Joaquin Regional Transit District
SB Senate Bill
SEWD Stockton East Water District
SFD Stockton Fire Department
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SJCHS&M San Joaquin County Historical Society & Museum
SJCOG San Joaquin Council of Governments
SJMSCP San Joaquin County Multi-Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District EXHIBIT 1
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SMC Stockton Municipal Code
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPD Stockton Police Department
SQG small-quantity generator
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRF SJMSCP Review Form
SUV sport utility vehicle
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan
SWQCCP Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan
SWQCP Stormwater Quality Control Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs toxic air contaminants
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPA Transit Priority Area
URF unit risk factor
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
EXHIBIT 1
VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
EXHIBIT 1

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title:

Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Stockton
425 North El Dorado Street
Stockton, California 95202

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Liszet Burgueno
(209) 937-8993

4. Project Location:
734 Houston Avenue
Stockton, California 95206
Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 163-07-036

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

City of Stockton
425 North El Dorado Street
Stockton, California 95202

6. General Plan Designation:

Parks and Recreation (PR)

7. Zoning:

Public Facilities (PF)

8. Description of Project:

The City of Stockton (City) proposes to develop a community park on a 192.71-acre former golf course. The expanded Van Buskirk Park (park) would include additional outdoor basketball courts, a new bike and skate park with associated amenities, a community garden, a multipurpose lawn area, a splash pad/water play area, an 18-hole disc golf course, a golf academy, indoor facilities, an event lawn with outdoor pavilion, a playground, pickleball courts, and a dog park, as well as walking paths, restoration areas, and parking. See Section 2.0, Project Description, of this Initial Study for a full project description.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The predominant land use to the north is residential, to the south is French Camp Slough/Walker Slough and open space, to the east is the San Joaquin River and farmlands beyond, and to the EXHIBIT 1
west is Interstate (I) 5 and a mix of urban uses. A detailed description of the surrounding land uses and setting is provided in Section 2.0, Project Description.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financial approval, or participation agreements):
• United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB)

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52. On February 18, 2025, AB 52 consultation letters were sent to all Native American contacts who had formally requested notification. Follow up with nonrespondents was conducted via email on March 17, 2025. Four tribes responded, and the communications are summarized in Section

4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

EXHIBIT 1

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following describes the proposed Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project (Project) that is the subject of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This section includes a summary description of the proposed Project’s location and existing site characteristics, required approvals, and entitlements.

2.1 PROJECT SITE
The following section describes the Project location, existing conditions, surrounding land uses, and regulatory setting.

2.1.1 Project Location
The Project site is located at 734 Houston Avenue in the Conway neighborhood of Stockton in San Joaquin County, California. The 192.71-acre Project site (APN 163-07-036) is located southwest of the center of Stockton. The Project site is bounded by Walker Slough and French Camp Slough to the south, the San Joaquin River to the west, Houston Avenue to the north, and the existing Van Buskirk Community Center and Community Park to the east. Regional vehicular access to the Project site is provided by I-5, with the closest on- and off-ramps to the Project site located along Downing Avenue approximately 1.15 miles southeast of the Project site and by State Route (SR) 4 approximately

0.8 mile to the north via South Fresno Avenue. Direct local access to the Project site is via Houston Avenue. The Project’s location and regional vicinity are shown on Figure 2-1, and an aerial of the Project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2-2.

2.1.2 Existing Conditions
The Project site was previously developed as the Van Buskirk Municipal Golf Course, which opened on April 28, 1961,
1 and closed in 2020. The site consists of approximately 125 acres of turf and landscaped areas associated with the former golf course, five ponds (11.25 acres) developed for the former golf course and approximately 3 acres of parking area, and walkways associated with the former golf course. The Project site is bounded by approximately 12,100 linear feet of levee along Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, and the San Joaquin River. The existing Van Buskirk Community Center, park, and ballfields (approximately 27 acres) are located immediately to the east. While the levee (including the area from the water’s edge to the levee’s inward foot slope) and the existing Van Buskirk Community Center, park, and ballfields are located on the same parcel as the proposed Project, these existing facilities would not be modified as part of the proposed Project, with the exception of the existing basketball courts that would be resurfaced. 1 Stockton Record. n.d. “Memories of Van Buskirk Park Golf Course” podcast. Website:
https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/politics/county/2019/08/31/listen-memories-van-buskirkpark/4296042007/ (accessed April 15, 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
LSA
0 FEET
1000
II ii Study Area
SOURCE: Near map Imagery (June 24, 2024)
1:\202S\202S2166\GIS\Pro\Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project\Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project.aprx (2/28/2025) FIGURE 2-2
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
Topographically, the site is relatively flat, with elevations of approximately 50 feet above mean sea level (amsl) with low-lying wetlands consisting of four ponds within the western section of the site, while the fifth pond is isolated to the eastern section of the site.

The majority of the Project site consists of nonnative annual grassland planted as part of the former golf course. A total of 977 mature trees, consisting of 35 species, were recorded within the site’s urban forest. Non-native species make up 82 percent of the population. The most abundant tree species are river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), cork oak (Quercus suber), and Canary pine (Pinus canariensis). The most abundant native California species surveyed is valley oak (Quercus lobata).

2.1.3 Surrounding Land Uses
As shown on Figure 2-2, the Project site is bounded by Walker Slough and French Camp Slough to the south. Immediately beyond the southern boundary is undeveloped open space. Further to the south, separated by a levee, are low-density, single-family residential neighborhoods, with some high-density residential and commercial uses to the southeast. The western end of the Project site is bounded by the San Joaquin River. Beyond the western boundary are agricultural uses with associated residential infrastructure. Immediately north of the Project site’s boundary, Houston Avenue, are low-density, single-family residential neighborhoods; KIPP Middle School; and the new KIPP High School, with some medium-density residential uses to the northeast. Immediately beyond the I-5 eastern boundary are commercial uses. Further to the east are low-density, single-family residential neighborhoods.

2.1.4 Regulatory Setting
The Project site is subject to the regulatory framework of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan2 (General Plan) adopted in 2018 and the City of Stockon Zoning Code, as outlined in Title 16 of the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC).
3 The Project site is designated Parks and Recreation (PR) in the General Plan4 and is zoned Public Facilities (PF).5 The Parks and Recreation land use designation provides for City and County of San Joaquin (County) parks, golf courses, marinas, community centers, public and quasi-public uses, and other similar and compatible uses. The maximum floorarea ratio (FAR) for parks and recreation uses is 0.2.6

2 City of Stockton. 2018a. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. December 4. Website: file:///P:/2025/ 20252166%20DEW%20Van%20Buskirk%20Park%20Environmental/PRODUCTS/Project%20Description/Ref erences/2040%20General%20Plan.pdf (accessed February 2025). 3 City of Stockton. n.d.-a. City of Stockton Municipal Code Title 16. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43712404#43712404 (accessed February 2025). 4
City of Stockton. n.d.-g. General Plan Designation Map. LandMaster Online Website:
https://stocktonca.mapgeo.io/datasets/properties?abuttersDistance=100&latlng=37.921398%2C-121. 308246&panel=search &previewId=16307036-66744&themes=%22%5B%5C%22general-plan-map%5C% 22%5D%22&zoom=15 (accessed February 2025). 5
City of Stockton. n.d.-h. Zoning Map. LandMaster Online Website: https://stocktonca.mapgeo.io/datasets/ properties?abuttersDistance=100&latlng=37.921398%2C-121.308246&panel=search&previewId= 16307036-66744&themes=%22%5B%5C%22zoning%5C%22%5D%22&zoom=15 (accessed February 2025). 6 City of Stockton. 2018a. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. December 4. Website: file:///P:/2025/ 820320252166%20DEW%20Van%20Buskirk%20Park%20Environmental/PRODUCTS/Project%20Descriptio n/References/2040%20General%20Plan.pdf (accessed February 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
The PF zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of public and quasi-public land uses, including facilities and lands owned by the City, County, State, or federal governments, as well as religious facilities. The PF zoning district is consistent with the Institutional and Parks and Recreation land use designations of the City’s General Plan.7 Parks and playgrounds are a permitted use in the PF zoning district. Table 2-3.A in Section 16.24.200 of SMC establishes the specific development standards for facilities within the PF zoning district.8 The park site is located along the eastern border of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as delineated under the Delta Protection Act (Section 12220 of the California Water Code) passed in 1959. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009 (Delta Reform Act) provides for coordination and oversight of State and local agencies proposing to fund, carry out, and approve Delta-related activities. The legally enforceable Delta Plan9 aims to achieve the State’s coequal goals of a reliable Statewide water supply and a protected, restored Delta ecosystem.

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The existing Van Buskirk Park is located in southwest Stockton. Despite a strong interest in outdoor recreation, residents face numerous challenges in accessing parks and open spaces. Currently, 72 percent of Stockton residents live in areas with less than 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

Additionally, 55 percent of residents in the Conway neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods lack access to a vehicle, further limiting their ability to reach recreational spaces. Physical barriers such as I-5, SR-4, and the French Camp Slough create additional obstacles to accessing Van Buskirk Park and other open spaces. However, community engagement efforts have demonstrated strong support for park improvements, with particular interest in new facilities adjacent to the existing community center. Enhancing Van Buskirk Park would provide much-needed recreational opportunities and create a valuable open space resource for the surrounding neighborhoods.

In the 1960s, the Van Buskirk Golf Course opened on approximately 214 acres given to the City of Stockton by the Van Buskirk family. Throughout the 2010s, the City was subsidizing the operations of both the Van Buskirk and Swenson golf courses and made the decision to close the Van Buskirk course due to declining public interest compounded with the need for a substantial financial commitment to refurbish the failing irrigation infrastructure. In 2021, the City began a 2-year process of community engagement to redesign the park. Community input has consistently emphasized the need for Van Buskirk Park to be a safe and secure space, with clear access for emergency services to deter negative activity. Residents expressed strong interest in ensuring the park includes amenities that engage children of all ages, from younger kids to middle and high school students. Additionally, there was a shared desire for programming that fosters stronger community connections through a variety of events and gatherings.
7 City of Stockton. n.d.-b. City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.16.020. Website:
https://ecode360.com/43712518#43712519 (accessed February 2025). 8 City of Stockton. n.d.-c. City of Stockton Municipal Code Sections 16.24.200. Website:
https://ecode360.com/43712790?highlight=a,table%202-3,table%202-3%20a&searchId=291139 02881789714#43712779 (accessed May 2025). 9
Delta Stewardship Council. 2013. Delta Plan. Website: https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ (accessed February 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
In 2023, the City completed a master plan process to redevelop the Van Buskirk Golf Course into a park, Van Buskirk Park, which incorporates several design features to promote community space.

The improvements aim to enhance connectivity and accessibility for the surrounding community, including a revitalized neighborhood connection along Houston Avenue. This key corridor would provide safer and more convenient access to the park, while internal walking loops would extend throughout the site, encouraging physical activity and exploration.

The park’s design emphasizes safety and visibility to create a more inviting and secure environment.

Thoughtfully placed features would enhance sightlines from the surrounding neighborhood, promoting a greater sense of openness. Increased park activity would contribute to a safer atmosphere, while pedestrian pathways would be designed to accommodate security and emergency vehicles when needed.

With a diverse range of amenities, Van Buskirk Park is intended to provide recreational opportunities for all ages and interests and serve as a vibrant community hub for south Stockton, fostering social connections and providing a central gathering place for residents.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The City proposes to implement the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project, which would entail development of a community park on a 192.71-acre portion of the former golf course. Figure 2-3 shows the conceptual master plan. Development of Van Buskirk Park is anticipated to occur in phases, depending on available funds. The City is currently proposing to implement Phase 1, which includes development of recreational amenities in the eastern portion of the park site adjacent to the existing community center. Timing for implementation of subsequent phases would depend on available funding.

This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects of implementing Phase 1 of the Van Buskirk Revitalization Project at a Project level. Given that detailed design for subsequent phases is not known at this time, this Initial Study evaluates the conceptual elements of these subsequent phases at a programmatic level and identifies the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures that could be required for development of these improvements by the City when funding becomes available. The City intends that future Project-specific actions pursuant to the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project that would implement improvements beyond those considered in the programmatic analysis in this Initial Study would be subject to project-level CEQA analysis and compliance. Prior to implementation of specific improvements, City staff will review recommended projects on a case-by-case basis to determine if any supplemental review under CEQA would be required to address potentially adverse project-specific impacts that are not mitigated through the recommended design guidelines and mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study. For the purposes of this Initial Study, the environmental analysis considers full build out of the Project site and assumes that all of these recommended facilities would be constructed in a single phase to provide the most conservative analysis of potential environmental effects.

EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

OVERALL MASTER PLAN
June 2025
Houston Ave
Colorado Ave
Fresno Ave
Diamond Oaks St
Tilden Park St
Van Buskirk St
Dry Creek Way
Verstl Way
Potential flood control and
wetland mitigation area
Lever Blvd
W 8th Street
San Joaquin
Elementary School
Marshall
Elementary
School
Weston Ranch
San Joaquin River
San Joaquin River
French Camp Slough
Walker Slough
Georgia Ave
4 1
19 2
5 3
7 8
11 16
16 33
16 16
27 27
28 30 29
31 32
10 13
14 19
NTS
Legend
1 Resurfaced Basketball Court
2 Existing Community Center Park
3 Existing Community Center
4 Basketball Courts
6 Drop-OŒ/Entry Plaza
5 Skate Park
7 Community Garden
8 Pump Track
11 Multi-Purpose Fields
16 Native Vegetation
27 Golf Academy
17 Existing Toe of Levee Path
28 Event Lawn/Group Gathering
18 Existing Levee Trail
29 Pickleball Courts
19 Parking
30 Dog Park
32 Trails/Exercise Course
10 Youth Pump Track
13 Playground & Nature Play
14 Splash Pad
26 Linear Park
31 Community Building/Restrooms
33 Neighborhood Park
34 Bikeway Master Plan Proposed Path
19 EV Access
18 18
6 Manthey Rd
34 6
Houston Ave
17 17
19 6
6 SOURCE: Design Workshop, June 2025
I:\2025\20252166\G\Master_Plan.ai (6/23/2025)
FIGURE 2-3
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Master Plan FEET
0 600 1200
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

2.3.1 Proposed Park Improvements—Phase 1
Phase 1 includes development of recreational amenities in the eastern portion of the park, extending west from the existing community center to the existing utility line easement. The proposed park facilities and associated improvements included as part of Phase 1 are shown on Figure 2-4 and described below.

2.3.1.1 Proposed Recreation Facilities
Several key additions and enhancements are proposed to create a vibrant and inclusive community space adjacent to the existing Van Buskirk Community Center. Proposed facilities would include:
• Additional Outdoor Basketball Courts. Two additional outdoor basketball courts (approximately 9,500 square feet) would be provided adjacent to the existing Van Buskirk Community Center.

Light standards would be installed around the proposed basketball court to accommodate evening use. The basketball courts would be surrounded by approximately 5,500 square feet of concrete surfacing, approximately 3,750 square feet of turf viewing areas, and seat walls. • Skate Park. A concrete skate park (approximately 30,500 square feet) would be provided adjacent to the proposed basketball courts. The skate park would include turf viewing areas (approximately 1,750 square feet) and landscape islands (approximately 10,150 square feet).

Adjacent to the skate park itself would be a shared skate and bike plaza, consisting of approximately 4,800 square feet of hardscape with internal planting islands (approximately 1,300 square feet) and a small turf area (approximately 250 square feet). • Bike Pump Tracks. Two engineered pump tracks would include paved loops and small jumps.

One pump track is intended to accommodate all ages (approximately 9,000 square feet); the other would be targeted toward smaller children (approximately 1,700 square feet). The tracks would be integrated with the landscape and provide turf viewing areas nearby. Asphalt or chip seal flow trails (approximately 13,500 square feet) would be provided adjacent to the pump tracks.
• Community Garden. A community garden including 20 raised beds, an orchard, an outdoor classroom and shade structure, pollinator gardens, and a small greenhouse (420 square feet maximum) is proposed near Houston Avenue. The primary surface throughout the community garden would be decomposed granite (approximately 11,500 square feet). The garden would feature more than 4,500 square feet of pollinator and native plant material. • Multipurpose Lawn Area. Two multipurpose lawn areas (totaling approximately 291,500 square feet) would be the focus of a new park entrance proposed at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Georgia Avenue. The lawn area would support limited organized sports but also provide practice areas for sports teams and informal play. The multipurpose lawn would also provide an area for large family and community gatherings.

EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
MASTER PLAN PHASE 1
June 2025
Legend
1 Resurfaced Basketball Court
2 Existing Community Center Park
3 Existing Community Center
4 Basketball Courts
5 Outdoor Classroom
6 Drop-O/Entry Plaza
7 Skate Park
8 Community Garden
9 Skate Park Plaza
10 Pump Track
20 Multi-purpose Fields
22 Native Vegetation
23 Existing Toe of Levee Path
24 Existing Levee Trail
25 Parking
26 Linear Park
Demonstration Garden 27 Bikeway MP Proposed Trail 11
13 Flex Fields
14 Youth Pump Track
16 Playground
17 Nature Play
18 Picnic Area
19 Splash Pad
Walker Slough
1 2
3 4
11 14
13 16
17 19
20 22
22 22
25 7
8 5
9 10
Houston Ave
Houston Ave
Colorado Ave
Connecticut Ave
Georgia Ave
EV Access
24 27
18 18
6 6
6 0 60’ 120’
1” = 60’
26 26
23 SOURCE: Design Workshop, June 2025
I:\2025\20252166\G\Proposed_Improvements.ai (6/24/2025) FIGURE 2-4
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Phase 1 – Proposed Improvements FEET
0 180 360
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
• Splash Pad/Water Play Area. A play zone is proposed near the new park entrance at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Georgia Avenue. The play zone would feature playground equipment (such as swings and climbing structures), a splash pad (approximately 800 square feet), and nature play elements (such as logs and boulders). The play zone would integrate turf viewing areas and a variety of meandering pathways for exploration.

2.3.1.2 Parking, Vehicle Access, and Circulation
Parking is currently provided at the existing Van Buskirk Community Center, consisting of 72 parking stalls and an overflow lot with 75 parking stalls, for a total of 147 parking spaces. As part of Phase 1, parking capacity would be expanded by 176 parking stalls at two new parking areas in the eastern portion of the park: (1) a new parking lot off of Houston Avenue adjacent to the existing Van Buskirk Community Center, and (2) a new parking lot at the new park entrance at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Georgia Avenue. Van Buskirk Community Center and Park would provide 374 parking spaces in total. Consistent with the most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 2 measures, the proposed Project would provide electric vehicle charging stations as part of proposed parking improvements. Bike racks would also be provided within the park as part of the proposed Project.

Vehicle access to the park would continue to be provided via Houston Avenue, with new park entrances proposed at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Georgia Avenue, along Houston Avenue east of Georgia Avenue and at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Colorado Avenue.

The existing Community Center entrance on Houston Avenue would remain and would provide access to the improvements proposed as part of Phase 1. A linear park with a Class I multi-use path would be constructed along the northern park boundary parallel to Houston Avenue. The Project would also construct additional bike and pedestrian paths to enhance activity within the park and to provide connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods.

2.3.1.3 Landscaping
Landscaping within the Phase 1 area includes a total of 263 trees. The existing mature tree canopy at the park is a significant contributor to the park’s character; however, some of the site’s trees need removal or pruning according to the Arborist Report10 prepared for the Project.

As part of the proposed Project, approximately 187 trees would be removed to accommodate proposed park facilities; the exact number of trees to be removed would be determined as part of the final design. However, the proposed Project would include tree planting as part of the overall landscape program. This will consist of native species to the area and varieties that will provide wildlife habitat. The City of Stockton Heritage Tree Ordinance11,12 requires a permit for the removal 10 West Coast Arborists, Inc. 2025. Van Buskirk Golf Course Tree Inspections. February 20. 11 City of Stockton. n.d.-e. City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.72.245. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43714683?highlight=heritage%20tree,heritage%20trees&searchId=21328640992123793#43714683 (accessed February 2025). 12 City of Stockton. n.d.-f. City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.130. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43717326?highlight=&searchId=29114403401589421#437173263 (accessed May 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
of specific types of oak trees. Any heritage trees proposed for removal would be permitted and replaced in accordance with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.

Other landscaping at the site includes lawn areas and planter beds with large shrubs and ground cover. Except for the proposed multipurpose lawn areas, landscaped areas would be designed for low water use and utilize climate appropriate and native plants.

2.3.1.4 Lighting
New light-emitting diode (LED) pathway safety lighting, fixtures, and poles would be installed along pathways and parking lots for security lighting. Security cameras would also be installed. Light levels in the park would be kept low after hours to provide for safety/security but are not intended to promote use of the park after the park is closed. Motion sensors would be installed to intensify light levels when movement is detected. Solar-powered light fixtures will be used where feasible. Interior park lighting will consist of 13-foot-tall or taller path lights, while light fixtures at the basketball courts and parking areas will be 20 feet tall.

2.3.1.5 Utilities and Stormwater Management
Utilities exist under and along all streets adjacent to the Project site. The park’s needs for domestic water to serve the proposed drinking fountains and restrooms would be provided by new water and wastewater lines that would connect to existing utilities in Houston Avenue. Irrigation water would be pumped from the San Joaquin River via existing pumps that served the former golf course and in accordance with the City’s existing entitlement established with development of the former golf course. Alternatively, the City may install an onsite well to provide irrigation water.

As described above, the Project site was formerly developed as a golf course, with some impervious surfaces related to the golf course clubhouse, parking areas, and walkways. Approximately 3 acres of existing impervious surface exist in the entire Project site. Upon construction of the proposed Project, approximately 6.65 acres (289,982 square feet) of the Phase 1 site would be covered by impervious surfaces; the remainder of the Phase 1 site would be covered by pervious surfaces, consisting of landscaped areas with lawns, shrubs, and trees, as well as bioretention facilities. All stormwater would be treated on site. The proposed Project would include approximately 11.72 acres (510,500 square feet) of bioretention space throughout the Phase 1 site that would be used for stormwater control. Bioretention basins and swales would be integrated into the landscape. Figure 2-5 shows the existing and proposed bioretention for the proposed Project.

EXHIBIT 1

EXISTING & PROPOSED STORMWATER RETENTION
67,400 SF
62,300 SF
65,350 SF
106,350 SF
85,000 SF
110,600 SF
22,400 SF
365,000 SF 62,300 SF
28,900 SF
13,725 SF
11,825 SF
6,350 SF
June 2025
PHASE 2 - EXISTING BASINS USED FOR IRRIGATION OF PREVIOUS GOLF COURSE - TOTAL SF - 497,000 SF (11.41 ACRES)

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
PHASE 1 ESTIMATED TOTAL - 289,892 SF (6.65 ACRES)
PHASE 2 ESTIMATED TOTAL - 939,800 SF (21.57 ACRES)
OVERALL ESTIMATED TOTAL - 1,229,692 SF (28.23 ACRES)
PHASE 2 PROPOSED RETENTION TOTAL SF - 228,200 SF (5.24 ACRES) PHASE I PROPOSED RETENTION TOTAL SF - 510,500 SF (11.72 ACRES) PHASE 2 RETENTION TOTAL SF - 725,200 SF (16.65 ACRES)
NTS
OVERALL SITE RETENTION TOTAL SF - 1,235,700 SF (28.37 ACRES) 128,500 SF 99,700 SF
SOURCE: Design Workshop, March 2025
I:\2025\20252166\G\Stormwater_Retention.ai (6/3/2025)
FIGURE 2-5
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Existing and Proposed Stormwater Retention FEET
0 600 1200
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

2.3.2 Subsequent Phases
As described previously in Section 2.2, the master planning process addressed the redevelopment of the entire Van Buskirk Golf Course site into a community park with a diverse range of amenities to serve local residents. At this time, design of proposed park facilities and associated improvements for the central and western portions of the park are conceptual. As shown on Figure 2-6, the majority of proposed improvements associated with the subsequent phases would occur within the central portion of the park, accessed via the former golf course entry at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Fresno Avenue. The western portion of the park would be limited to low-impact development/restoration, as shown on Figure 2-7. Proposed facilities may include:
• Golf Academy. While a full-size golf course would not be feasible, a golf academy with a modest golf training facility is proposed in the central portion of the park. These facilities have been successfully constructed and operated throughout the country, allowing the opportunity to practice key aspects of the game, and would provide a practice facility for the local schools, introducing new players to the game in a much smaller footprint. The City is also considering a nine-hole executive golf course instead of the golf academy that would occupy the area currently shown for the golf academy.
• Community Event Center. The proposed community event center will be in the general location of the previous golf clubhouse, with indoor facilities to host community meetings and social gatherings, space for food and beverage operations, educational areas, and staging for events such as running races or outdoor music events.
• Event Lawn. To the east of the new buildings, an event lawn with outdoor pavilion would provide a venue for hosting concerts and performances.
• Adventure Playground/Playground. This will include premanufactured play equipment as well as the use of natural materials to encourage nature play and adventure for children of all ages, similar to Phase 1.
• Pickleball Courts. Approximately six pickleball courts would be installed adjacent to the event lawn area. Lighting may be installed to allow for evening play. • Outdoor Education Center. To the west of the new community center facilities, an area would be developed for environmental education, with a large outdoor deck area for events and river access for nonmotorized watercraft.
• Dog Park. Near the existing parking along Houston Avenue, a large, enclosed dog park area would be provided to accommodate dogs of various sizes. The fenced zone would allow dogs to be off-leash and would provide space for them to exercise while discouraging unauthorized offleash dog use elsewhere in the park. Fencing and perimeter landscaping would blend with the natural park setting.

EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

MASTER PLAN CENTRAL ENLARGEMENT
June 2025
Fresno Ave
Dry Creek Way
Verstl Way
Potential flood control and
wetland mitigation area
Houston Ave
French Camp Slough
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 6
5 4
3 2
2 1
NTS
Legend
1 Community Building/Restrooms
Parking
2 3 Golf Academy
4 Golf Training Center
6 Event Lawn/Group Gathering
5 Pickleball Courts
7 Dog Park
8 Adventure Playground
10 Multipurpose Lawn/Fields
15 Existing Levee
11 River Access
12 Event Staging Area
13 Linear Park
9 Outdoor Education Center
14 Trails/Exercise Course
EV Access
6 SOURCE: Design Workshop, June 2025
I:\2025\20252166\G\Central_Park.ai (6/23/2025)
FIGURE 2-6
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Subsequent Phases – Central Park Area FEET
0 200 400
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

MASTER PLAN WEST ENLARGEMENT
June 2025
Tilden Park St
Van Buskirk St
Houston Ave
Houston Ave
San Joaquin River
3 1
4 NTS
Legend
1 Parking
2 Neighborhood Park
3 Existing Community Center
4 Future Flood Mitigation
EV Access
Potential flood control and
wetland mitigation area
2 SOURCE: Design Workshop, June 2025
I:\2025\20252166\G\Western_Park.ai (6/23/2025)
FIGURE 2-7
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Subsequent Phases – Western Park Area FEET
0 200 400
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
• Restoration/Environmental Mitigation. The northwestern portion of the park has been highlighted as potential environmental mitigation to improve the safety of the neighborhoods in the event of flooding. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is in the process of repairing and replacing several miles of the levee in the San Joaquin River Delta, and this area of Van Buskirk Park is ideal for the USACE for flood control, wetland mitigation, and habitat enhancement. While this would require ongoing collaboration and coordination with the City, public access and the formation of pedestrian and bicycle trails would be included that would be consistent with the low-impact uses intended for this area. • Neighborhood Park. Although the majority of the north/western portion of the park would be dedicated to restoration/environmental mitigation, a small neighborhood park would be developed centered on a new park entry at West 8th Street. The park would include a playground, a group gathering area, and a lawn area for passive recreation uses. • Parking. Similar to Phase 1, existing parking capacity would be expanded as part of subsequent phases of development. The existing parking area at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Fresno Avenue would be enlarged to accommodate the expanded use in the central portion of the park. In addition, a small parking area in the western portion of the park near West 8th Street would be developed.
• Lighting. Similar to Phase 1, new LED pathway safety lighting, fixtures, and poles would be installed along pathways and parking lots for security lighting. • Landscaping. A total of 977 live trees of 35 different species have been identified within the overall park site, the majority of which consist of nonnative species, river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), cork oak (Quercus suber) and Canary pine (Pinus canariensis). Subsequent phases of park development would aim to preserve the majority of the existing trees on the park site that are in healthy condition as determined by future arborist surveys. New trees and landscaping would also be provided to enhance proposed park amenities. As described above, the City of Stockton Heritage Tree Ordinance13,14 requires a permit for the removal of specific types of oak trees. Heritage trees would be preserved to the extent feasible, and any heritage trees proposed for removal would be permitted and replaced in accordance with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.
• Utilities and Stormwater. As described for Phase 1, proposed park facilities would be served by existing utilities associated with the former golf course use and would connect to existing utilities in Houston Avenue. Stormwater facilities would be provided in accordance with the City 13 City of Stockton. n.d.-e. City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.72.245. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43714683?highlight=heritage%20tree,heritage%20trees&searchId=21328640992123793#43714683 (accessed February 2025). 14 City of Stockton. n.d.-f. City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.130. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43717326?highlight=&searchId=29114403401589421#437173263 (accessed May 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
of Stockton Stormwater Management Plan.15As shown on Figure 2-5, development of the subsequent phases is anticipated to result in approximately 21.57 acres of impervious surface (939,800 square feet) in the remainder of the Project site, bringing the total impervious surface area for the entire Project to 28.23 acres (1,229,692 square feet). The existing ponds associated with the former golf course would continue to capture and infiltrate stormwater. In addition, approximately 5.24 acres (228,200 square feet) of additional bioretention would be installed as part of the subsequent phases to capture stormwater associated with the new recreation facilities.

2.3.3 Operation
The proposed Project would be open daily to informal use, including picnicking, walking, jogging, bicycling, and informal sports play. The proposed park would be open 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset, consistent with Section 12.650.020 of the SMC. Lighted recreation areas would be open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The remainder of the Project site would operate similarly to a neighborhood park where residents would come for the playground, picnicking, informal basketball games, and other passive recreation.

Maintenance activities would be performed by existing City of Stockton Public Works, Parks Division staff (including user group partnerships/use agreements that would identify shared maintenance tasks) and landscape maintenance contractors hired by the City. Maintenance activities include mowing, facility cleaning, vegetation management, and maintenance of recreation facilities.

2.3.4 Construction
As described above, the proposed Project would be constructed in phases. Construction of Phase 1 would occur over an approximately 18-month period and is anticipated to begin in June 2026.

Construction of subsequent phases would depend on available funding. However, for the purposes of this Initial Study, the environmental analysis assumes that all of these recommended facilities would be constructed in a single phase.

Construction hours would occur during daylight hours, from approximately 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. daily. Construction staging areas would be determined by the contractor and would be contained within the Project site. Construction workers, equipment, and deliveries would access the site via Houston Avenue.

Although the proposed Project has been designed to minimize earthmoving or grading construction activities, some cut and fill would be required. It is anticipated that a total of 40,000 cubic yards of soils would be moved around the site for Phase 1; however, this analysis assumes that cut and fill would be balanced on site and no off-haul or import of soil would be required. Demolition would include removal of portions of concrete pads and pathways as well as removal of trees in poor health, with permitting as necessary for removal of any qualifying Heritage Trees. The planned new 15 Larry Walker Associates. 2009. City of Stockton National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Program Stormwater Management Plan. April. Website: https://cms3.revize.com/revize/ stockton/Documents/Services/Water,%20Sewer%20&%20Stormwater/Stormwater/sw_swmp.pdf (accessed February 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
restroom buildings in Phase 1 would be supported by conventional shallow foundations with interior concrete slabs-on-grade. Shade structures would likely be supported on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piers. Pavements would likely consist of asphalt concrete (AC) and/or rigid Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. As described above, areas of the park would be regraded to improve drainage and to allow for proposed recreation improvements. For Phase 1, it is anticipated that a maximum of 5 feet of excavation would be required. Additional depth, to approximately 8 feet, would be required for installation of light poles; a depth of 10 feet would be required for the proposed skate park.

2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS
A number of permits and approvals would be required for the proposed Project. While the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, other agencies also have discretionary authority related to the Project and approvals. A list of these agencies and potential permits and approvals that may be required is provided in Table 2.A, below.

Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals
Lead Agency Potential Permits/Approvals
City of Stockton  Project Approval
 Environmental Review
 Provision of grading, construction, tree removal, parking, traffic, erosion and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan permits and approvals  Encroachment Permits
Other Agencies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  Section 408 Permit
City of Stockton Fire Department  Fire Department review State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB)
 Coverage under the Construction General Permit
Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
 Compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit
Source: LSA (2025).

EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

3.0 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 in Chapter 3.0.

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/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.1 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 measures 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
08-19-2025
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

4.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 buildings within a state scenic highway
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a 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?
a. Would the project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan does not designate any scenic vistas; however, it does identify open space, agricultural fields, and riparian areas, particularly along the San Joaquin River and Calaveras River as significant visual features.
16 The San Joaquin County General Plan identifies
I-5, SR-4, and SR-99 as scenic roadways.
17 The Project site consists of a former golf course. The site is relatively flat, and the surrounding area is developed with residential land uses to the north and the existing Van Buskirk Community Center and Park and I-5 to the east, allowing for limited views of the surrounding landscape to the north and east. The southern boundary of the Project site is defined by the existing levee along the San Joaquin River, which limits views of the river from the Project site. Due to the elevation of I-5, the Project site can be seen from the County-designated scenic roadway.

None of the visual changes that would result from implementation of the proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The proposed Project would result in the redevelopment of the Project site with a park. Visible elements of the proposed Project would 16 Placeworks. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR. June. Website: https://cms3.revize.com/revize/stockton/Documents/Business/Planning%20&%20 Engineering/General%20Plan/EnvisionStockton2040GP_Draft.pdf (accessed April 2025). 17 County of San Joaquin. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan, Part 3.4, Natural and Cultural Resources Element. December. Website: https://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgi-bin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/General% 20Plan%202035/Part%203.4a_Natural%20and%20Cultural%20Resources_2016-11-21.pdf (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
include an events center, a playground area, a skate park, a dog park, pickleball courts, a community garden, an environmental restoration and mitigation area, trails and walkways, parking lots, landscaping, and lighting. Proposed improvements would not include any tall structures (more than one to two stories) or landscaping that would reduce, obstruct, or degrade existing scenic vistas.

Construction of planned improvements would require removal of some existing trees and other vegetation. However, impacts on visual character and quality of the site from tree/vegetation removal are expected to be less than significant. The majority of trees to be removed are in poor health and/or pose safety concerns. Trees qualifying as Heritage Trees have been retained to the extent possible. The proposed Project would include installation of landscaping and construction of new facilities that would result in a beneficial visual impact at the Project site.

During construction of planned improvements, additional vehicles, workers, and materials coming to and from the site, and site preparation activities would be visible to travelers along adjacent roadways and from adjacent uses. However, construction activities would occur within the existing park and would be intermittent and of relatively short duration.

Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the Stockton General Plan’s goals and policies, including Action LU-1.3C, which requires the incorporation of scenic views, including open space features like waterways, wetlands, natural landscapes, and parks, into the design of the built environment. As the proposed Project would renovate the existing golf course into a park, introduce Project elements that would be at grade or low-standing, and add to the scenic quality of the area by enhancing natural landscape features, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) No designated State scenic highways are located near the Project site. The nearest eligible State scenic highway to the Project area is SR-160, which is approximately 25.4 miles northwest of the Project site. The nearest eligible State scenic highway is SR-84, which is approximately 18.5 miles west of the Project site.18 As described above, the Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the San Joaquin County General Plan maps scenic roadways in San Joaquin County, which include I-5, SR-4, and SR-99.19 However, as shown on Figure NCR-1, State and Local Scenic Routes in the San Joaquin County General Plan, none of these designated scenic roadway segments are located in proximity to or within view of the Project site.20 Due to distance, topography, and intervening development, the Project site is not visible from any of these designated scenic roadways. Furthermore, the proposed 18 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Website: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed April 2025). 19 County of San Joaquin. 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan, Part 3.4, Natural and Cultural Resources Element. December. Website: https://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgi-bin/cdyn.exe/file/Planning/General %20Plan%202035/Part%203.4a_Natural%20and%20Cultural%20Resources_2016-11-21.pdf (accessed April 2025). 20 Ibid.

EXHIBIT 1
Project would not damage any rock outcroppings or historic buildings, as these resources are not present on the Project site.

As outlined in Section 2.3, Proposed Project, approximately 187 trees would be removed as part of Phase 1 of the proposed Project; the exact number of trees to be removed would be determined as part of the final design. Additional trees would be removed as part of the subsequent phases.

However, landscaping, including various tree species, shrubs, and ground cover, would be provided as part of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect scenic resources within view of a State or local scenic highway, and there would be no impact. c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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 a 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)
Goals and policies in the Stockton General Plan and the Delta Plan promote the preservation of the County’s rural and natural character. The Project site is in an area developed with suburban residential and commercial land uses. Implementation of the proposed Project would provide a needed recreational resource and enhance gathering opportunities to serve this residential area as well as the greater community of the City of Stockton.

While the Project site itself consists of a former golf course, most of the surrounding area is characterized by suburban development, primarily single-family residential uses. As such, the Project site is located within an urbanized area. As noted in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project site is designated as Parks and Recreation (PR) in the General Plan and is zoned Public Facilities (PF). The Parks and Recreation land use designation provides for City and County parks, golf courses, marinas, community centers, public and quasi-public uses, and other similar and compatible uses. The maximum FAR for parks and recreation uses is 0.2.21
The PF zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of public and quasi-public land uses, including facilities and lands owned by the City, County, State, or federal governments, as well as religious facilities. Parks and playgrounds are a permitted use in the PF zoning district, while some of the facilities proposed, including golf courses, outdoor assembly facilities, and activity centers, are permitted with approval of a Land Use Development Permit. Table 2-3.A in Section 16.24.200 of the SMC establishes the specific development standards for facilities within the PF zoning district.22 The proposed Project would comply with the 50 percent maximum lot coverage, 75-foot maximum height limit, and setback requirements established in Table 2-3.A of the SMC; therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic 21 City of Stockton. 2018a. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. December 4. Website: file:///P:/2025/ 20252166%20DEW%20Van%20Buskirk%20Park%20Environmental/PRODUCTS/Project%20Description/Ref erences/2040%20General%20Plan.pdf (accessed February 2025). 22 City of Stockton. n.d.-c. City of Stockton Municipal Code Sections 16.24.200. Website:
https://ecode360.com/43712790?highlight=a,table%202-3,table%202-3%20a&searchId=291139028817 89714#43712779 (accessed May 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
quality. Further, as described above, the proposed Project would help to implement Action LU-1.3C, identified in the City of Stockton General Plan, which requires the incorporation of scenic views, including open-space features like waterways, wetlands, natural landscapes, and parks, into design of the built environment.

Development of the proposed Project would enhance the existing visual character of the Project site and vicinity by redeveloping the former golf course site with a park. The proposed Project would result in the development of public recreation facilities and associated improvements, including walkways, picnic areas, play areas, an event lawn, a community garden, a skate park, a dog park, a golf academy, landscaping, and lighting, as well as environmental restoration and mitigation areas preserving and amplifying the existing natural setting of the site.

The proposed Project would represent an improvement to the visual quality and character of the Project area through the development of recreation improvements and open space areas. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, and this impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant Impact) The Project site is within a developed area with a variety of existing light sources, including streetlights, security lighting at the adjacent community center and park, vehicle head and tail lights on area roadways, and lighting associated with adjacent development.

The proposed park would be open 1 hour before sunrise to 1 hour after sunset, consistent with Section 12.650.020 of the SMC. Lighted recreation areas would be open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Section 16.32.070 of the SMC23 requires that all lighting be shielded or modified to prevent emission of light or glare beyond the property line, or upward into the sky. Compliance with these City regulations would ensure that the additional lighting associated with the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would result in the disruption of day or nighttime views in the area. All lighting associated with the Project would be shielded such that it would minimize light spillage onto adjacent properties in accordance with Section 16.32.070 of the SMC related to light and glare. Through compliance with SMC regulations, lighting would not substantially affect daytime or nighttime views in the Project vicinity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
23 City of Stockton. n.d.-f. City of Stockton Municipal Code Section 16.32.070. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43712926#43712939 (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1

4.2 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 (DOC) 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 the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? 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 non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a. Would the project 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 non-agricultural use? (No Impact) The Project site was previously developed as a golf course and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, recreational uses, waterways (e.g., Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, and the San Joaquin River), and undeveloped land. Although some agricultural uses exist beyond the western San Joaquin River boundary of the Project site, no agricultural uses are currently located within the Project site. Additionally, the Project area is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the DOC.
24 Urban and Built-Up Land is occupied by structures with a building density of at 24 California Department of Conservation (DOC). n.d.-b. California Important Farmland Finder. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff (accessed March 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. Therefore, the proposed Project would not involve the conversion of agricultural land to a nonagricultural use. The proposed Project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a nonagricultural use, and there would be no impact. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact)
The Project site is designated Parks and Recreation (PR) in the General Plan25 and is zoned Public Facilities (PF).26 Neither the land use designation nor the zoning designation allow for agricultural activities and facilities. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or open-space use. The Project area is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.27 Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and the proposed Project would have no impact.
c. Would the project 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 Project site is located within an existing urban area, is designated Parks and Recreation and zoned PF, which does not allow for timber production. The Project site is not considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 12220[g]) or timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). The proposed Project would not conflict with the existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact related to forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? (No Impact)
Refer to Section 4.2.c, above. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact related to loss of forest land or conversion of forest land. 25 City of Stockton. 2018b. General Plan Land Use Designation Map. Online Website:
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/stockton/Documents/Business/Planning%20&%20Engineering/General %20Plan/Stockton_General_Plan_Adopted.pdf (accessed March 2025). 26 City of Stockton. n.d.-h. Zoning Map. LandMaster Online. Website: https://stocktonca.mapgeo.io/ datasets/properties?abuttersDistance=100&latlng=37.921398%2C-121.308246&panel=search& previewId=16307036-66744&zoom=15 (accessed March 2025). 27 DOC. n.d.-c. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ WilliamsonAct/App/index.html (accessed March 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (No Impact)
Refer to Sections 4.2.a and 4.2.c. The Project area was previously developed as a golf course and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, waterways (e.g., Walker Slough and French Camp Slough), and undeveloped land. The proposed Project would result in the development of a park on a site that is not utilized for agricultural or forestry operations; therefore, the proposed Project would not involve other changes that could result in conversion of farmland or forest land to a nonagricultural or nonforest use. No impact would occur.

EXHIBIT 1

4.3 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.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City of Stockton is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), which is within the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD is responsible for air quality regulation within the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region. Both the State and the federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, and suspended particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10). The SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards.

CEQA requires that certain projects be analyzed for consistency with the applicable air quality plan.

An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a nonattainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal and State air quality standards. To bring the SJVAB into attainment, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2022 Plan for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard in December 2022 to satisfy Clean Air Act requirements and ensure attainment of the 70 parts per billion (ppb) 8-hour O3 standard.

To ensure the SJVAB’s continued attainment of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) PM10 standard, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan in September 2007.

SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) is designed to reduce PM10 emissions generated by human activity. The SJVAPCD adopted the 2024 Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard to address the USEPA federal annual PM2.5 standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 ) by 2030.

EXHIBIT 1
For a project to be consistent with SJVAPCD air quality plans, the pollutants emitted from a project should not exceed the SJVAPCD emission thresholds or cause a significant impact on air quality. In addition, emission reductions achieved through implementation of offset requirements are a major component of the SJVAPCD air quality plans. As discussed below, construction of the proposed Project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Implementation of SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), described in Section 4.3.b. would further reduce construction dust impacts. As discussed below, long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed Project, including area, energy, and mobile-source emissions, would also not exceed SJVAPCD established significance thresholds.

Therefore, impacts related to the proposed Project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The SJVAB is designated as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for federal standards and nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards. The SJVAPCD’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS.

Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant.

In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the SJVAPCD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Therefore, additional analysis to assess cumulative impacts is unnecessary. The following analysis assesses the potential project-level construction- and operation-related air quality impacts.

Short-Term Construction Emissions. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, nitrogen oxides (NOX), reactive organic gases (ROGs), directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Project construction activities would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed Project would be greatest during the site preparation phase due to the disturbance of soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate particulate emissions. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would EXHIBIT 1
depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment.

Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions (PM10). With the implementation of Regulation VIII measures, fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, ROG, and some soot particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while those vehicles idle in traffic.

These emissions would be temporary in nature and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction site.

The SJVAPCD has established construction emissions thresholds on an annual basis as shown in Table

4.A, below. Construction emissions for the proposed Project were analyzed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description, the proposed Project would be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 beginning in June 2026 and occurring over an approximately 18-month period. Construction of subsequent phases would depend on available funding. As discussed in the Project Description, this analysis assumes that all of the recommended facilities would be constructed in a single phase. As such, CalEEMod assumes that construction of the entire Project would begin June 2026 and occur over an 18-month period. Cut and fill would be balanced on site, and no off-haul or import of soil would be required.

Other precise details of construction activities are unknown at this time; therefore, default assumptions (e.g., construction worker and truck trips and fleet activities) from CalEEMod were used. Construction-related emissions are presented in Table 4.A. CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

Table 4.A: Project Construction Emissions (Tons per Year) Construction Year ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2026 0.1 2.1 1.6 <0.1 0.2 0.1
2027 0.2 1.9 1.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum Annual Construction Emissions 0.2 2.1 1.6 <0.1 0.2 0.1 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10.0 10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA (May 2025).

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxides
As shown in Table 4.A, construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD threshold for annual construction emissions for the proposed Project. In addition to the construction-period thresholds of significance, the SJVAPCD has implemented Regulation VIII measures for dust control during EXHIBIT 1
construction to reduce construction fugitive dust impacts to a less than significant level. These measures are required by SJVAPCD for all construction projects, including the proposed Project.

Consistent with SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions), the following controls are required to be included as specifications for the proposed Project and implemented at the construction site:
• All disturbed areas, including storage piles, that are not being actively utilized for construction purposes shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant, and covered with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover.
• All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant. • All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
• When materials are transported off site, all material shall be covered or effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, and at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
• All 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).
• Following the addition of materials to, or removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

Implementation of the fugitive dust control measures, as required by SJVAPCD Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions) would ensure that the proposed Project complies with Regulation VIII and further reduce the short-term construction period air quality impacts. Therefore, with implementation of required fugitive dust control measures, construction of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.

Long-Term Operational Emissions. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts associated with the proposed Project are those related to mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment).

EXHIBIT 1
Mobile-source emissions include ROGs and NOX emissions that contribute to the formation of O3.

Additionally, PM10 emissions result from running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways.

Energy-source emissions result from activities in buildings for which natural gas is used. The quantity of emissions is the product of usage intensity (i.e., the amount of natural gas) and the emission factor of the fuel source. The proposed Project would be all-electric and would not require natural gas; therefore, the proposed Project would result in negligible energy-source emissions.

Typically, area-source emissions consist of direct sources of air emissions located at the Project site, including architectural coatings, consumer products, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.

Emission estimates for operation of the proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod. Model results are shown in Table 4.B. Trip generation rates for the proposed Project were based on the Project’s trip generation estimates, as identified in Section 4.17, Transportation. As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, the proposed Project would generate approximately 575 average daily trips. Where Project-specific data were not available, default assumptions (e.g., electricity usage, water usage, and solid waste generation) from CalEEMod were used to estimate Project emissions.

CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix A.

The primary emissions associated with the proposed Project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on release or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the proposed Project; emissions are released in other areas of the Air Basin. The annual emissions associated with Project operational trip generation and area sources are identified in Table 4.B.

Table 4.B: Project Operation Emissions (Tons per Year)
ROG NOX CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Source Emissions 0.4 0.3 2.5 <0.1 0.5 0.1
Area Source Emissions 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy Source Emissions <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Project Operation Emissions 0.5 0.3 2.5 <0.1 0.5 0.1 SJVAPCD Significance Threshold 10.0 10.0 100.0 27.0 15.0 15.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LSA (May 2025).

CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROG = reactive organic gas
SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOX = sulfur oxides
The results shown in Table 4.B indicate the proposed Project’s operational emissions would not exceed the significance criteria for annual CO, NOx, ROG, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the proposed Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less Than Significant Impact)
According to the SJVAPCD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would expose sensitive receptors to TACs, resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 20.0 in 1 million, increased noncancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 µg/m3
.

The Project site is in an urban area in proximity to existing residential uses that could be exposed to diesel emissions exhaust during the construction period. Therefore, a construction health risk assessment (HRA), which evaluates construction-period health risk to off-site receptors, was performed for construction of the proposed Project. To estimate the potential cancer risk associated with construction activities from equipment exhaust (including diesel particulate matter [DPM]), a dispersion model was used to translate an emissions rate from the source location to a concentration at the receptor location of interest (i.e., a nearby residence and work sites). Dispersion modeling varies from a simpler, more conservative screening-level analysis to a more complex and refined detailed analysis.

For the purposes of an HRA, emissions are analyzed for acute health impacts, chronic, and carcinogenic health impacts. A multi-pathway assessment was conducted to evaluate the Project’s emissions during construction following the modeling techniques recommended in the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. 28 The analysis herein has been
conducted in accordance with the SJVAPCD’s requirements for HRAs.

The HRA analysis was conducted using three models: (1) CalEEMod to determine DPM emissions during Project construction; (2) the USEPA AERMOD air dispersion model to determine how the TACs would move through the atmosphere; and (3) CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) model to translate the pollutant concentrations from AERMOD into individual health risks at any sensitive receptor locations surrounding the Project site.

The OEHHA has determined that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particulates poses the highest cancer risk of any TAC it has evaluated. Exposure to diesel exhaust can also have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, DPM made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they were allergic, such as dust and pollen.

Exposure to DPM also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks. For risk assessment procedures, the OEHHA specifies that the surrogate for whole diesel exhaust is DPM. The HRA analyses used PM10 emissions to represent DPM emissions, consistent with OEHHA guidance. 28 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. March. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/air/air-toxics-hot-spots (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
The conservative nature of this analysis is due primarily to the following factors:
• The CARB-adopted diesel exhaust unit risk factor (URF) of 300 in 1 million per μg/m3 is based on the upper 95th percentile of estimated risk for each of the epidemiological studies used to develop the URF. Therefore, the risk factor is representative of DPM. • The exposure to DPM is assumed to be constant for the given period analyzed (i.e., 70 years).

However, emissions from DPM are expected to substantially decrease in the future with the implementation of standard regulatory requirements and technological advancement to reduce DPM.

Table 4.C, below, identifies the results of the analysis. Model outputs and snapshots of the sources are provided in Appendix B.

Table 4.C: Unmitigated Inhalation Health Risks from
Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors
Carcinogenic Inhalation
Health Risk in 1 Million
Chronic Inhalation
Hazard Index
Acute Inhalation
Hazard Index
Residential Receptor MEI 3.81 0.003 <0.001
Worker Receptor MEI 0.21 0.009 <0.001
School Receptor MEI 0.09 <0.001 <0.001
Threshold 20.0 1.0 1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Source: Compiled by LSA (May 2025).
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
MEI = maximally exposed individual
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size As shown in Table 4.C, the maximum cancer risk for the residential receptor maximally exposed individual (MEI) associated with Project construction would be 3.81 in 1 million, which would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s cancer risk of 20 in 1 million. The school receptor MEI and worker receptor MEI risk would be lower at 0.21 in 1 million and 0.09 in 1 million, respectively, which would also not exceed the SJVAPCD’s cancer risk threshold. The chronic hazard index would be 0.003 for the residential receptor MEI, 0.009 for the worker receptor MEI and less than 0.001 for the school receptor MEI, which are below the threshold of 1. In addition, the acute hazard index would be nominal (0), which would also not exceed the threshold of 1. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not exceed SJVAPCD thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Once the proposed Project is constructed, it would not be a source of substantial emissions, and consequently, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in new sources of TACs.

Therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs, and this impact would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) During Project construction, some odors may be present due to diesel exhaust. However, these odors would be temporary and limited to the construction period. Once operational, the proposed Project would not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors and once operational, the Project would not be a source of odors. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
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?
a. Would the project 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Species listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) require special protection to avoid “take” or cause other adverse effects upon their habitat. Additionally, impacts to other nonlisted special-status species, such as those classified as Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), should be avoided and mitigated under CEQA. Some rare plant species also require protection pursuant to the California Native Plant Protection Act, although there are no rare plants present or potentially present at the Project site due to lack of habitat. In 2025, LSA conducted a review of multiple existing databases to compile the list of potential special-status species that may be present at the Project site. Table 4.D and Figure 4-1 show special-status species records and/or observations within 1 mile of the Project site.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.D: Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Occurring within 1 Mile of the Project Site Common Name/Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status2
Global
Rank3,4
State
Rank5
Rare
Plant
Rank6
CDFW
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Plants
Alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var. tener
None None G2G1 S1 1B.2 Playas, vernal-pools, freshwater wetlands, alkali sink, valley grassland, and wetlandriparian.

No suitable habitat.

Heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Shadescale scrub, valley grassland, and wetland-riparian.

No suitable habitat.

Big tarplant
Blepharizonia plumosa
None None G1G2 S1S2 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, and clay (usually).

No suitable habitat.

Watershield
Brasenia schreberi
None None G5 S3 2B.3 Still or slow-moving water of ponds, shallow lakes, margins of deeper lakes and manmade
reservoirs, freshwater marshes, sloughs, and
canals.

No suitable habitat, but
potential habitat is
adjacent to Project area.

Palmate-bracted bird's-beak
Chloropyron palmatum
FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, and alkaline.

No suitable habitat.

San Joaquin spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana
None None G2 S2 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland, and alkaline.

No suitable habitat.

Woolly rose-mallow
Hibiscus lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis
None None G5T3 S3 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater); often in riprap on the sides of levees.

No suitable habitat.

Delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii
None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (brackish and freshwater).

No suitable habitat.

Sanford’s arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
None None G3 S3 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (shallow freshwater). No suitable habitat.

Suisun marsh aster
Symphyotrichum lentum
None None G2 S2 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (brackish and
freshwater).

No suitable habitat.

Saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
None None G2 S2 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic and alkaline), and vernal
pools.

No suitable habitat.

Insects
Monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
FC G4 None Milkweed species (Asclepias spp.) are the
sole larval host plants.

High to moderate.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.D: Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Occurring within 1 Mile of the Project Site Common Name/Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status2
Global
Rank3,4
State
Rank5
Rare
Plant
Rank6
CDFW
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
FT None G3T2 S2 Riparian habitat; requires elderberry bushes. Present.

Crotch’s bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
None CC G2 S1 Open grassland and scrub habitats. Nesting occurs underground.

Suitable habitat present.

Recent CNDDB
observations near Tracy.

Western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis
None CC G2 S1 Open grassland and scrub habitats. Nesting occurs underground.

Suitable habitat present,
but species was last
observed in San Joaquin
County in 1962.

Fish
Steelhead (Central Valley
DPS)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT None G5T2Q S2 Inland streams and rivers. No suitable habitat, but critical habitat is adjacent
to Project area.

Green sturgeon (Southern
DPS)
Acipenser medirostris
FT None G2T1 S1 Inland streams and rivers. No suitable habitat, but critical habitat is adjacent
to Project area.

Amphibians
Western spadefoot toad
Spea hammodii
FT CT G2G3 S2S3 WL Vernal pool grasslands. No suitable habitat.

California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense)
FT, Central
California
DPS
CT, Central
California
DPS
G2G3T3 S3 WL Vernal pool grasslands. No suitable habitat.

Reptiles
Northwestern pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
None CC G5 S4 SSC Permanent and intermittent waters of rivers, creeks, small lakes and ponds, marshes,
irrigation ditches, and reservoirs. Turtles bask
on land or near water on logs, branches or
boulders. Nesting and overwintering in
uplands.

Suitable habitat is present;
no observations.

Birds
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
None CC G4 S3 SSC Open, dry, sparsely vegetated land with available burrows, adequate food supply, and
perches for horizontal visibility.

Suitable habitat is present;
no observations.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.D: Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Occurring within 1 Mile of the Project Site Common Name/Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
State
Status2
Global
Rank3,4
State
Rank5
Rare
Plant
Rank6
CDFW
Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
None CT G5 S3 Needs open habitats for foraging; adjusted well to agricultural settings (e.g., hay and
alfalfa fields, pastures, grain crops, and row
crops). Nests in riparian woodlands and
scattered stands of trees near agricultural
fields and grasslands.

Present.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
None CT G1G2 S1S2 SSC Nests in wetlands with cattails, bulrushes, and willows, triticale fields, and patches of
Himalayan blackberry near stock ponds or
irrigated pastures. Foraging habitats include
cultivated fields, feedlots associated with
dairy farms, and wetlands.

No suitable habitat.

Sources: California Native Plant Society (2020), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2020), and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2020). 1 Federal Status Codes (USFWS): FE= Listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction) by the Federal Government; FT = Listed as Threatened (likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future) by the Federal Government; FC = Candidate to become a proposed species; FSC = Federal Species of Concern. May be Endangered or Threatened, but not enough biological information has been gathered to support listing at this time; FC = Candidate to become a proposed species. 2 State Status Codes (CDFW): CE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California; SSC = California Species of Special Concern; CT = Listed as Threatened by the State of California; CR = California Rare; CC = State Candidate for listing as an Endangered Species; WL = Watch List. 3 Global Rank: G1: Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, very severe threats, or other factors; G2: Imperiled – At high risk of extinction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. G3: Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. G4: Apparently Secure – At fairly low risk of extinction due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors. G5: Secure – At very low risk of extinction due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats. 4 Taxa which are subspecies receive a taxon rank (T-rank) in addition to the G-rank. Whereas the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the global status of just the subspecies. 5 State Rank: S1: Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extirpation in the State due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. S2: Imperiled – At high risk of extirpation in the State due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. S3:

Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extirpation in the State due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. S4: Apparently Secure – At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the State due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors. S5: Secure – At very low or no risk of extirpation in the State due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats. 6 California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory: Rank 1A: Plants Presumed Extinct in California; Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere; Rank 2: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere; Rank 3: Plants About Which We Need More Information—A Review List; Rank 4: Plants of Limited Distribution—A Watch List.

CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DPS = Distinct Population Segment
USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
Steelhead -
Central Valley
Dps #27
Tricolored
Blackbird
#980
Western
Spadefoot
#1366
Giant
Gartersnake
#351
Swainson's
Hawk
#2361
Swainson's
Hawk #284
Swainson's
Hawk #302
Burrowing
Owl #274
Burrowing
Owl #266
Swainson's
Hawk #742
Burrowing
Owl #326
Burrowing
Owl #330
Burrowing
Owl #327
Burrowing Owl #324
Burrowing Owl #346
LEGEND
Study Area
1-mile Buffer of Study Area
CNDDB Occurrence
SOURCE: CDFW CNDDB (04/2021); Esri World Street Map (2021).

I:\DEW2002\GIS\Maps\Ecosystem Values Report\Figure 5_CNDDB Occurrences within 1 Mile.mxd (4/27/2021) FIGURE 4-1
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
CNDDB Occurrences within 1 Mile
0 0.25 0.5
MILES
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
Of the species identified in Table 4.A, 16 are unlikely to occur at the Project site either because the site is outside their current distribution or due to a lack of suitable habitat. Fish species and giant garter snake would not be present at the Project site because the aquatic habitat in French Camp Slough and the San Joaquin River is outside the Project site boundaries.

Special-Status Plants. Based on the results of the database search and literature review, 11 specialstatus plant species were evaluated as potentially occurring in the site vicinity (Table 4.A). However, the extensive development and lack of suitable habitat at the site precludes any of these specialstatus plant species from occurring on the Project site. Therefore, impacts to special-status plant species would not occur. Special-Status Wildlife. The following species potentially occur at the Project site and could be affected by the proposed Project: monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB; Desmoderus californicus), western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), nesting birds, northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), and bats. The Project site is also adjacent to critical habitat for the southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon and Central Valley steelhead.

The proposed Project would result in redevelopment of the Project site as a park. Special-status wildlife species could be impacted both directly and indirectly during construction or during operational activities after construction has been completed. The potential for protected resources to be impacted by construction and operation of the proposed Project is a function of the likelihood the species is present when the Project is constructed, as well as the type and duration of construction activities. Another factor is the sensitivity of the species or resource to disturbance.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 are identified below to address general constructionperiod impacts to special-status species that may be present on the site. These measures require biological monitoring, environmental education, best management practices (BMPs), and preconstruction surveys prior to and during construction activities, as applicable, to ensure that potential direct and indirect impacts to special-status species would be reduced to a less than significant level.

The special-status species occurring in the vicinity of the site, their potential presence on the site, and potential species-specific Project impacts and mitigation measures are discussed further below.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Biological Monitor. A qualified biologist shall be present on site as a Biological Monitor to survey and monitor special-status species during all construction work within the Project site. The Biological Monitor shall conduct all preconstruction surveys and will ensure that any construction barrier fencing and work exclusion zones are established and maintained. The Biological Monitor shall furthermore supervise and monitor all Project activities to ensure that appropriate protective measures are implemented. The Biological Monitor shall conduct clearance surveys at the beginning of each day within or adjacent to suitable special-status species habitat, including wetlands and riparian habitats. The Biological Monitor shall have the authority to halt work activities that may EXHIBIT 1
affect special-status species at any life stage. If a special-status species enters the work site, all work shall stop until it leaves on its own volition. If the Biological Monitor finds that any special-status species are present at the work site, all Project work shall stop, and the appropriate regulatory agencies (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) shall be notified. If there is imminent danger of injury to special-status species from Project-related activities and the special-status species individual(s) do not move out of the work site on their own, the Biological Monitor shall relocate the animal(s) to the nearest suitable habitat outside the work zone and notify the appropriate regulatory agencies within 24 hours.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Worker Environmental Awareness Training (WEAT). During Project construction, before any work occurs in the Project site, including grading, vegetation removal, and equipment staging, all construction personnel shall participate in WEAT regarding specialstatus species and sensitive habitats present in the Project area. Any additional construction personnel who are employed following the initial start of construction shall receive the mandatory training before beginning work. As part of the training, an environmental awareness handout shall be provided to all personnel that describes and illustrates sensitive resources (i.e., special-status species and habitat, nesting birds/raptors) to be avoided during the proposed Project construction and lists measures to be followed by personnel for the protection of biological resources.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Implement General Wildlife Protection Measures During Construction. The City of Stockton (City) and its contractors’ employees and volunteers shall implement general wildlife protection measures during construction that shall include, but may not be limited to, the following:
• Limit construction activities to daylight hours to the extent feasible. Conduct all in-water construction activities between May 1 and November 30.
• Confine clearing to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities.
• Clearly delineate the Action Area limits by using fencing, flagging, or other means prior to the start of construction activities.

EXHIBIT 1
• Limit the number of new temporary access routes, number and size of staging areas, and total area of construction activities when working in or adjacent to wetlands, streams, and riparian areas. Movement of heavy equipment shall be confined to existing roadways, and excavation equipment shall be operated from the tops of banks to minimize habitat disturbance. • Keep all fueling and maintenance of vehicles and other mechanized equipment in designated areas at least 100 feet from any aquatic habitat. Each designated fueling/maintenance area shall be protected by a containment barrier designed to prevent any spilled or leaked fuel or other contaminants from running into an aquatic habitat. All workers shall be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.
• Reduce the risk of spreading harmful pathogens by sanitizing all vehicles and equipment before use in natural areas. All vehicular and equipment cleaning work shall be conducted in selfcontained work areas at least 100 feet from any aquatic habitat; wash water shall not be disposed of in any natural areas. • Avoid wildlife entrapment by completely covering or providing escape ramps for all excavated steep-walled holes or trenches more than 1 foot deep at the end of each work day.
• Inspect the work area and any equipment or material left on site overnight for listed species prior to the start of construction activities each day.
• Dispose of garbage in wildlife-proof containers and remove the garbage from the construction area regularly during the construction period.
• Check under equipment and in staging areas for wildlife species each morning prior to work.
• Stay within designated work areas.
• Maintain exclusion/silt fencing.
• No pets or firearms shall be allowed on site.
• Report to the supervisor on site any observed incident of death or injury to a special-status species or damage to habitat. The supervisor shall immediately notify the Qualified Biologist.

EXHIBIT 1
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 Preconstruction and Construction Monitoring. The City shall avoid and minimize effects to special-status species during construction, habitat restoration, and maintenance activities associated with the Project. The following preconstruction and construction monitoring measures shall be implemented:

1. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for nesting Swainson’s hawk, following the “Recommended Timing and
Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in the
California’s Central Valley”29; these surveys shall include a 0.25- mile radius outside the Project area. Nest trees shall only be removed between September 16 and February 1, when nests are unoccupied. Construction work (including grading,
earthmoving, surveying, and any operation of construction equipment) shall not occur within a 0.25-mile buffer zone around an active, occupied Swainson’s hawk nest with eggs or young. Construction work may commence in the buffer zone when a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting activity is complete (e.g., Swainson’s hawk young have fully fledged, are capable of flight, and have left the nest, or the adults have abandoned the nest for a minimum of 7 days and there is no evidence of re-nesting activity). The size of nest site buffer zones may be reduced only under the following conditions:
a. A site-specific analysis prepared by a qualified biologist indicates that the nesting pair under consideration are not likely to be adversely affected by construction activities (e.g., the nest is located in an area where the hawks are habituated to human activity and noise levels are
comparable to anticipated construction work). CDFW must approve this analysis before construction may begin within

0.25 mile of a nest.
b. Monitoring by a qualified biologist is conducted for a sufficient time (during all construction activities for a minimum of 10 consecutive days following the initiation of construction), and the nesting pair does not exhibit adverse reactions to construction activities (e.g., changes in
behavioral patterns, reactions to construction noise).
c. Monitoring is continued at least once per week through the nesting cycle at that nest. This longer-term monitoring may 29 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys in the central valley of California. Available on the Internet at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83990 (accessed April 23, 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
be reduced to a minimum of 2 hours in the morning and
2 hours in the afternoon during construction activities; however, additional and more frequent monitoring may be required if any adverse reactions are noted.
d. Weekly monitoring reports shall be submitted to CDFW during construction and monitoring activities.

If adverse effects are identified, construction activities shall cease immediately and construction shall not resume until the qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, has determined that construction may continue under modified restrictions or that nesting activity is complete.

2. Preconstruction surveys for elderberry bushes shall be conducted at least 14 days prior to any ground disturbance. All areas to be avoided during construction activities shall be fenced and/or flagged. Activities that may damage or kill an elderberry shrub (e.g., trenching, paving) may need an
avoidance area of at least 6 meters (20 feet) from the dripline.

3. A qualified biologist shall conduct a burrowing owl habitat assessment and surveys if habitat for burrowing owl is present prior to construction. The habitat assessment and surveys shall follow the Department of Fish and Game State Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation30 methodology, and the qualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the survey results, submit the report to CDFW, and obtain CDFW’s written approval of the report prior to Project construction. The habitat assessment and surveys shall encompass the Project site and a sufficient buffer zone to detect owls nearby that may be impacted, which is up to 500 meters (1,640 feet) around the Project site pursuant to the above methodology. Habitat assessments and surveys shall occur annually for the duration of the Project, as conditions may change annually and suitable refugia for burrowing owl, such as small mammal burrows, can be created within a few hours or days. Surveys for either nonbreeding or breeding burrowing owls shall be spread over four visits during the nonbreeding and breeding seasons. Time lapses between surveys or Project activities shall trigger subsequent surveys including, but not limited to, a final survey within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. If the habitat assessment does not identify habitat and surveys are not 30 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Website:
nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843 (accessed July 29, 2021).

EXHIBIT 1
conducted, an additional habitat assessment shall be conducted within 14 days prior to construction. If new refugia are present, such as burrows or novel Project infrastructure, surveys shall be conducted as described above. The qualified biologist shall have a minimum of 2 years of experience implementing the above methodology. The following measures shall be implemented should surveys find burrowing owls to be present:
a. The City shall immediately notify CDFW if burrowing owl is detected and implement a construction avoidance buffer
around any detected burrowing owls pursuant to the buffer distances outlined in the Department of Fish and Game
State Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Any detected
owls shall be monitored by the qualified biologist to ensure they are not disturbed during construction activities.
b. If the City cannot ensure burrowing owls and their burrows are fully avoided, the City shall consult with CDFW and obtain a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) take
authorization or otherwise demonstrate compliance with
CESA. Take is likely to occur and City shall obtain an
Incidental Take Permit (ITP) if burrowing owl surveys detect burrowing owl occupancy of burrows or burrow surrogates within the Project site. Occupancy of habitat may also be indicated by burrowing owl sign, including molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site.
c. If burrowing owls or their burrows or burrow surrogates are detected within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of the Project site, but not on the Project site, the City shall consult with CDFW to determine if avoidance is feasible or an ITP is warranted. d. To prevent burrowing owls from sheltering or nesting in exposed material, all construction pipes, culverts, hoses, or similar materials greater than 2 inches in diameter stored at the Project site shall be capped or covered before the end of each work day and shall be inspected thoroughly for wildlife before the pipe or similar structure is buried, capped, used, or moved.

4. Preconstruction bumble bee surveys shall be conducted in all grassland areas at least 14 days prior to construction, following nonlethal survey protocols and current State and federal guidelines. A minimum of three pre-activity surveys shall be conducted within 30 days during appropriate activity periods EXHIBIT 1
(i.e., March through September) prior to the start of grounddisturbing activities to identify bumble bee activity. Surveys should be repeated for each year of the Project activities. The preactivity surveys shall occur when temperatures are above 60°Fahrenheit (15.5°Celsius) and not during wet conditions (e.g., foggy, raining, or drizzling). The survey shall be conducted at least 2 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset, and shall occur at least 1 hour after rain subsides. Preferably, the survey should be conducted during sunny days with low wind speeds (less than 8 miles per hour), but surveying during partially cloudy days or overcast conditions is permissible if the surveyors can still see their own shadows.

If western bumble bees, or potential Crotch’s or western bumble bees (since bumble bees can be difficult to identify in the field) are observed within the Project site, a plan to protect specialstatus bumble bee nests and individuals shall be developed and implemented in consultation with CDFW. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
a. Specifications for construction timing and sequencing requirements (e.g., avoidance of mowing, tilling, or other ground disturbance until late March to protect
overwintering queen bumble bees);
b. Establishment of appropriate no-disturbance buffers for bumble bee nest sites to avoid impacts to the bees and
monitoring by a qualified biologist to ensure compliance if bumble bee nests are identified;
c. Restrictions associated with construction equipment or materials that may harm bumble bees (e.g., avoidance of pesticides/herbicides, BMPs to minimize the spread of
invasive plant species);
d. Provisions to avoid western bumble bees, or potential western bumble bees if observed away from a bumble bee
nest during Project activity (e.g., ceasing of Project activities until the animal has left the active work area on its own volition); and
e. Prescription of an appropriate restoration seed mix targeted for the western bumble bee, including native plant species known to be visited by native bumble bee species and
containing a mix of flowering plant species with continual EXHIBIT 1
floral availability through the entire active season of the western bumble bee (March through September).

If Project impacts to special-status bumble bees cannot be completely avoided, the City shall apply obtain an ITP from CDFW.

If the Project will result in permanent impacts to suitable special-status bumble bee habitat, the City shall provide compensatory mitigation at a minimum ratio of 3:1. Floral resources shall be replaced as close to their original location as is feasible. If active special-status bumble bee nests have been identified and floral resources cannot be replaced within 200 meters (656 feet) of their original location, floral resources shall be planted in the most centrally available location relative to identified nests. This location shall be no more than 1.5 kilometers (4,921 feet) from any identified nest. Replaced floral resources may be split into multiple patches to meet distance requirements for multiple nests. Mitigation lands shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement with an endowment established for long-term management of the
lands.

5. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted during the monarch breeding season (March 16 through October 31) to determine if milkweed is present on site and is being used for monarch breeding. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to ground or vegetation disturbance activities. The biologist will search for evidence of monarch eggs, caterpillars, chrysalises, and adults.

6. Prior to any construction activities, preconstruction surveys for northwestern pond turtle shall be performed by a qualified biologist within the Project area and staging area (including a 50-foot buffer) to determine whether northwestern pond turtles or their active nests are present. Preconstruction surveys for northwestern pond turtles, shall be conducted 24 hours prior to construction activities. Surveys shall be repeated if a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more occurs.

7. Preconstruction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted within 14 days prior to the start of construction. If there is a break in construction of 1 week or more, surveys shall be conducted prior to the reinitiation of construction. If birds or nests are located within this buffer, USFWS will be contacted for further guidance to ensure birds or nests are not disturbed. If surveys EXHIBIT 1
determine that the species is present and nesting within this area, an appropriate nest protection buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist based on the species, type of
construction or maintenance activities, and line of sight to the work area. Under this measure, nesting birds and offspring would not be disturbed or killed, and nests and eggs would not be destroyed. Work shall be conducted no less than 500 feet from an active raptor nest and 100 feet from an active migratory bird nest, although buffer distances for all nesting birds may differ based on consultation with CDFW and USFWS. To prevent encroachment, the established buffer(s) shall be clearly marked by high-visibility material if it has been determined by the qualified biologist that high-visibility material would not attract predators to the nest site. No construction activities, including tree removal, shall occur within the buffer zone until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active, as confirmed by the qualified biologist. If construction or maintenance activities must occur within established buffer zones, a qualified biologist shall establish monitoring measures, including frequency and duration, based on species, individual behavior, and type of construction activities. If birds are showing signs of distress within the established buffer(s), construction or maintenance activities shall be modified or the buffer(s) shall be expanded to prevent birds from abandoning their nests. At any time, the biologist shall have the authority to halt work if there are any signs of distress or disturbance that may lead to nest
abandonment. Work shall not resume until corrective measures have been taken or it is determined that continued activity would not adversely affect nest success. The monitor shall continue monitoring the nest until construction within 0.5 mile of the nest is completed, or until all chicks have completely fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, in conjunction with speciesspecific measures described below, impacts to special-status wildlife species would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation by ensuring that direct and indirect effects to special-status species are avoided during Project construction.

As described above, based on a review of the species’ habitat requirements, the existing habitats on the site, and a survey of the Project site, it was determined that the Project could impact eight special-status animal species. These species are described further below. None of the remaining species identified in Table 4.A are likely to occur due to a lack of habitat.

Monarch Butterfly. The monarch butterfly is a migratory butterfly that has been listed as a candidate for inclusion on the USFWS list of endangered and threatened wildlife since December EXHIBIT 1
2020. The monarch butterfly is currently federally listed as “Proposed Threatened” under FESA.

Monarchs are currently not listed as threatened or endangered under CESA, but they are listed by the State of California as a California Special Resource because their overwintering habitat is threatened by disturbance and by alteration and destruction of habitat. Monarch butterfly overwintering sites are typically found in a narrow stretch of land within 3 miles of the Pacific coastline.

The Western Monarch Milkweed Mapper31 shows several recent observations of monarch adults and larvae in Stockton. Monarch butterfly is known to occur in all natural communities, including open-space areas as well as disturbed and developed lands (e.g., residential areas, vacant lots, rights-of-way, and firebreak zones). Monarch butterfly relies exclusively on milkweed species as a larval host plant. No milkweed plants have been identified during biological surveys of the site; however, milkweed plants and monarch larvae may be present. The Project site currently has an abundance of flowering nonnative eucalyptus trees, although other flowering forbs and shrubs are rare. Numerous bees and butterflies (mainly western swallowtail [Papilio rutulus]) were observed during site surveys.

The Project could impact breeding monarch butterflies if their milkweed host plants are present during Project construction activities. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project could reduce potential habitat for pollinators, including monarch butterfly, through development of recreation facilities. Implementation of the following mitigation measures, in addition to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, would reduce potential impacts to monarch butterfly to a less than significant level by requiring a preconstruction survey; implementing a salvage and relocation plan for milkweed, if present on the Project site; and conducting pollinator habitat enhancement and restoration. With restoration and habitat enhancement (Mitigation Measure BIO-6), the site could provide an ideal habitat area to contribute to monarch butterfly and pollinator conservation. The eastern section of the Project site provides the greatest opportunity to establish pollinator habitat through the planting of pollinator and butterfly gardens, hedgerows, and other areas where nectar plants could be established.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5 Monarch Butterfly Avoidance. The recommended management timing for vegetation management in the Central Valley is October 31 through March 15. If active monarch breeding is identified, any milkweed stand shall be protected from
disturbance and maintenance, or until the City develops and implements a salvage and relocation plan that has been
reviewed and approved by USFWS. The following general
recommendations shall be implemented:
• Spot mowing shall be used and focused on areas with
weeds and other target vegetation. Mowing of natural
vegetation communities (outside active recreation features) 31 Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Washington Department of Fish and Game, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021.

Western Monarch Milkweed Mapper. Website: https://www.monarchmilkweedmapper.org.

EXHIBIT 1
shall be limited to no more than twice per year. Milkweed mowing during the monarch breeding season (March 15
through October 31) shall be avoided and delayed as late as possible (i.e., late summer or early fall) to provide a longer period for monarch caterpillars to develop and extend the availability of nectar plants to monarchs and other
pollinators into the late summer. Generally, fall mowing after the first frost is ideal to avoid mowing floral resources and host plants for breeding and migrating monarchs.

Existing milkweed patches shall be flagged, when feasible, and mowing avoided to conserve milkweed plants and avoid causing direct mortality to immature stages of monarchs.

Mower operators shall be trained to recognize milkweed
plants and important native nectar plants so they can be spared during mowing. Mowing shall be at a minimum
height of 10 to 12 inches to avoid cutting newly emerged milkweed plants in the spring (March through early June).

Mowing should occur during the middle of the day.

Monarch adults are typically most active during the warmer parts of the day, which means they are better suited to escaping a mower. If invasive nonnative and/or noxious
weeds are present, the mowing equipment shall be cleaned after use and between sites to limit the spread of these weeds.
• Insecticide treatments shall be planned to avoid direct exposure to both juvenile and adult monarchs. Insecticide use and subsequent impacts on pollinators shall be reduced by creating an integrated pest management plan. Conditions that allow pest populations to survive and reproduce shall be prevented. Diverse management techniques (e.g.,
biological, physical, and cultural) shall be employed and pesticides used only when pests pose an economic or public health threat. Pesticides shall be selected and applied to minimize risks to nontarget organisms and applied at the lowest effective application rate specified on the product label. Pesticide applications shall be timed to avoid monarch exposure. Pesticides (especially insecticides) shall not be applied when monarchs (adult and immature) are present
(March 15 through October 31). Precautions shall be taken to avoid off-site movement and reduce the risk of drift.

Spray nozzles shall be carefully chosen and calibrated.

Applications shall be conducted on calm days when wind
speed is less than 10 miles per hour. Application shall be avoided during a temperature inversion and when
EXHIBIT 1
conditions are likely to cause evaporation. Using backpack sprayers and applying from the ground should be
considered. On boom sprayers, the lowest effective pressure and largest droplet size possible shall be used. Nozzles shall be set low so they operate just above plant height. Aerial applications and mist blowers shall be avoided whenever possible.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6 Pollinator Habitat Restoration. To limit any potential adverse effects on pollinators, all herbaceous vegetation removal activities shall be conducted from September 1 through
February 28. This includes any vegetation control with
herbicides. When using herbicides, application shall be implemented by a person holding a Qualified Applicator License from the State of California. Any application of pesticides shall be completed in a manner that avoids drift and contamination of nontarget plants and areas. Ecologically invasive weeds shall be treated with spot spraying of an approved herbicide only.

Targeted application of herbicides may be used in conjunction with removal of nonnative invasive weeds. Restoration of natural areas shall include establishing native seed mixes containing a diversity of native wildflowers, including milkweed, as appropriate. Native seed mixes shall be applied in bare-soil areas, including those recently cleared, graded, or disturbed.

Nesting needs of ground-nesting bees and bumble bees shall be taken into consideration when restoring this habitat.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5 and BIO-6, in addition to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, impacts to milkweed and monarch butterfly would be less than significant.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The VELB has been observed at the Project site and at the nearby VELB conservation bank. The VELB is dependent on blue elderberry shrubs (Sambucus mexicana), which is its host plant. Elderberry is a common shrub near and on the Project site.

The Project site was completely inventoried on February 17 through 25, 2021, and again on April 20, 2021. Since elderberry is the host plant for this species, habitat and environmental conditions that support a robust elderberry community would also benefit VELB.

Nonfragmented stands of elderberries are essential for dispersal corridors for this species and may be necessary to maintain long-term gene flow over large areas. The 84-acre French Camp Conservation Bank, directly opposite the Project site across French Camp Slough, is dedicated to habitat conservation for the VELB and provides such a nonfragmented connectivity to the Project site. The Project site provides habitat for the beetle, and occupied blue elderberry bushes (evidenced by exit boreholes on stems) have been observed throughout the Project site.

Development of the proposed Project could result in direct impacts to VELB through the removal of blue elderberry shrubs. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would reduce potential EXHIBIT 1
impacts to VELB by requiring all elderberry plants within the Project area to be flagged and avoided by Project activities.

Mitigation Measure BIO-7 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB). The following measures shall be implemented to avoid and minimize effects to VELB and/or its habitat:
• Prior to implementation of any activities that may damage or kill an elderberry shrub (e.g., trenching, paving), an avoidance area of at least 6 meters (20 feet) shall be
established from the dripline, depending on the type of activity. All areas to be avoided during construction activities shall be fenced and/or flagged as close to the construction limits as feasible. All elderberry plants (with stems greater than 1 inch in diameter at ground level) occurring within the Project area shall be marked with flagging and avoided. No construction shall occur within the protected 20-foot buffer area. No elderberry shrub with one or more stems greater than 1 inch in diameter at ground level shall be removed if it is possible to avoid it (for shrubs that cannot be avoided, see the transplanting procedures below).
• A qualified biologist shall provide training for all contractors, work crews, and any on-site personnel on the status of the VELB, its host plant and habitat, the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for
noncompliance (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2).
• A qualified biologist shall monitor the work area at Projectappropriate intervals to ensure that all avoidance and minimization measures are implemented. The amount and
duration of monitoring will depend on the Project specifics and should be discussed with the qualified biologist.
• All activities that could occur within 165 feet of the elderberry shrub shall be conducted outside the flight
season of the VELB (March through July). Trimming of
elderberry bushes may remove or destroy VELB eggs and/or larvae and may reduce the health and vigor of the
elderberry shrub. In order to avoid and minimize adverse effects to VELB when trimming, trimming shall occur
between November and February and shall avoid the
removal of any branches or stems that are greater than or equal to 1 inch in diameter. Measures to address regular and/or large-scale maintenance (trimming) shall be
established in consultation with the USFWS. Mechanical
EXHIBIT 1
weed removal within the dripline of the shrub shall be
limited to the season when adults are not active (August through February) and shall avoid damaging the elderberry.

No flail-type mower shall be used within an elderberry
shrub dripline with one or more stems measuring more than 1 inch in diameter at ground level.
• Herbicides shall not be used within the dripline of the shrub.

Insecticides shall not be used within 30 meters (98 feet) of an elderberry shrub. All chemicals shall be applied using a backpack sprayer or similar direct application method.
• Erosion control shall be implemented, and the affected area shall be revegetated with appropriate native plants.
• In order to protect VELB larvae to the greatest extent possible, all elderberry shrubs with stems greater than 1 inch in diameter shall be transplanted if the elderberry shrub cannot be avoided or if indirect effects will result in the death of stems or the entire shrub. The removal shall either include the roots or just the removal of the
aboveground portion of the plant. It is recommended to
remove the entire root ball and transplant the shrub, if possible. In order to minimize the fragmentation of VELB habitat, elderberry shrubs shall be relocated as close as possible to their original location. Elderberry shrubs may be relocated adjacent to the Project footprint if: (1) the planting location is suitable for elderberry growth and reproduction; and (2) the project proponent is able to
protect the shrub and ensure the shrub becomes
reestablished. If these criteria cannot be met, the shrub may be transplanted to an appropriate USFWS-approved
mitigation site. Any elderberry shrub that is unlikely to survive transplanting because of poor condition or location, or any shrub that would be extremely difficult to move
because of access problems, may not be appropriate for
transplanting. A qualified biologist shall be on site for the duration of transplanting activities to ensure compliance with avoidance and minimization measures and other
conservation measures.
• Exit-hole surveys shall be completed immediately before transplanting. The number of exit holes found, the GPS
location of the plant to be relocated, and the GPS location of where the plant is transplanted will be reported to the EXHIBIT 1
USFWS and the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB).
• Elderberry shrubs shall be transplanted when the shrubs are dormant (November through the first 2 weeks in February) and after they have lost their leaves. Transplanting during the nongrowing season will reduce shock to the shrub and increase transplantation success. Transplanting shall follow the most current version of the ANSI A300 (Part 6)
guidelines for transplanting (http://www.tcia.org/).
• Trimming shall occur between November and February and shall minimize the removal of branches or stems that exceed 1 inch in diameter.
• Herbicides shall not be used within 100 feet of elderberry plants, but hand removal of invasive weeds may be
conducted from August through February. Basal bark or
foliar techniques shall be utilized when herbicide application must occur within 100 feet of the dripline of an elderberry shrub with one or more stems measuring greater than or
equal to 1 inch in diameter or greater at ground level. Basal application techniques include cutting off a non-elderberry shrub and applying an oil-based herbicide directly to the stump. Foliar application techniques include hand spraying of an herbicide, with a deposition/ retention additive, to control overspray. The application of herbicides shall be completed or supervised by a certified pesticide applicator in compliance with the herbicide application prescription.

Herbicide application shall occur from July through April on an as-needed basis.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7, impacts to VELB would be less than significant.

Western Bumble Bee and Crotch’s Bumble Bee. Western bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble bee were once common bumble bees. Bumble bees play a crucial role in the pollination of native flowering plants and commercially important crops. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation now considers the species in steep decline. In 2018, the California Fish and Game Commission advanced the western and Crotch’s bumble bees to Candidate status. This was challenged in court, but a California court of appeals ultimately upheld the Commission’s determination, and Candidacy was reinstated on September 30, 2022. As Candidate species, the western and Crotch’s bumble bee receive the same legal protection afforded to Endangered or EXHIBIT 1
Threatened species.32 In 2016, the USFWS found that listing the western bumble bee may be warranted. The species status assessment for western bumble bee is currently under review.

These species inhabit open grasslands and meadows and use underground cavities to nest. western bumble bees have been documented nesting in logs. Riparian forest is not considered suitable habitat. Any surface or subsurface disturbance of grasslands or linear features like hedgerows, ditches, and unmanaged weed patches can be harmful to bumble bees. No records of observations of western or Crotch’s bumble bee have been verified for the Project area or its vicinity. However, there is suitable bumble bee foraging and nesting habitat and nectar plants within the Project site. In addition, there is moderate potential that bumble bees nesting off site could visit the Project area to forage. In that case, ground disturbance and vegetation removal associated with the development of proposed park improvements could impact foraging habitat.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to western and Crotch’s bumble bee. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 (Pollinator Habitat Restoration), which limits all herbaceous vegetation removal activities from September 1 through February 28 and guides habitat restoration, would further reduce impacts to pollinators by providing replacement foraging habitat for these species. Therefore, impacts to western bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble bee would be less than significant.

Burrowing Owl. In 2024, burrowing owl was designated as a Candidate species under CESA. As a Candidate species, the burrowing owl receives the same legal protection afforded to Endangered or Threatened species.33 Burrowing owl is a small ground-dwelling owl that generally inhabits gently sloping areas characterized by low, sparse vegetation. Burrowing owls nest in ground burrows (often squirrel burrows). Burrowing owls are also known to use artificial burrows, including pipes, culverts, and nest boxes. There is suitable habitat for this species at the Project site, but no owls have been observed in recent history. Records of burrowing owls exist from within a 1-mile radius around the park.
34 Although the likelihood that burrowing owls are
present in the Project area is considered low, suitable habitat for this species exists at the Project site. Construction-related activities could result in loss or abandonment of an active burrowing nest nesting through direct disturbance on an occupied burrow or through noise, vibration, or visual disturbance. In addition, construction-related activities could result in harm to wintering burrowing owls, should they occur in or near the construction area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce potential direct impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level by requiring a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl and establishing buffers around occupied burrows to ensure that no direct or indirect harm to this species would occur. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to burrowing owl would be less than significant.
32 California Fish and Game Code Sections 2074.2 & 2085 (2023). 33 California Fish and Game Code. 2023. Sections 2074.2 & 2085. 34 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database, commercial version dated February 2023. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento.

EXHIBIT 1
Swainson’s Hawk. Swainson’s hawk is State listed as threatened and is a Bird of Conservation Concern. Approximately 95 percent of California’s Swainson’s hawk population (approximately 1,770 to 2,393 breeding pairs) resides in the Central Valley. The Swainson’s hawk occurs widely in the lowlands of the Central Valley. There are hundreds of records of Swainson’s hawks for San Joaquin County, including many nests in isolated trees. Swainson’s hawks have adapted well to agricultural landscapes with crop types that provide abundant foraging opportunities, particularly alfalfa. The best habitat is concentrated along permanent waterways with a more or less continuous canopy of trees with grassland, irrigated pasture, alfalfa, or grain fields nearby.

Most Swainson’s hawks winter in Central and South America, primarily in northern Argentina, Uruguay, and southern Brazil. Swainson’s hawk nest sites are typically located in riparian woodlands, lone trees, or groves of trees, including cottonwoods, oaks, willows (Salix sp.), walnuts, eucalyptus, pines, and Deodar cedar. Urban nesting by Swainson’s hawks has been documented in Central Valley. Swainson’s hawks are frequently observed foraging at the Project site, and at least one nest was verified within 500 yards of the Project site in 2021. Up to four individuals were observed in active courtship, including copulations, during bird surveys in spring 2021 at the Project site.

Construction of proposed recreational facilities could disturb Swainson’s hawk during courtship, incubation, and the rearing of young. The increased use of the eastern half of the Project site by human visitors and the conversion of grassland to recreational facilities could reduce the availability of rodents and may reduce the quality of foraging habitat. Impacts to Swainson’s hawk from Project activities could include:
• Disruption of courtship, nesting, incubation, and rearing of young during the breeding season due to disturbance from equipment and human presence. However, Swainson’s hawks frequently select roadside tree rows, isolated trees, and rural residential trees as nesting trees and exhibit a remarkable tolerance to human presence, noise, and disturbance.

This species is also highly responsive to farming activities that expose and concentrate prey, such as cultivating, harvesting, and disking. During these activities, particularly late in the season, Swainson’s hawks will hunt behind tractors searching for exposed prey. • Loss of nest trees (if they choose to nest in tree earmarked for removal). • Predation of young due to nest predators (e.g., ravens, crows) being attracted to the construction site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO 1 through BIO-4, which require preconstruction surveys and establishment of buffers, would reduce potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk during construction activities associated with the Project. Therefore, impacts to Swainson’s hawk would be less than significant.

Tricolored Blackbird. Tricolored blackbird is State-listed as threatened and a CDFW Species of Special Concern. This species is a year-round resident in California, where it is largely endemic.

The species is common locally throughout the Central Valley and in coastal areas from Sonoma County south through Monterey County. It nests in large colonies, typically between February 1 and August 31, within stands of cattails, tules, blackberry brambles, or willows, and within 490 EXHIBIT 1
meters (1,600 feet) of open, accessible water. Tricolored blackbirds forage in a variety of habitats, including agricultural fields (such as cut grain fields, rice, and alfalfa), dairies and feedlots, irrigated pastures, annual grasslands, ephemeral pools and ponds, wetlands, riparian scrub, and freshwater marsh. There may be suitable nesting habitat in expansive marsh vegetation or large blackberry thickets along the San Joaquin River, French Camp Slough, or other wetlands in the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site does not provide suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird, but there is considerable suitable foraging habitat within the wetlands and urban grasslands of the Project site. There is at least one historic record (1972) of a breeding colony of approximately 5,000 birds 3.6 miles south of the Project site. However, no recent observations have been recorded; therefore, the potential of tricolored blackbird being present is low. Project activities, such as noise, dust, machinery, and staging along access roads, could disturb foraging tricolored blackbirds if they are present at the Project site during construction activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce potential impacts to tricolored blackbirds to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to tricolored blackbird would be less than significant.

Other Birds. Suitable habitat for nesting birds is present in the trees, shrubs, and grasslands on and adjacent to the site. In addition to the special-status bird species identified above, other common, nonspecial-status native bird species whose active nests are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or California Fish and Game Code could also nest in the vegetation on or adjacent to the site.

Construction of the proposed Project could adversely impact special-status birds or other native migratory bird species. Tree removal, demolition, and construction activities may result in the removal of trees that could be used for nesting. If conducted during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), such activities could directly impact nesting birds. Constructionrelated disturbance (e.g., noise, vehicle traffic, and personnel working adjacent to nesting habitat) could also indirectly impact nesting birds by causing adults to abandon nearby nests, resulting in nest failure and reduced reproductive potential. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO 1 through BIO-4 (which require environmental training), implementation of BMPs, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds, establishment of construction-free buffer zones around active nests, and monitoring during construction activities would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts on nesting migratory birds would be less than significant.

Northwestern Pond Turtle. The northwestern pond turtle is the only native freshwater turtle of the Pacific coastal states. Populations of northwestern pond turtles are in decline due to disease, upland and aquatic habitat alterations and destruction, and the introduction of predators and nonnative pet turtle releases. It is a thoroughly aquatic turtle and may be found in lakes, ponds, rivers, marshes, streams, and irrigation ditches, especially where rocky or muddy bottoms and watercress, cattails, or other vegetation are present. Western pond turtles may be seen basking along logs, cattail mats, and mud banks. Suitable habitat for foraging, nesting, and hibernation for this species occurs on and adjacent to the Project site, but the presence of nonnative redeared sliders may preclude northwestern pond turtle use of any potential habitat. No EXHIBIT 1
northwestern pond turtles have been identified on the site. Currently, the potential of northwestern pond turtles being present is low.

Project activities, such as construction in and near the existing wetlands, could disturb western pond turtles, their nests, or hatchlings if they are present during such activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8, in addition to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, would reduce potential impacts to northwestern pond turtle to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8 Northwestern Pond Turtle Avoidance. The qualified biologist shall identify all areas of northwestern pond turtle habitat to be avoided in or adjacent to the work area. If necessary, in consultation with CDFW, exclusion fencing shall be used when needed to direct the turtles and move them to an area of suitable habitat outside the construction activity. This fencing will be maintained throughout the duration of construction. The avoided areas shall be flagged, and signage stating
“Environmentally Sensitive Area” shall be erected.

The Project site shall be inspected daily for the presence of northwestern pond turtles. If a northwestern pond turtle individual or nest is observed in the impact area, construction activities will stop until the Biological Monitor establishes an appropriate buffer or the turtle is no longer in the impact area.

A qualified biologist (with pond turtle trapping/handling experience and holding a CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit) may relocate northwestern pond turtles to an appropriate nearby location if authorized by CDFW. Relocation areas and protocols shall be approved by CDFW prior to relocation of any turtles.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8, which requires placement of exclusion fencing, establishment of buffers around identified sites, and potential relocation of turtles, in addition to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, impacts to northwestern pond turtle would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Bats. There are 23 bat species found in California. Ten species listed by the State of California and the federal government can be found in northern California. There are several bat species that may occur at the Project site, including:
• Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered.
• Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered.
• Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered.

EXHIBIT 1
• Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered.
• Small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered.
• Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered, and a CDFW Species of Special Concern. • Two subspecies of the big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii and Plecotus townsendii pallescens), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered, and a CDFW Species of Special Concern. • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a CDFW Species of Special Concern and very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. No observations of pallid bats are available for the park, but their presence is likely.
• Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), a federal Category 2 candidate for listing by the USFWS as Threatened or Endangered, and a CDFW Species of Special Concern.

In addition, the Project site may also provide habitat for red bat (Lasiurus blossevilli) and Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). Currently, there are no records of various bat observations at the Project site, but bats are highly likely to occur at the site. Bats occur in a variety of habitats and can utilize large trees, cavities, tunnels, buildings, or other human-made structures for roosting. Open grasslands, ponds, and open water habitats provide excellent foraging habitat. Bats are nocturnal feeders on insects in flight. Prey includes moths, flies, beetles, and other insects. Most bats require a nearby water source. The species of bats that most likely occupy the Project site are big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), Mexican free-tailed bat, pallid bat, and Yuma myotis. Bat maternity roosts are considered native wildlife nursery sites and are protected under CEQA. If bats are roosting in buildings or trees within the Project site or in the trees that are planned to be removed, potential disturbance or loss of roosting habitat could occur as a result of construction activity.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9, in addition to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, would reduce impacts to roosting bats to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-9 Roosting Bat Protection Measures. Before the spring breeding season and prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for roosting bat habitat. The survey shall include work areas adjacent to appropriate roosting habitat that are accessible from public or Project areas within 200 feet of a work area. For trees considered to have a high or moderate probability for bat roosting, acoustic monitoring shall be conducted before any construction activities begin during the breeding season to determine if there are any roosting sites present. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times to maximize detectability. If an active roost or maternity roost is EXHIBIT 1
found within 100 feet of a work area, the limits of the work area will be clearly marked, and a qualified biological monitor shall remain on site during construction activities within the vicinity of the roost or maternity roost.

The biologist shall ensure that construction activities do not encroach upon the 100-foot buffer around an active roost or maternity colony site. Buffers shall remain in place until the qualified biologist has determined that bats have vacated the occupied roost sites. If buffer reductions are requested and approved, a monthly report shall be submitted to CDFW with all the information in the buffer reduction requests, monitoring results, and effects on bats. Reports shall be submitted for the duration of construction activities within buffer areas.

Trees containing maternity roosts shall not be removed during the breeding season (March 1–August 31) to avoid disturbing females with young that cannot fly. No trees containing maternity roosts may be removed until the qualified biologist determines that breeding is complete and the young are able to fly.

If fall/winter hibernacula cannot be avoided, humane
techniques may be implemented to passively vacate bats from roosts. Methods to passively evict bats from tree roosts may include incrementally trimming limbs to alter the air flow and temperature around the roost feature where slight changes to the surrounding environment of roost features encourage bats to vacate roost features on their own. If acoustic monitoring detects that bats are using trees that need to be cut down, these trees shall be removed only after it has been confirmed that roosting bats have departed.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 (which requires identifying the presence or absence of roosting bats, and if present, preventing disturbance or loss of roosting habitat), in addition to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4, impacts to roosting bats would be less than significant.

Critical Habitat (Delta Smelt). Critical habitat areas are defined in FESA and used by the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as areas that are essential for the conservation and recovery of a federally threatened or endangered species that requires special management and protection. Under Section 7 of FESA, all federal agencies are required to use their authorities to ensure that the federal government does not contribute to the decline of endangered and threatened species or their potential for recovery. Federal agencies are prohibited from destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat. This means they must consult with the USFWS about actions that they carry out, fund, or authorize to ensure that they will not EXHIBIT 1
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, potential impacts to designated critical habitat must be analyzed through a consultation process.

The only species with designated critical habitat that includes the Project site is Delta smelt.

Delta smelt is currently listed as threatened under FESA. The following are the Delta smelt critical habitat Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) as defined in the critical habitat rule:
• Primary Constituent Element 1: “Physical habitat” is defined as the structural components of habitat. Physical habitat in the Bay-Delta includes substrate, water depth variation, and channel morphology for spawning adults, and potentially foraging habitat for rearing juveniles along marsh edges. Because all work would be conducted in the uplands behind a 30-foot levee, at least 100 feet from the water’s edge, no physical habitat for Delta smelt occurs within the Project site. Therefore, PCE 1 is not present in the Project site and the Project would have no effect on this PCE.
• Primary Constituent Element 2: “Water” is defined as water of suitable quality to support various Delta smelt life stages with the abiotic elements that allow for survival and reproduction. Delta smelt inhabit open waters of the Delta and Suisun Bay. Certain conditions of temperature, turbidity, and food availability characterize suitable pelagic habitat for Delta smelt. Because all work would be conducted in the uplands behind a 30- foot levee, at least 100 feet from the water’s edge, no water of suitable quality to support various Delta smelt life stages occurs within the Project site. Therefore, PCE 2 is not present in the Project site, and the Project would have no effect on this PCE. • Primary Constituent Element 3: “River flow” was originally believed to be critical as transport flow to facilitate adult dispersal and the transport of offspring to low-salinity zone (LSZ) rearing habitats. However, most transport and retention mechanisms for Delta smelt (and their prey) involve the selective use of tidal currents rather than net flows. River flow includes both “inflow to” and “outflow from” the Delta, both of which influence the net movements of water through the Delta and exert some influence on the distribution of Delta smelt. Because all work would be conducted in the uplands behind a 30-foot levee, at least 100 feet from the water’s edge and because there is no hydrological connection between the Project site and French Camp Slough, Walker Slough, or the San Joaquin River, PCE 3 is not present in the Project site. Therefore, the Project would have no effect on this PCE. • Primary Constituent Element 4: “Salinity” is defined as the LSZ nursery habitat. The LSZ is where fresh water transitions into brackish water; the LSZ is defined as 0.5–6.0 parts per thousand (ppt). The 2 ppt isohaline is a specific point within the LSZ where the average daily salinity at the bottom of the water is 2 ppt. The density of Delta smelt’s primary prey is related to X2 in the spring, but not in the summer and fall. Because all work would be conducted in the uplands behind a 30-foot levee, at least 100 feet from the water’s edge, and because there is no hydrological connection between the Project site and French Camp Slough, Walker Slough, or the San Joaquin River, PCE 4 is not present in the Project site.

Therefore, the Project would have no effect on this PCE.

EXHIBIT 1
Because all work would be done in the uplands behind a 30-foot levee, at least 100 feet from the water’s edge, and because there is no hydrological connection between the Project site and Delta smelt critical habitat, the proposed Project would have no impact on Delta smelt critical habitat.

Other Fish Species. The southern DPS of green sturgeon is protected as a Threatened species under FESA. Southern DPS green sturgeon are found in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and the Delta. They primarily spawn in the upper main stem of the Sacramento River. The extent to which the species uses the San Joaquin River is unclear at this time, although an adult fish was recently found in a major tributary, the Stanislaus River, indicating at least some use of that system. Because the Project would not include any construction activity beyond the toe of the slope of the existing levee, the proposed Project would not impact critical habitat for green sturgeon. No impact would occur.

Central Valley steelhead is currently listed as threatened under FESA. Steelhead and rainbow trout are the same species. In general, steelhead refers to the anadromous form of the species.

Central Valley steelhead are considered “ocean-maturing,” also known as winter steelhead. They enter fresh water from August through April to spawn and rear, with juvenile steelhead migrating to the ocean primarily during the spring. Because the Project would not include any construction activity beyond the toe of the slope of the existing levee, the proposed Project would not impact critical habitat for steelhead. No impact would occur.

Conclusion. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9, impacts to specialstatus wildlife, including monarch butterfly, VELB, Crotch’s bumble bee, western bumble bee, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, other nesting birds, northwestern pond turtle, and roosting bats would be reduced to a less than significant level. This impact is less than significant.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are present on the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. Would the project 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? (No Impact)
Five ponds associated with the former golf course are present on the Project site, of which some or all may be historical oxbows associated with French Camp Slough. The ponds of the Project site are generally shallow. During operation of the golf course, these ponds were used as water storage for irrigation water and were refilled with riparian water pumped directly from French Camp Slough and the San Joaquin River. The total area of these ponds is approximately 11.25 acres (Table 4.E).

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.E: Existing Ponds
Pond ID Stratum Size (acres) Depth Location (Lat / Long) 1 W 2.83 <3 feet 37.925387° / -121.322000°
2 W 2.54 <3 feet 37.922865° / -121.319915°
3 W 1.82 < 3feet 37.921404° / -121.318229°
4 W 1.54 <3 feet 37.920411° / -121.315940°
5 E 2.62 <3 feet 37.919700° / -121.305171°
Source: Compiled by LSA (2021).

Four of these ponds are in the western area of the Project site, which is designated for future restoration/mitigation. Pond 5 is isolated from Ponds 1 through 4 and is located in the eastern portion of the Project site. During operation of the golf course, river water was pumped into Pond 5 from a different diversion than for Ponds 1 through 4. Ponds 1 through 4 are currently connected via pipes and culverts, many of which are in poor condition. River water has not been pumped into these ponds since 2022. All ponds at the Project site are isolated from the floodplain of French Camp Slough by a levee and are considered managed water features that are jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States/waters of the State. The existing ponds would be preserved and maintained as part of Project implementation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). No impact would occur.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated)
The Project site consists of a former golf course that is surrounded by residential and commercial development to the north, south, and east. No identified linkages or movement corridors are connected with the Project site. Improvements proposed as part of the Project are not expected to interfere with the migration of wildlife species, such as birds and bats. However, there is a potential for bat maternity roosts to be present in the large, mature trees on the site. Bat maternity roosts are considered native wildlife nursery sites and are protected under CEQA. If bats are roosting in buildings or trees within the Project site or in the trees that are planned to be removed, potential disturbance or loss of roosting habitat could occur as a result of construction activity.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 and BIO-9, described above, would reduce this impact to less than significant by first identifying the presence or absence of roosting bats, and if present, preventing disturbance or loss of roosting habitat. With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to wildlife movement/wildlife corridors and native wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Stockton’s Heritage Tree Ordinance requires a permit for the removal of specific types of oak trees. Per Section 16.240.020 of the SMC, a Heritage Tree is “Any Quercus lobata (commonly known as “Valley Oak”), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), and Quercus wislizenii (Interior Live Oak) tree which is located on public or private property within the limits of the city, and which has a trunk diameter of 16 inches or more, measured at 24 inches above actual grade. For Oak trees of the species mentioned above, with multiple trunks, the combined total trunk diameter shall be used for all trunks measuring six (6) inches or greater measured at 24 inches above actual grade.” Trees on the Project site are predominantly nonnative species. However, there are a total of nine mature California valley oak trees on the Project site (four on the eastern side and five on the western side).

All five valley oak trees on the western side of the Project site and three of the four oaks on the eastern side of the Project site qualify as Heritage Trees as defined above. Consistent with the Section 16.130, Heritage Tree Permit, of the SMC, except for emergency removal, Heritage Trees to be removed must be replaced on a three-for-one basis at the discretion of the Director of Community Development. New trees would be planted as part of the proposed Project, consistent with the replacement requirement identified in the SMC. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. This impact would be less than significant. f. Would the project 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)
The Project site is within the coverage area of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP), 35 a habitat conservation plan adopted by the County and its incorporated cities and managed by the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). The SJMSCP provides compensation (mitigation) for the conversion of open space to non-open-space uses that impact covered plant, fish, and wildlife species. The SJMSCP assesses a habitat conservation fee on participating projects that convert open space land to an urban or industrial use. Based on a review of the City of Stockton Compensation Map,36 the Project site is considered Urban Habitat under the SJMSCP; therefore, there are no SJMSCP land conversion fees associated with Project development.

The mitigation measures described above are consistent with the San Joaquin Council of Governments’ Incidental Take Minimization Measures for special-status species on the Project site; therefore, no alternative mitigation would be required to be considered “in kind equal” with coverage under the SJMSCP. In accordance with SJMSCP requirements, the City would need to provide a SJMSCP Review Form (SRF) for the proposed Project to be covered under the habitat plan permits. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. This impact would be less than significant. 35 San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2000. San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan. November 14. 36 San Joaquin Council of Governments. 2007. SJMSCP Compensation Map – Stockton. October.

EXHIBIT 1

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
A cultural resources study37 was prepared for the proposed Project, consisting of background research and a field survey. The results of the study are summarized below.

Background Research.To identify historical resources at the Project site, a records search at the Central California Information Center (CCaIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) was performed.38 The record search included a review of all recorded historic-period and precontact cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site, as well as a review of known cultural resources surveys and excavation reports (CCaIC File No. 13190L). The results indicated that 44 studies were previously conducted within a 0.5-mile of the Project area, 11 of which included portions of the Project site (SJ-00729,-757, -831, -3154, -3296, --6447, -6648, -6723, - 6724,-6723, and -6995). A substantial precontact resource (habitation site) was previously recorded partially within the Project area (39-000237). The locations of two others (P-39-000218 and P-39-000227; both include human remains) are indeterminate and have been posited (mapped) outside the Project site by the CCAlC, but one of them may correspond to “Mound 4” and be partially within it.39 Another prehistoric resource has been documented on the south side of the slough from the study area (39-000228). An additional three historic-period archaeological resources (39-000342, 39-005496, and 39-005409) were documented within 0.5 mile of the Project site.

Interested Parties Consultation and Archival Research.On March 3, 2025, LSA sent a letter describing the Project with maps depicting the Project site to local historical societies requesting information or concerns they may have. Organizations contacted included the San Joaquin County Historical Society & Museum (SJCHS&M) archives at Mickie Grove Park in Lodi and the Haggin Museum. The Haggin Museum responded, providing scanned images, including a 1959 aerial of the Project site and a golf course blueprint from 1968. On March 7, an LSA cultural resources specialist visited the SJCHS&M archives. Documentation reviewed included copies of Stockton City Council resolutions, copies of official correspondence between City officials and the Van Buskirk family 37 LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2025. Cultural Resource Study of the Van Buskirk V Park Revitalization Phase 1 Project, Stockton, San Joaquin County, California. 38 The CCaIC is an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation and is the official State repository of cultural resources records and reports for San Joaquin County. 39 Jones, Philip Mills. 1923. Mound Excavations Near Stockton in University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 20.

EXHIBIT 1
regarding land donations and conditions, clippings of articles from the Stockton Record and the Lodi News-Sentinel articles, and County plat maps.

The archival research indicated Van Buskirk Park is the result of a phased series of land donations by Lodi residents and “vineyardist” Carles Robert Buskirk and his wife, Bertha S. Van Buskirk, between January 1957 and March 15, 1967, and totaling 192.83 acres. Accordingly, the park’s amenities also developed in phases as the park expanded westward to the San Joaquin River. The easternmost portion of the park, covering roughly 20 acres, was developed first. This portion of the park contains the existing Community Center and Van Buskirk Community Park.

The main landscape feature was the Van Buskirk Golf Course. Landscape architect Robert Muir Graves designed a nine-hole golf course at Van Buskirk Park in 1960. Graves was a prolific golf course designer who planned golf courses in nine western states as well as Malaysia and the United Kingdom. The golf course opened April 28, 1961.40 Graves designed, remodeled, or consulted on over 650 golf courses, the majority of which were in the western United States and abroad. Graves served as President of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, taught landscape architecture at the university level, and published articles that shaped the art of golf course design as an aspect of landscape architecture.41
In 1970, Bob Orchard, landscape architect for the City of Stockton, designed an additional 9 holes to complement the original 9-hole course to create the 18-hole course that was in operation until 2020.

In addition, the golf course expansion in 1970 included construction of a three-part clubhouse that shared a variable-pitched roof with wide overhanging eaves.42 The Clubhouse at Van Buskirk and at Swenson Golf Course were constructed by Henry Beuving & Sons, a building contractor based in the southern San Joaquin County community of Ripon.43 The golf course was closed by 2020 and the buildings demolished and cleared away.

SJCHS&M indicated that a potential shell mound may be present within the Project site. As documentation of the feature, SJCHS&M provided LSA with an article by Philip Mills Jones titled, “Mound Excavations Near Stockton” in Volume 20 of the University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography published in 1923. “Mound 4” in the article has been posited as corresponding to Site 39-000218 by Carrie Feldman of the National Museum of the American Indian in 2008, and the article’s 1900 map resembles the geography of a bend in the levee and an adjacent area on the southern periphery of the Project. 40 Stockton Record. n.d. “Memories of Van Buskirk Park Golf Course” podcast. Website:
https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/politics/county/2019/08/31/listen-memories-van-buskirk-park/ 4296042007/ (accessed April 15, 2025). 41 Cornish, Geoffrey, and Ronald E. Whitten. 1981. The Architects of Golf. HarperCollins, New York. Page 278. 42 A comparable example of this multi-unit building arrangement and architectural aesthetic is at the Swenson Park Golf Course, located at 6803 Alexandria Place, Stockton. 43 Stockton Record. 1969. “Van Buskirk Clubhouse Vandalized.” July 9. Page 1. Website:
www.newspapers.com (accessed April 18, 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
Additional Background Research.Historical topographic quadrangle maps and aerial photographs of the Project site and setting were also reviewed in order to understand the general land use and development patterns from the early 20th century to today.

Field Survey.LSA cultural resources specialist conducted a pedestrian field survey of Van Buskirk Park on March 6, 2025. The purpose of the field survey was to photograph existing buildings, structures, and objects, their notable features (if any), and their setting, and to describe any alterations not reflected in background research. The field survey found the former Van Buskirk Golf Course no longer operational and closed to the public. The former clubhouses were demolished and removed circa 2020, leaving only their concrete slab foundations. The golf course has been neglected, the driving range netting is deteriorated, and the vestiges of how the fairways were laid out are barely discernible through the arrangement of the surviving trees.

The eastern portion of Van Buskirk Park, consisting of approximately 20 acres, contains a single-story community center, originally in place by 1963, expanded by 1982, and expanded and remodeled to its current state by circa 2009. Van Buskirk Park currently includes with four handball courts, three parking lots, two baseball diamonds, two tennis courts, a basketball court, an area with playground equipment, a soccer field, a restroom, and open grassy areas.

On March 6, 2025, an archaeologist (accompanied by tribal monitors from the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe and Nototomne Cultural Preservation) conducted a pedestrian survey within the boundary of Site 39-00237 with very limited visibility and negative results (no trace of the site was found). As the balance of the Project area was almost completely obscured by overgrown vegetation and buildings, it was determined by LSA and the consulting tribe that continuation of a conventional survey would be unproductive under current conditions. A subsequent field survey was conducted on March 27, 2025; no trace of the portion of Site P-39-000218/-000227 (“Mound 4”) was identified within the Project area, and no other cultural resources were identified.

Sacred Lands File Search.LSA submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to search the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for Native American cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed Project. The NAHC maintains the SLF database and is the official State repository of Native American sacred-site location records in California. The NAHC responded to the SLF search request on January 22, 2025, stating that a search of the SLF for the study area had negative results for Native American cultural resources within the Project site.

Auger Test Program. Due to the obscured ground surface, an auger test program was conducted on May 27, 2025, to determine the presence/absence of subsurface resources. The testing program was a series of 16 auger samples placed between the previous 2022 USACE borings and planned geotechnical borings and percolation tests. The sampling was manually augered at 20-centimeter intervals (when possible) to a maximum depth of 100 centimeters. All sampled material was screened through a ⅛-inch mesh screen, and all recovered artifacts were to be fully documented (i.e., measured, photographed, and described) and reburied in their respective auger holes. The results of the auger test program were negative—no traces of any cultural resources were detected.

EXHIBIT 1
Geoarchaeological Analysis. A geoarchaeological analysis44 revealed that the Project area was occupied by nontidal, freshwater wetlands, and although such an environment was probably used by the prehistoric Native American inhabitants of the region for resource extraction (e.g., tule and sedge plant material, hunting), it is not considered conducive to the formation of archaeological sites as it was more or less constantly wet and not viable for human settlement. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have cultural value for their historical significance. For a cultural resource to be considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA, it generally must be 50 years or older (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 4852(d)(2)) and: (1) be listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) be included in a local historical register of historical resources, as defined in PRC §5020.1(k), or identified as part of a survey meeting the requirements of PRC §5024.1(g); or (3) be determined by the lead agency as historically significant. Under CEQA, historical resources can include precontact (i.e., Native American) archaeological deposits, historicperiod archaeological deposits, historic buildings, and historic districts.

According to the CEQA Guidelines, a proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would create “an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” Specifically, substantial adverse changes include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(1)).

Background research identified the following two previously recorded cultural resources within/partially within the Project area:
• P-39-00237, CA-SJO-103. This resource was first recorded in 1951 as a “village deposit” and located “where the old highway used to cross river on east bank of San Joaquin River.” The original site record noted “the site was reported to have been plowed during leveling.” The site was revisited in 2012, but no evidence of the site was observed. The site was apparently destroyed during the construction of the original route of SR-4 and the subsequent development of the adjacent tract housing and golf course. A pump house (Eighth Street and San Joaquin County River Storm Station) now sits on the site, and the surrounding ground is asphalt. • P-39-005408; SAS-001. This resource was initially identified and recorded in 2021 by SAS and consists “of two pair [sic] of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) steel lattice towers and overhead electrical transmission lines” installed in the Project area sometime between 1943 and 1954 per USGS mapping. The resource record did not include a National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or California Register evaluation. A segment of this linear resource not previously identified and recorded extends southwest into the study area. LSA updated the SAS 44 Alta Archaeological Consulting. 2025. Van Buskirk Golf Course Re-Use Study, Geoarchaeological Context.

May 29.

EXHIBIT 1
record to describe the segments within the study area and to include additional historical context regarding the resource, its typology, and a National Register- and California Registerbased eligibility evaluation of these segments. LSA’s update is specific to the segments of P-39- 005408 identified within the study area and did not resurvey the segment identified and recorded by SAS in 2021.

An evaluation of these resources determined that because these segments and support towers no longer retain sufficient integrity to convey this association, these resources are ineligible for inclusion in the National Register or California Register and are not historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.

Additionally, due to the age of the Van Buskirk Golf Course, LSA prepared a joint National Register and California Register eligibility evaluation of the park. Although associated with the development of recreational facilities in Stockton in the mid-to-late 20th century, the Project site’s existing built environment does not possess specific, important associations to distinguish it from other similar public recreational amenities, such as buildings and structures with similar design, construction history, and uses in Stockton, San Joaquin County, or other urban areas statewide. Further, background research indicates that the Project site is not associated with individuals who are of singular importance in the history of Stockton, San Joaquin County, California, or the nation; is not a representative example of an architectural style or as a specimen of a noted architect, an architectural firm, or other notable design professional(s); and is unlikely to yield information important to the history of Stockton, San Joaquin County, California, or the nation.

Therefore, the Project site is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register or the California Register. Thus, the Van Buskirk Golf Course does not qualify as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA as defined in PRC Section 21084.1, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(g). Because this built environment resource has been evaluated for significance as a historical resource and was found to be not eligible for National Register or California Register placement, its redevelopment would not adversely cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

As described above, the search of the CCaIC database indicates that there is one previously recorded precontact archaeological resource partially within the Project site (39-000237); no trace of it was identified by a pedestrian survey, but surface visibility was poor. Two very small (<5-millimeter) mussel shell fragments were noted, but because there is no original surface/context remaining, these could have been deposited by a flood event, or imported in dredged soil (from the slough) or with fill, and are at best ecofacts, which are considered not significant under the evaluative criteria of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and CEQA.

There is potential for a portion of a second precontact resource (39-000218) that was documented as including human remains within the Project area. An archaeological survey of the balance of the Project area was not conducted due to critically limited surface visibility. An auger test series in the area of direct impact within the Phase 1 project site was conducted instead. The results of the auger test program were negative—no traces of any cultural resources were detected.

EXHIBIT 1
Given the presence of previously identified resources within and in proximity to the Project site and the site’s position in the landscape along an existing watercourse, the Project site is considered sensitive for precontact archaeological resources. The overall archaeological sensitivity of the Project area is lessened by past land uses that included years of mowing and earthmoving activities associated with development of the former golf course (which may have impacted previously extant precontact and historic-period archaeological resources). The depth of these landscape modifications in the Project area is not known. Beneath the zone of disturbance, however, intact buried archaeological resources may remain.

The proposed Project would include excavation to a depth of up to 10 feet below the ground surface.

Therefore, ground-disturbing activities could have a substantial adverse change on unrecorded buried archeological deposits that qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, and could materially impair precontact archeological deposits. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-1c would reduce potential impacts to historical resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1a Preparation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan. Prior to ground disturbance, the City of Stockton (City) shall retain an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualifications Standards in archaeology or is certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) to prepare (or direct the preparation of) a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) in consultation with the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation (CVLN), Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe and the Muwekma Tribe (Tribes). The CRMP shall include (but not be limited to) the following components:
• As survey of the entire Project area would be unproductive (due to thick, ubiquitous xeric vegetation), a controlled clear-andgrub program shall be developed for the Project in coordination with consulting tribes and the City.
• A qualified professional archaeologist (either SOI- or RPAcertified as indicated above) or an archaeologist supervised by such an archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing activities prior to finish grade associated with Project implementation. Archaeological monitoring shall occur during these excavation activities until the Project Archaeologist, based on their observations, is satisfied that there is little or no potential remaining to encounter in situ archaeological resources. The Project Archaeologist may also determine that it is appropriate to reduce monitoring to a part-time or spot-check basis.
• Communication protocols for notification in the event of the identification of cultural resources shall be defined, as well as EXHIBIT 1
methods for treatment of such resources (e.g., avoidance, documentation, collection, identification).
• Methods of protection for cultural resources, including items such as protective fencing, securing temporary on-site storage. and protocol for notifying local authorities (i.e., law enforcement) shall be prescribed in the event looting or other resource damage occurs.

The CRMP shall also include a stipulation that, during the course of the monitoring, the frequency of archaeological and Native American monitoring may be reduced based on the conditions and only if the consulting tribes and the qualified archaeologist agree.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1b Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Sensitivity Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP] Training. Prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, all personnel involved in Project-related ground-disturbing activities (e.g., on-site construction managers, equipment operators and other crew) shall be required to participate in a workers’ environmental awareness program (WEAP) training prior to any such activities (including clear & grub and building foundation removal). The training shall include relevant information regarding cultural resources including applicable regulations and consequences of violating State laws and regulations and will also describe communication and procedural protocols (including avoidance) in the event cultural resources are encountered. The training shall be presented by a professional archaeologist (RPA or RA) and will emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of all archaeological discoveries.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1c Unanticipated Discovery. In the event that any precontact or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during grounddisturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to assess the significance of the find.

If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the project proponent and/or lead agency and the qualified professional archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate measures, with the ultimate determination to be made by the City. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by the qualified professional according to current professional standards.

EXHIBIT 1
In considering any suggested measure proposed by the qualified professional, the City shall determine whether avoidance is necessary or feasible in light of factors such as the uniqueness of the find, Project design, costs, and other considerations.

If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., extended documentation and/or data recovery) may be required in the event of a significant find. Work may proceed on other parts of the Project site while a treatment plan for cultural resources is developed and carried out.

If significant materials are recovered, the qualified professional shall include the findings in the monitoring report for submittal to the Central California Information Center.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-1c, which require preparation and implementation of a CRMP, WEAP training, monitoring, and work stoppage in the event of an archaeological discovery, potential impacts to archaeological historical resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. This impact is less than significant. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) According to the CEQA Guidelines, “When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(c)(1)).

Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (PRC §21083.2).

Archaeological deposits identified during Project construction (if any) shall be treated by the City in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1a through CUL-1c. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-1c, identified above, impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project disturb any humans remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Less Than Significant Impact)
No human remains have been previously documented at the Project site; however, due to the ambiguity regarding the location and potential remaining aspects of Site 39-000218, there is some limited potential for human remains to be present within the Project area. The proposed Project would require excavation to a depth of up to 10 feet below the ground surface. Ground-disturbing activities could disturb, and in turn have a substantial adverse change on, unrecorded human remains. If human remains are encountered at the Project site, State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(e)(1) state that no further disturbance shall occur to the area of the find until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition of the human bone pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find EXHIBIT 1
immediately and shall make a determination within 2 working days of being notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the NAHC by phone within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall then immediately determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.

Compliance with the California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.98 regarding the treatment of human remains would ensure that potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1

4.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a 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?
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed Project would result in a small increase in demand for electricity and gasoline. The discussion and analysis provided below is based on data included in the CalEEMod output, which are included in Appendix A.

Construction-Period Energy Use. The proposed Project would require grading, site preparation, and building activities during construction. Construction of the proposed Project would require energy for the manufacture and transport of construction materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, and construction of the proposed residential development. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. In order to increase energy efficiency on the site during Project construction, the idling times for construction vehicles would be restricted to 5 minutes or less and construction workers would be required to shut off idle equipment, as required by the SJVAPCD. In addition, construction activities are not anticipated to result in inefficient use of energy, as gasoline and diesel fuel would be supplied by construction contractors that would conserve the use of their supplies to minimize their costs on the Project.

Energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in nature, and no unusual Project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the State. Therefore, construction energy impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Use. Operational energy usage is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips. The proposed Project would consume electricity associated with lighting, which would be minimal. Additionally, the proposed Project would be all-electric and would not require natural gas. As such, electricity demand associated with the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Additionally, PG&E is the private utility that would supply the proposed Project’s electricity. In 2022, approximately 40 percent of PG&E’s delivered electricity came from renewable sources, including EXHIBIT 1
solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric, and various forms of bioenergy.45 PG&E reached California’s 2020 renewable energy goal in 2017 and is positioned to meet the State’s 60 percent by 2030 renewable energy mandate set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100. In addition, PG&E plans to continue to provide reliable service to its customers and upgrade its distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.

The primary source of energy usage associated with the proposed Project would be from gasoline and diesel to fuel Project-related vehicle trips. Based on the CalEEMod analysis, the proposed Project would result in approximately 1,525,543 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles [SUVs]) in the United States has steadily increased from about 14.9 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1980 to 22.8 mpg in 2022.46 The average fuel economy for heavy-duty trucks in the United States has also steadily increased, from 5.7 mpg in 2013 to a projected 8.0 mpg in 2021.47 Therefore, using the USEPA fuel economy estimates, the proposed Project would result in the consumption of approximately 53,105 gallons of gasoline per year and 38,679 gallons of diesel fuel per year.

Based on fuel consumption obtained from CARB’s EMission FACtor model (EMFAC2021), approximately 272.6 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 97.7 million gallons of diesel fuel will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Joaquin County in 2025. Therefore, gasoline and diesel fuel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in San Joaquin County. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Furthermore, the Project site was previously developed as the Van Buskirk Municipal Golf Course.

The Project site is located within walking or bicycling distance from surrounding residential and commercial uses. The proposed Project would be open daily to informal use, including picnicking, walking, jogging, bicycling, and unprogrammed sports play. The Project would operate similarly to a neighborhood park where residents would come for the playground, picnicking, pick-up basketball games, and other passive recreation. Therefore, the Project would support the ability of visitors to use alternative modes of transportation, including walking, jogging, and bicycling to the Project site.

As such, fuel consumption associated with Project vehicle trips would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region, and this impact would be less than significant.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy or energy efficiency 45 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). 2023. Exploring Clean Energy Solutions. Website: https://www.pge.com/en/ about/corporate-responsibility-and-sustainability/taking-responsibility/clean-energy-solutions.html (accessed April 2025). 46 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2023. “Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S.

Light Duty Vehicles.” Website: https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles (accessed April 2025). 47 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. Medium and Heavy-Duty Truck Prices and Fuel Economy 2013– 2026. Website: efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=206180 (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
measures into building design, equipment use, and transportation. Construction and operation period impacts related to consumption of energy resources 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)
In 2002, the State Legislature passed SB 1389, which required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop an integrated energy plan every 2 years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce VMT and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The most recently adopted CEC energy report is the 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. 48 The 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the State is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining energy reliability and controlling costs. The 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update covers a broad range of topics, including implementation of SB 350 (Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015), integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector, energy efficiency barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to SB 1383), updates on Southern California electricity reliability, the natural gas outlook, and climate adaptation and resiliency.

As indicated above, energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in nature. In addition, energy usage associated with operation of the proposed Project would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources, and energy impacts would be negligible at the regional level. Because California’s energy conservation planning actions are conducted at a regional level, and because the Project’s total impact to regional energy supplies would be minor, the proposed Project would not conflict with California’s energy conservation plans as described in the CEC 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and this impact would be less than significant. 48 CEC. 2024. 2024 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Docket Number: 24-IEPR-01.

EXHIBIT 1

4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
a. Would the project 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. (No Impact)
The State of California enacted the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act in 1972, requiring the State Geologist to delineate Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZs) along known active faults that have high potential for fault rupture. Active faults are defined as faults that have surface displacement within the last 11,000 years.49 State regulations prohibit habitable structures from being sited within 50 feet of an active fault. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo EFZ. 50 49 DOC. 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website: www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo (accessed April 2025). 50 California Geological Survey (CGS). 2019. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website:
maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture. No impact would occur.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant) Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the Earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. The magnitude of a seismic event is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by seismographs that measure the amplitude of seismic waves. The intensity of an earthquake is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of a seismic event at a given point. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is the most commonly used scale to measure the subjective effects of earthquake intensity. It uses values ranging from I to XII.51
The closest significant earthquake fault to Stockton is the Greenville Fault, which is located roughly 22 miles west-southwest. The maximum forecasted earthquake on this fault is magnitude 6.0.52 The Project site could experience significant ground shaking during a major earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area to the west. However, such seismic ground shaking would almost certainly be less intense than in the Bay Area, due to the site’s distance from the Greenville Fault.

The most significant adverse impact associated with strong seismic shaking is potential damage to structures and improvements. No habitable structures would be constructed as part of the proposed Project; however, implementation of the proposed Project would increase the use of the Project site and result in the construction of improvements in areas subject to seismic shaking. The risk of ground-shaking impacts is reduced through adherence to the design and materials standards set forth in building codes. The City of Stockton has adopted the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2 of the CCR), which provides for stringent construction requirements on projects in areas of high seismic risk.53 The design and construction of the proposed Project would be required to conform with, or exceed, current best standards for earthquake-resistant construction in accordance with the most recent CBC adopted by the City and with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical practice for seismic design in Northern California.

Adherence to the 2022 CBC, or CBC in effect at the time that the Project is constructed, requires a site-specific geotechnical investigation to be performed for the proposed Project to evaluate soil stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on soil-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, and expansiveness. It also requires that a 51 United States Geological Survey. 2018. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. Website: www.usgs.gov/ natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/science/modified-mercalli-intensity-scale?qt-science_center_ objects=0#qt-science_center_objects (accessed April 2025). 52 Placeworks. 2018. Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements Draft EIR. June. Website: https://cms3.revize.com/revize/stockton/Documents/Business/Planning%20&%20 Engineering/General%20Plan/EnvisionStockton2040GP_Draft.pdf (accessed April 2025). 53 City of Stockton Municipal Code. 2022. Chapter 15 Building Code. Website: https://ecode360.com/ 43711444 (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
geotechnical report be prepared to provide recommendations on foundation type and design criteria. With conformance with the CBC seismic design standards and completion of the required site-specific geotechnical investigation, potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant) Liquefaction is the transformation of loose, fine-grained sediment to a fluid-like state similar to quicksand. This phenomenon occurs due to strong seismic activity and lessens the soil’s ability to support a structural foundation. The primary factors affecting the possibility of liquefaction in soil are: (1) intensity and duration of earthquake shaking; (2) soil type and relative density; (3) overburden pressures; and (4) depth to groundwater. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, fine-grained sands and nonplastic silts that are saturated.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has mapped Seismic Hazard Zones that delineate areas susceptible to liquefaction and/or landslides that require proposed new developments in these areas to conduct additional investigation to determine the extent and magnitude of potential ground failure. The Project site is located in an area for which earthquake-induced landslide and liquefaction hazards have not yet been evaluated by CGS.
54 The Project site is underlain by overbank deposits
(sand, silt, and clay), alluvial deposits (undifferentiated sand, silt and gravel), and marsh deposits (silt and clay), which could be susceptible to liquefaction. However, the design and construction of the proposed Project would be required to conform with, or exceed, current best standards for earthquake-resistant construction in accordance with the most recent CBC adopted by the City and with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical practice for seismic design in Northern California. With conformance with the CBC seismic design standards and completion of the required site-specific geotechnical investigation, potential impacts associated with liquefaction would be reduced to a less than significant level.
iv. Landslides? (No Impact)
A landslide generally occurs on relatively steep slopes and/or on slopes underlain by weak materials.

Topographically, the site is relatively flat, with elevations of approximately 50 feet amsl. No habitable structures would be constructed as part of the proposed Project, nor would construction of the proposed Project increase the potential for landslide hazards, as no slopes are present in proximity to the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from landslides. No impact would occur. 54 CGS. 2019. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Website: maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/ EQZApp/app/ (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Topsoil is defined as the upper part of the soil profile that is relatively rich in humus and is technically known as the A-horizon of the soil profile.55 The potential for soil erosion exists during the period of earthwork activities and between the time when earthwork is completed and new vegetation is established, or hardscape is installed. Exposed soils could be entrained in stormwater runoff and transported off the Project site. As part of construction activities, over 40 acres soil would be disturbed during site grading. Because the proposed Project would involve over 1 acre of land disturbance, it would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, 56 which requires
preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Although designed primarily to protect stormwater quality, the SWPPP would provide the details of the erosion control measures to be applied on the Project site during the construction period, including BMPs for erosion control that are recognized by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Additional details regarding the SWPPP are provided in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with the requirements of the Construction General Permit would ensure that the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c. Would the project 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) As discussed in Section 4.7.a, the site would not likely be subject to substantial adverse effects as a result of landslides or liquefaction. The proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with standard engineering practices and the CBC. The Project site is not anticipated to become unstable as a result of the proposed Project or to potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, liquefaction, or lateral spreading. Further, preparation of a site-specific geotechnical evaluation as required by the CBC and implementation of proposed geotechnical recommendations would ensure that the proposed Project would not result in a geologic hazard from landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. This impact would be less than significant. d. Would the project 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 Impact)
Expansive soils are characterized by the potential for shrinking and swelling as the moisture content of the soil decreases and increases, respectively. Shrink-swell potential is influenced by the amount and type of clay minerals present and can be measured by the percentage of change in the soil 55 California State Mining and Geology Board. 2014. Surface Mining Reclamation Act Regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 8, Subchapter 1. 56 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2009. Division of Water Quality. Construction General Permit Fact Sheet. 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ. Website:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_000 9_factsheet.pdf (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
volume. Based on soil testing conducted as part of the site-specific geotechnical report, soils at the Project site have moderate to high expansion potential when subjected to changes in moisture content. Soils underlying the Project site are composed of Guard clay loam (0 to 2 percent slopes), Jacktone-Urban land complex (0 to 2 percent slopes) and Rioblancho-Urban land complex, drained (0 to 2 percent slope) according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey.57 These soils have a moderate to high shrink-swell potential.58 As described above, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the 2022 CBC and the geotechnical recommendations identified in the site-specific geotechnical investigation. Compliance with geotechnical recommendations and the 2022 CBC during design and construction would ensure that the potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact)
The proposed Project would connect to the City’s wastewater conveyance system. On-site treatment and disposal of wastewater is not proposed for the Project; therefore, the proposed Project would have no impacts associated with soils incapable of supporting 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) No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist within the Project site, and ground disturbance for the proposed Project is not expected to extend below a depth of 10 feet.

Therefore, construction activities for the proposed Project are not expected to extend deep enough to impact scientifically important paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, described below, would mitigate direct or indirect impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features in the event such resources are encountered during ground disturbance. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Discovery. If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist contacted to assess the find for scientific significance.

If determined to be significant, the fossil shall be collected from the field. The paleontologist may also make recommendations regarding 57 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2025.

Web Soil Survey. Website: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed April 2025). 58 USDA NRCS. 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California. Website:
https://dn720006.ca.archive.org/0/items/usda-general-soil-map-soil-survey-of-san-joaquin-countycalifornia/usda-general-soil-map-soil-survey-of-san-joaquin-county-california.pdf (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
additional mitigation measures, such as paleontological monitoring.

Scientifically significant resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collections of a museum repository. If scientifically significant paleontological resources are collected, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the collection.

EXHIBIT 1

4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less Than Significant Impact) Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are present in the atmosphere naturally and are released by natural sources or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Hydrofluorocarbons
• Perfluorocarbons
• Sulfur hexafluoride
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”).

The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).

EXHIBIT 1
The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that a project would normally have a significant adverse GHG emission impact if the project would:
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reduction the emissions of GHGs.

Section 15064.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions, or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and 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.

Neither the City of Stockton nor the SJVAPCD has developed or adopted numeric GHG significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the GHG emissions based on the Project’s design elements consistent with the Bay Area Air District’s (Air District) GHG thresholds. The Air District adopted the Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (Justification Report),59 which identifies GHG significance thresholds that would be applicable to the proposed Project. These thresholds evaluate a project based on its effect on achieving California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Based on this research, the Air District has determined that new land use development projects must incorporate specified design elements to contribute the “fair share” toward implementation of the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. If a project is designed and built to incorporate the identified design elements related to natural gas, energy, VMT, and electric vehicles, then it would contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals—its “fair share”—and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The document concludes that if a project does not incorporate these design elements, then it should be found to result in a significant climate impact because it would hinder California’s efforts to address climate change.

The Justification Report provides substantial evidence supporting the use of these thresholds for projects throughout California because the thresholds are applicable to meeting the State’s established GHG reduction goals. In the absence of any City or SJVAPCD specific guidelines or thresholds, this analysis evaluates the proposed Project for consistency with the identified project design elements as the applicable thresholds of significance to establish whether the proposed 59 Bay Area Air District. 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April.

EXHIBIT 1
Project is achieving its “fair share” of emission reductions to support long-term State goals for GHG emissions and carbon neutrality.

According to the Justification Report, a project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would include the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:

1. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita

2. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee

3. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
c. Or be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

These project design elements are utilized in the following analysis as the thresholds of significance to evaluate the project’s potential GHG emissions impact.

Per the significance thresholds described above, a less than significant GHG impact would occur if the Project were consistent with the identified design standards, as evaluated below.

Construction Emissions. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change.

EXHIBIT 1
The SJVAPCD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are encouraged to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction. Using CalEEMod, it is estimated that the annual emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project would be approximately 485.9 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year. Construction GHG emissions were amortized over the life of the Project (assumed to be 30 years) and added to the operational emissions. When annualized over the life of the Project, amortized construction emissions would be approximately 16.2 MT CO2e per year.

Operational GHG Emissions. Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), area sources (e.g., maintenance activities and landscaping), indirect emissions from sources associated with energy consumption, waste sources (landfilling and waste disposal), and water sources (water supply and conveyance, treatment, and distribution). Mobile-source GHG emissions would include Project-generated vehicle trips to and from the Project. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on the Project site. Energy-source emissions would be generated at off-site utility providers as a result of increased electricity demand generated by the Project. Waste-source emissions generated by the proposed Project include energy generated by landfilling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing Project generated waste. In addition, water-source emissions associated with the proposed Project are generated by water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment.

For informational purposes, GHG emissions for operation of the Project were calculated using CalEEMod. Based on the analysis results, summarized in Table 4.F, the proposed Project would result in emissions of approximately 591.8 MT CO2e per year. These estimated emissions are provided for informational purposes, and the significance of the proposed Project is further analyzed below.

Table 4.F: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Type Operational Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Mobile Sources 560.6 <0.1 <0.1 570.6
Area Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy Sources 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water Sources <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Waste Sources 1.4 0.1 0.0 5.0
Amortized Construction Emissions 16.2
Total Operational Emissions 591.8
Source: Compiled by LSA (May 2025).

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O = nitrous oxide
As discussed above, in the absence of any City or SJVAPCD specific guidelines or thresholds, this analysis evaluates the proposed Project for consistency with project design elements as the applicable thresholds of significance. If a project is designed and built to incorporate design elements related to natural gas, energy, VMT, and electric vehicles, then it would contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals—its “fair share”—and an EXHIBIT 1
agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change.

Natural Gas Usage. A less than significant GHG impact would occur if the project does not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. The proposed Project would be all-electric and would not include natural gas. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this design element.

Energy Usage. The project must not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Energy, operational energy usage is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips. The proposed Project would generate electricity associated with lighting, which would be minimal. Additionally, the proposed Project would be all-electric and would not require natural gas. As such, electricity demand associated with the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

The primary source of energy usage associated with the proposed Project would be from gasoline and diesel to fuel Project-related trips. As discussed in Section 4.6, Energy, the proposed Project would result in the consumption of approximately 53,105 gallons of gasoline per year and 38,679 gallons of diesel fuel per year. Based on fuel consumption obtained EMFAC2021, approximately 272.6 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 97.7 million gallons of diesel fuel will be consumed from vehicle trips in San Joaquin County in 2025. Therefore, gasoline and diesel fuel demand generated by vehicle trips associated with the proposed Project would be a minimal fraction of gasoline and diesel fuel consumption in San Joaquin County. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Furthermore, the Project site was previously developed as the Van Buskirk Municipal Golf Course.

The Project site is located within walking or bicycling distance from surrounding residential and commercial uses. The proposed Project would be open daily to informal use, including picnicking, walking, jogging, bicycling, and unprogrammed sports play. The Project would operate similarly to a neighborhood park where residents would come for the playground, picnicking, informal basketball games, and other passive recreation. Therefore, the Project would support the ability of visitors to use alternative modes of transportation, including walking, jogging, and bicycling to the Project site.

As such, fuel consumption associated with Project vehicle trips would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

As such, based on this analysis, as required under Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy and would incorporate renewable energy and energy efficiency measures into the building design, equipment use, and transportation. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with this design element.

EXHIBIT 1
Vehicle Miles Traveled. As discussed above, development that meets a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target would be considered to have a less than significant GHG emissions impact from transportation sources. As described in Section 4.17, Transportation, the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (May 2023) establishes land use project screening. Locally serving public facilities (e.g., parks) that contribute to and support community needs are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT and do not require a VMT analysis. Additionally, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA describes how locally serving projects can redistribute trips and reduce regional VMT by facilitating residents to choose a closer option and shorten trip length. Many of the visitors to the proposed Project are likely to reside in the adjacent neighborhood and could make walking or biking trips to the proposed Project. Other visitors may consider the proposed Project a better option than similar amenities located farther from their residence. As such, the proposed Project would be a locally serving park facility presenting an intervening option allowing visitors to shorten vehicle trips.

Therefore, VMT impacts can be assumed to be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with this design element.

Electric Vehicle Requirements. This criterion requires that the project achieve compliance with offstreet electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of the CALGreen Tier 2 measures. As described in Section 2.3.1.2, the proposed Project would provide electric vehicle charging capabilities consistent with current CALGreen Tier 2 measures. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the project design elements that would achieve California’s longterm climate goals. As such, the proposed Project would not generate significant GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment, and this impact would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Less Than Significant Impact) The SJVAPCD has adopted a Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which includes suggested best performance standards (BPS) for proposed development projects. However, the SJVAPCD’s CCAP was adopted in 2009 and was prepared based on the State’s 2020 GHG targets, which are now superseded by State policies (i.e., the 2019 CALGreen) and the 2030 GHG targets established in SB 32.

The following discussion evaluates the proposed Project according to the goals of Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, SB 32, AB 197, AB 1279, and the 2022 Scoping Plan.

EO B-30-15 added the immediate target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reductions target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 contained in EO B30-15. CARB released the 2017 Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by EO B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. SB 32 keeps the State on the path toward achieving the 2050 objective of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, provides additional direction to CARB related to the adoption of strategies to reduce GHG emissions. Additional direction in AB 197 intended to provide easier public access to air emissions data collected by CARB was posted in December 2016. AB 1279 codifies the State goals of achieving net carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative GHG emissions thereafter.

EXHIBIT 1
In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan assesses progress toward the statutory 2030 target while laying out a path to achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities.

The Air District’s Justification Report established guidance on how individual projects would be consistent with California’s long-term climate goals and provides substantial evidence in supporting the use of its thresholds for projects throughout California because the thresholds are designed to meet the State’s established GHG reduction goals, including the 2022 Scoping Plan goals. If a project is designed and built to incorporate these design elements related to VMT, natural gas, energy, and electric vehicles, then it would contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project would be consistent with the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Air District’s project design elements and would a have a less than significant GHG emissions impact. As analyzed against the thresholds of significance, the proposed Project would be contributing its “fair share” of emissions reductions to support long-term State goals of GHG emission reductions and carbon neutrality and would therefore be found to be consistent with regional and State goals and applicable plans for GHG emissions reductions.

As such, the proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall GHG emissions reduction goals identified in EO B 30 15, SB 32, AB 197, and AB 1279 and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1

4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 onequarter 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 2 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?
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed Project involves the construction of a park. Normal operations would not introduce potentially hazardous materials. Some of the planting and turf areas would require typical maintenance such as fertilizer and irrigation. California law requires all facilities that use or store more than certain quantities of hazardous materials on site to file hazardous materials business plans that list and map the location of on-site hazardous materials storage and use and that describe procedures in the event of an accident. The City would be required to comply with existing governmental regulations in the use and disposal of these materials,60 and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to human or environmental health. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with the routine transport, 60 The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates “small-quantity generators” (SQGs) of hazardous wastes, which are defined as facilities that generate more than 100 kilograms (kg) (approximately 220 pounds [lbs]), but less than 1,000 kg (2,200 lbs), of hazardous waste per month.

EXHIBIT 1
use, or disposal of hazardous materials by ensuring these materials are properly handled during operation of the proposed Project. This impact would be less than significant.

During construction of proposed park improvements, hazardous materials (e.g., fuel, oils, and paints) would be routinely transported, stored, and used at the Project site. These materials are typical of materials delivered to construction sites. Transport and use of hazardous materials would be subject to all applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and CCR Title 8 and Title 22.

Because the proposed Project would result in soil disturbance greater than 1 acre, management of hazardous materials during construction activities would be subject to the requirements of the Stormwater Construction General Permit (described in detail under Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality), which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that includes hazardous materials storage requirements. For example, construction site operators must store chemicals in watertight containers (with appropriate secondary containment to prevent any spillage or leakage) or in a storage shed (completely enclosed). Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by ensuring these materials are properly handled during construction of the proposed Project. This impact would be less than significant.
b. Would the project 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 Impact) There are two main ways that the public and/or the environment could be affected by the release of hazardous materials from the Project site, including: (1) exposing workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soil and groundwater during construction and/or operation of the Project; or (2) exposing workers and/or the public to hazardous building materials (e.g., lead paint, asbestos) during demolition of existing structures.

As described above, small quantities of common hazardous materials would be used at the Project site during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Improper use, storage, or handling could result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment, which could pose a risk to construction workers and the public. However, the City would be required to comply with existing government regulations in the use and disposal of these materials, and such materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk to human or environmental health.

The Project site is surrounded by residential uses to the north and wetland areas to the south and west with the existing Van Buskirk Community Center on the eastern border. As described further below in Section 4.9.d, there are no known hazardous materials sites located in proximity to the Project site that would represent a significant risk to public health or safety (e.g., on-site storage, leaking tanks, or an approaching groundwater contamination plume). Therefore, it is unlikely that the soil and groundwater are contaminated with significant toxic or hazardous materials that would be released during construction. Additionally, compliance with the regulations described previously EXHIBIT 1
in Section 4.9.a would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment during the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials by ensuring that these materials are properly handled during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c. Would the project 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)
There are two existing schools within 0.25 mile of the Project site: KIPP Stockton Elementary and Middle School, located at 742 Dallas Avenue approximately 0.18 mile north, and Taylor Leadership Academy/Taylor Skills School, located at 1101 Lever Boulevard approximately 0.33 mile north of the Project site. A new school, KIPP High School, is opening soon just north of the Project site on Houston Avenue. The next closest school to the Project site is Apostolic Tabernacle Church/Christian Academy, located at 2222 Lever Boulevard approximately 0.4 mile north of the Project site. The proposed Project would not include any land uses that would generate hazardous emissions or handle significant quantities of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials beyond existing conditions.

In addition, the City would be required to comply with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations and standards related to hazardous emissions and materials. Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that impacts associated with the emission or handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. d. Would the project 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) Government Code Section 65962.5 requires CalEPA to develop, at least annually, an updated list of hazardous materials release sites known as the Cortese List. The Project site is listed in the SWRCB GeoTracker database61 as “Van Buskirk Golf Course” due to a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) associated with the former maintenance shop at the golf course. The Project site is therefore included on lists of hazardous materials release sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

The Van Buskirk Golf Course was listed for diesel contamination with potential to impact an aquifer used for drinking water supply. Site investigation and corrective action for the underground storage tanks were completed. Therefore, the cleanup status is completed with the case closed as of April 13, 2004, indicating that regulatory requirements for response actions, such as site assessment and remediation, have either been completed or were not necessary and therefore potential migration of residual contaminants in groundwater beneath the Project site does not likely pose a risk to human health and the environment.
61 SWRCB. 2022. Geotracker Database. Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
In addition, a total of eight properties with recognized environmental conditions or historical recognized environmental conditions were identified within 1 mile of the Project site, as detailed in Table 4.G, based on a review of the SWRCB GeoTracker database,62 the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor database,63 and the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List.64
Table 4.G: Hazardous Materials Database Search
Property REC1 Historical Recognized
Environmental Condition
Location Relative to
the Project Site
Status of the
Property
3rd Elementary School –
West Ranch Site at
Carolyn Weston
Boulevard
- DTSC approved the PEA. Based on the
information presented in the PEA,
neither an actual potential release of
hazardous material nor the presence
of naturally occurring hazardous
material indicated the site poses a
threat to human health or the
environment under any land use.

Therefore, DTSC concurred that no
further environmental investigation or
cleanup was required at this site, and
approved the PEA.

Approximately 3,095
feet south of the
Project site.

Closed – No further
action as of 6/6/2021.

California Tank Lines,
Inc., at 3105 El Dorado
Street
- Site screening completed. In 1987, an
on-site spill resulted in soil
contamination, including copper, nickel
and chromium. The RWQCB issued a
Cleanup and Abatement Order to
remediate the soil. Over 200 tons of
soil were removed.

Approximately 5,097
feet east of the
Project site.

Refer to RWQCB as of
9/28/1995.

John Taylor Fertilizer at
1819 South Argonaut
Street
- Contamination of other groundwater
(uses other than drinking water).

Facility identified a food and
agriculture list for PCOs.

Approximately 4,886
feet north of the
Project site.

Open – Verification
monitoring as of
7/3/2024.

Oxychem Stockton at
1904 Charter Way
- Contamination of other groundwater
(uses other than drinking water).

Information indicates a release of
1,2,3-TCP, nitrate, other chlorinated
hydrocarbons, other insecticides,
pesticides, fumigants, herbicides, and
other inorganics
Approximately 4,213
feet north of the
Project site.

Open – Remediation
as of 3/8/2024.
62 SWRCB. 2022. Geotracker Database. Website: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed April 2025). 63 California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStar Database Website:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed April 2025). 64 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2020. Cortese List Data Resources. Website:
calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.G: Hazardous Materials Database Search
Property REC1 Historical Recognized
Environmental Condition
Location Relative to
the Project Site
Status of the
Property
New Holland Ford -
Stockton at 2150 Charter
Way
- Benzene contamination of aquifer
used for drinking water supply.

Approximately 4,410
feet north of the
Project site.

Completed – Case
closed as of
3/1/1994. A closure
letter or other formal
closure decision
document has been
issued for the site.

Barnes Trucking at 1817
Fresno Avenue South
- Diesel and gasoline contamination of
aquifer used for drinking water supply.

Approximately 4,225
feet north of the
Project site.

Open – Site
assessment as of
9/30/2019.

PureGro/Unocal at 1904
Charter Way West
- Diesel contamination of aquifer used
for drinking water supply.

Approximately 4,720
feet north of the
Project site.

Completed – Case
closed as of
1/2/1997. A closure
letter or other formal
closure decision
document has been
issued for the site.

Vito Trucking at 1789
Charter Way West
- Gasoline contamination of soil. Approximately 5,196
feet north of the
Project site.

Completed – Case
closed as of
1/2/1997. A closure
letter or other formal
closure decision
document has been
issued for the site.

Sources: SWRCB (2022); DTSC (2022).
1 Recognized Environmental Condition
DTSC = California Department of Toxic Substances Control PCO = pest control operator
PEA = Preliminary Endangerment Assessment
RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board
TCP = trichloropropane
None of these properties are on or adjacent to the Project site or have any activities or materials that would represent a significant risk to public health or safety on the Project site due to distance to the Project site and the intervening development. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of being located on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Impacts would be less than significant.
e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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)
There are no airports within 2 miles of the Project site. There is one airport within San Joaquin County, Stockton Metropolitan Airport, which is approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Project EXHIBIT 1
site. However, the Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (Zone 8) for the Stockton Municipal Airport.
65 According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for the Stockton Municipal Airport, there are no limits on the nonresidential density intensity within this zone; however, hazards to flight (e.g., tall objects), visual and electronic forms of interference, and land use development that may cause the attraction of birds or other wildlife hazards to increase are prohibited. The proposed Project would not include construction of any tall structures or installation of any other flight hazards. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. This impact would be less than significant. f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Stockton Fire Department (SFD) coordinates the City’s preparedness efforts to mitigate, plan for, respond to and recover from disasters. The Project site is served by Fire Station 1, located at 1818 Fresno Avenue. In addition, the San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services coordinates countywide emergency response efforts, including the preparation and implementation of the San Joaquin County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)66 and the San Joaquin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.67 However, the EOP does not address specific responses, scenarios, hazards, or threats within Stockton. In addition, the EOP does not indicate the emergency evacuation routes within San Joaquin County.

The proposed Project would not alter or block adjacent roadways, and implementation of the proposed Project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby roadways that might be used for evacuation during an emergency. In addition, operation of the proposed Project would not cause permanent alterations to vehicle circulation routes and patterns or impede public access or travel upon public rights-of-way. Prior to approval of final maps and improvement plans for any development project within Stockton, plan review and approval by the SFD is required. Proposed ingress/egress for the park would be required to meet State and local standards regarding turning radius, road width, and emergency vehicle access. Adherence to the emergency access measures required by the City would ensure that impacts related to implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.
65 Coffman Associates, Inc. 2016. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. May. (Amended February 2018). 66 San Joaquin County Office of Emergency Services. 2022. Emergency Operations Plan. Website:
https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/office-of-emergency-services-documents/emergency-plans/ 2022-sjc-emergency-operations-plan.pdf (accessed April 2025). 67 County of San Joaquin. 2023. San Joaquin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Website:
https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/office-of-emergency-services-documents/lhmp/documents/ 2022-lhmp-10.18.22-version.pdf?sfvrsn=b7a69798_5 (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (Less Than Significant Impact) The Project site is not located within or adjacent to an area identified by CAL FIRE as a community at risk for wildland fire.
68 Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. This impact would be considered less than significant.
68 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2019. Communities at Risk from Wildfire.

Website: https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-8c5a-4159cdff6b0d-cdn-endpoint.azureedge.net/-/media/calfirewebsite/what-we-do/fire-resource-assessment-program---frap/pdf-maps/communities-at-risk-wildfire2015.pdf?rev=d7d7e04f0a614ccc8fcbb6d0d13155cf&hash=1C1247791C7C22C80FBA6F6156F69175 (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1

4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 offsite;
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? a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? (Less Than Significant Impact) The SWRCB and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate the quality of surface water and groundwater bodies throughout California. In Stockton, the Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan).69 The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that states identify water bodies, including bays, rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas, that do not meet water quality standards and the pollutants that are causing the impairment. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) describe the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive while still meeting established water quality standards. A TMDL implementation plan establishes limits for pollutant discharges into impaired water bodies. 69 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Central Valley Region. 1975. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fifth Edition, the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. July. Revised February 2019 with Approved Amendments.

EXHIBIT 1
The Project site was previously developed as the Van Buskirk Municipal Golf Course and consists of approximately 125 acres of turf and landscaped areas associated with the former golf course, five ponds (totaling 11.25 acres), and approximately 3 acres developed with parking area and walkways associated with the former golf course. The majority of the Project site consists of nonnative annual grassland, and a total of 977 mature trees, consisting of 35 species, were recorded within the Project site’s urban forest. The existing topography of the Project site is relatively flat, with elevations of approximately 50 feet amsl. Low-lying wetlands consisting of four of the five ponds are located within the western section of the Project site, while the fifth pond is isolated in the eastern section of the Project site. The Project site is bounded by a levee along Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, and the San Joaquin River, which are located directly adjacent to the western and southern Project site boundaries. The levee (including the area from the water’s edge to the levee’s inward foot slope) is not included in the Project site. Under existing conditions, stormwater at the Project site infiltrates the Project site, then sheet flows either to one of the five ponds located within the Project site, or to the west or south to discharge into Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, or the San Joaquin River.

Walker Slough and French Camp Slough both discharge into the San Joaquin River. The San Joaquin River travels northwest and ultimately discharges to Suisun Bay via the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. The SWRCB Surface Water Quality Assessment 2024 Integrated Report for Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 305(b) lists Walker Slough as impaired for indicator bacteria and French Camp Slough as impaired for indicator bacteria, dissolved oxygen, toxicity, and pesticides (chlorpyrifos, bifenthrin, and pyrethroids). The San Joaquin River is listed as impaired for pesticides (group A pesticides, imidacloprid, toxaphene, dichlorodiphenyl-dichloroethylene [DDE], dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], and diuron), mercury, water temperature, and toxicity.70 TDMLs have been adopted for chlorpyrifos for French Camp Slough and indicator bacteria for Walker Slough.

Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (established through the CWA). The NPDES Program objective is to control and reduce pollutant discharges to surface water bodies. Compliance with NPDES permits is mandated by State and federal statutes and regulations. Locally, the NPDES Program is administered by the Central Valley RWQCB.

Construction activities are subject to the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit).71 Any construction activity, including grading, that would result in the disturbance of 1 acre or more would require compliance with SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Construction BMPs during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain 70 SWRCB. 2024. 2024 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).

December. Website: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2F www.waterboards.ca.gov%2Fwater_issues%2Fprograms%2Ftmdl%2F2023_2024state_ir_reports%2Fapxa-2024-303d-list-final.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK (accessed April 2025). 71 SWRCB. 2022a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. September 8. Effective September 1, 2023.

EXHIBIT 1
sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.

The Central Valley RWQCB adopted the NPDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324 (Region-wide MS4 Permit) on June 23, 2016.72 On November 1, 2016, the City of Stockton submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the Region-wide MS4 Permit. After review of the NOI, the Central Valley RWQCB determined that the City qualifies for coverage under the Region-wide MS4 Permit, and the City became a co-permittee under the Central Valley RWQCB’s Region-wide MS4 Permit, Order No. R5-2016-0040-002, NPDES No. CAS0085324.73 The Region-wide MS4 Permit focuses on identifying outcomes to be achieved by specific actions instead of focusing on identifying actions to be implemented. To achieve this goal, the Region-wide MS4 Permit requires permittees to develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) with the goal of addressing the rate and volume of runoff as well as reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, permittees shall regulate development through the following: site design measures, source control measures, low-impact development (LID) design standards, hydromodification measures, operation and maintenance of storm water control measures, and post-construction BMPs. Additionally, the Region-wide MS4 Permit requires ongoing water quality monitoring and corrective actions if water quality thresholds are not maintained.

As required by the Region-wide MS4 Permit, the City prepared its SWMP in April 2009, 74 which describes the strategy for controlling the discharge of pollutants from the municipal storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. In 2020 the City prepared a Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan (SWQCCP),
75 which updated the 2009 SWMP and provides clear development standards to use in the selection and implementation of appropriate control measures, emphasizes LID-based strategies, and provides maintenance procedures to ensure long-term pollutant control. The SWQCCP was updated in March 2025 and reflects the most recent Region-wide MS4 Permit requirements and statewide trash control requirements.

Construction. The proposed Project would entail development of a park on a 192.71-acre portion of the former golf course, which is anticipated to occur in phases depending on available funds. Phase 1 includes development of recreational amenities in the eastern portion of the park, extending west from the existing community center to the existing utility line easement. Subsequent phases would 72 California RWQCB, Central Valley Region. 2016. Order R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. June 23. 73 Central Valley RWQCB. 2016. Notice of Applicability; General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Order R5-2016-0040. November 30. 74 Larry Walker Associates. 2009. City of Stockton National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Program Stormwater Management Plan. April. 75 Larry Walker Associates. 2020. City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan. August. Revised March 2025.

EXHIBIT 1
include park facilities and associated improvements for the central and western portions of the park and are currently conceptual.

Pollutants of concern during construction include pathogens, nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen), sediment, metals, oil and grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides, and organic compounds. Each of these pollutants, on its own or in combination with other pollutants, can have a detrimental effect on water quality. During construction activities, excavated soil would be exposed, and there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and sedimentation compared to existing conditions. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete-related waste may be spilled or leaked during construction. Any of these pollutants has the potential to be transported via stormwater runoff into receiving waters (i.e., Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, San Joaquin River, Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta, and Suisun Bay).

Construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to disturb the entire 192.71-acre Project site.

Because Project construction would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the proposed Project would be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.16, which requires compliance with applicable NPDES permit requirements. As required by the Construction General Permit and the City’s Municipal Code, the construction contractor would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, erosion and sediment control (designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site) and good housekeeping practices to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters.

According to geotechnical borings performed at the Project site by Kleinfelder-Stantec,76 the depth to groundwater at the Project site ranges from 2.4 to 7 feet below ground surface (bgs). Excavation at the Project site during construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to extend to a maximum depth of 10 feet bgs for construction of the proposed skate park. Therefore, groundwater dewatering would likely be required during Project construction. Groundwater dewatering activities could affect surface water quality through the discharge of polluted groundwater to surface waterbodies. Groundwater dewatering activities would be required to comply with the Central Valley RWQCB’s Waste Discharge Requirements Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water, Order No. R5- 2022-0006-02, NPDES No. CAG995002 (Groundwater Discharge Permit). In compliance with the requirements of the Groundwater Discharge Permit, groundwater would be tested and treated (if required) prior to discharge to surface water. Should groundwater dewatering be required during construction activities, compliance with the Groundwater Discharge Permit would ensure that the proposed Project would not adversely impact groundwater quality.

With adherence to the Construction General Permit and City regulations (including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Construction BMPs) and the Groundwater Discharge Permit, (including testing and treating stormwater [if required] prior to discharge to surface water), impacts 76 Kleinfelder-Stantec. 2023. USACE Lower San Joaquin Phase E San Joaquin River, French Camp Slough, Duck Creek Study Area, Geotechnical Data Report, Stockton, California. November.

EXHIBIT 1
associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during Project construction would be less than significant.

Operation. As previously discussed, the City is a co-permittee under the Central Valley RWQCB’s Region-wide MS4 Permit. In compliance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit, the City prepared a SWQCCP, which requires implementation of site design, source control, and volume reduction measures and LID and treatment control BMPs for priority projects. The proposed Project is considered a priority project because it involves the development of more than 25 parking spaces that would be exposed to urban runoff and would create more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface area on an already developed site. Compliance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit and the City’s SWQCCP is achieved through City Municipal Code Chapter 13.20, which requires preparation of a Project-specific Stormwater Quality Control Plan (SWQCP) for all priority projects that incorporates stormwater pollution control measures to minimize stormwater quality impacts that may occur after the Project is complete. In addition, Chapter 13.20 requires preparation and implementation of a Maintenance Plan to ensure that the controls incorporated into the Project are operated and maintained as originally intended and to ensure the effectiveness of the controls. As required by the Region-wide MS4 Permit, City Municipal Code Chapter 13.20, and the SWQCCP, the City would be required to prepare a Final SWQCP for the proposed Project that specifies the site design, source control, and volume reduction measures and LID and treatment control BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. In addition, the City would be required to comply with Chapter 13.20 of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the preparation and implementation of a Maintenance Plan to ensure that the controls detailed in the Final SWQCP are operated and maintained as intended.

As discussed in Section 2.3.1.5, Utilities and Stormwater Management, all stormwater would be treated on site via bioretention basins and swales that would be integrated into the landscape.

Stormwater would be directed to bioretention basins and swales, which would treat stormwater before it infiltrates the Project site. Infiltration of stormwater could have the potential to affect groundwater quality. As discussed above, the proposed Project would include site design, source control, and volume reduction measures and LID and treatment control BMPs, such as catch basins and curb inlets with storm filters to capture trash and debris, in order to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater prior to it entering the bioretention basins and infiltrating the soil.

Furthermore, when stormwater is infiltrated, soil and plants absorb and filter pollutants and reduce the potential for pollutants of concern to reach groundwater. A Final SWQCP would be prepared in compliance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit prior to or during final design, which would ensure that the proposed Project design would adequately target pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff before it infiltrates the soil.

With adherence to applicable regulatory requirements, which require preparation of a Final SWQCP to address pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and preparation and implementation of a Maintenance Plan to ensure that the controls detailed in the Final SWQCP are operated and maintained as intended, potential impacts associated with the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
Overall, because the proposed Project would be required to comply with existing regulations, including the Construction General Permit, SWQCP, and SMC requirements, the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project 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 is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, which underlies the city.77 The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is bounded by the Modesto Subbasin to the south, the Delta-Mendota Subbasin to the southwest, the Tracy Subbasin on the west, and the Solano, South American, and Cosumnes subbasins on the northwest and north. The Solano and South American subbasins are subbasins of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Calaveras River, and Mokelumne River are the main tributary streams in the subbasin.
78 The estimated groundwater storage capacity of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is 42,400,000 acrefeet based on a total aquifer material volume of 579,900,000 acre-feet. This estimate was based on a study area that encompassed approximately 586,000 acres. Natural recharge to the basin is primarily from infiltration of runoff from the San Joaquin River, Stanislaus River, Calaveras River, and Mokelumne River. 79According to the California Water Service Company Stockton District’s (Cal Water) 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP),80 Cal Water has multiple sources of water available for its use, including purchased treated water from the Stockton East Water District, and groundwater from the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Cal Water generally relies on treated surface water year-round for its primary supply, but this is supplemented with groundwater to meet increased water demands primarily in the summer months or during dry years, when available surface water supplies may be limited.

Construction. As previously discussed, the depth to groundwater at the Project site ranges from 2.4 to 7 feet bgs. Excavation at the Project site during construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to extend to a maximum depth of 10 feet bgs for construction of the proposed skate park. Therefore, groundwater dewatering would likely be required during Project construction. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, extracted groundwater would be discharged to Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, or the San Joaquin River following testing and treatment (if 77 California Department of Water Resources. n.d.-b. Groundwater Basin Boundary Assessment Tool.

Website: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/ (accessed April 2025). 78 California Department of Water Resources. 2006. San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Bulletin 118. January 20. 79 Ibid. 80 California Water Service Company (Cal Water). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Stockton District. June. Website: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/STK_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
necessary), which would facilitate recharge to the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Therefore, construction impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

Operation. Currently, the Project site is developed as the Van Buskirk Municipal Golf Course and consists of approximately 125 acres of turf and landscaped areas associated with the former golf course, five ponds (totaling 11.25 acres), and approximately 3 acres of parking area, buildings, and walkways associated with the former golf course. Implementation of the proposed Project would further develop the Project site with recreational amenities, including sports courts, a skate park, a bike pump track, and associated improvements, which would increase impervious surface area at the Project site. This increase in impervious surface area would decrease on-site infiltration.

However, as described above, the proposed Project would include bioretention basins and swales to collect, treat, and infiltrate stormwater at the Project site in accordance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not substantially decrease the amount of stormwater that infiltrates the Project site as compared to existing conditions.

As discussed above, the Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, which provides supplemented groundwater to meet increased water demands for Stockton, primarily in the summer months or during dry years, when available surface water supplies may be limited. As provided in Cal Water’s UWMP, Cal Water does not expect any water supply shortages in future years, even in a drought, as determined by a drought risk assessment that showed that even in 5 consecutive dry years, Cal Water has enough supply to meet customer demands. Cal Water also has an aggressive and comprehensive water conservation program and can put measures in place to reduce demand in response to water shortages, if necessary. Because the proposed Project is consistent with the current land use and zoning designations for the site, development of the project would be considered consistent with the growth assumptions utilized to estimate the Cal Water’s projected water demands. Thus, the Project’s associated increase in water demand would have been accounted for in the Cal Water UWMP. Because Cal Water has sufficient water supplies to meet current and future development within its service area, the proposed Project’s water demand would not deplete groundwater supplies.

The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is also identified by the California Department of Water Resources as a high-priority basin81; therefore, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) has been established and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) has been prepared for the basin. According to Cal Water’s UWMP, Cal Water has partnered with other users through the GWA to manage the groundwater basin. The GSP prepared for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin also identified 23 projects for potential development, along with management actions, that either replace groundwater use or supplement groundwater supplies to meet current and future water demands.

The list of 23 potential projects included in the GSP represent a variety of project types, including direct and in-lieu recharge, intrabasin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and 81 California Department of Water Resources. n.d.-c. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Website:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
stormwater reuse, to be undertaken by the member agencies.82 Implementation of the projects and management actions provided in the GSP would ensure the sustainable management of the subbasin. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project would not preclude implementation of the projects and management actions provided in the GSP.

As outlined in Section 2.3.1.5, the City is considering installing an onsite well to provide irrigation water for the proposed Project. Installation of a new well would require a permit from the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, which regulates the location, construction, repair and destruction of water supply, monitoring and geophysical wells and borings in order to prevent groundwater contamination and safety hazards. In accordance with California Water Code Section 13801, the City would be required to provide information related to the depth and capacity of the proposed well, pumping rate, extraction volume, water table depth and recharge area as part of the permitting process. This information would be considered by the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department and publicly disclosed prior to issuance of a well permit. Compliance with the San Joaquin County’s well permit process would ensure that the construction and operation of the well, if proposed, would not affect groundwater or surface water quality.

Irrigation for the proposed Project is anticipated to result in annual water demand of approximately 119.3 acre-feet per year (28.3 acre-feet per year for Phase 1). As discussed above, because the proposed Project is consistent with the current land use and zoning designations for the site, development of the Project would be considered consistent with the growth assumptions utilized to estimate the Cal Water’s projected water demands. Thus, the project’s associated increase in water demand would have been accounted for in the Cal Water UWMP. Because Cal Water has sufficient water supplies to meet current and future development within its service area, the proposed Project’s water demand would not deplete groundwater supplies. Further, as outlined above, implementation of the proposed Project would not preclude implementation of the projects and management actions provided in the GSP, which would offset potential groundwater withdrawals.

Therefore, operational impacts related to a decrease in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant.

Overall, implementation of the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge during construction or operation such that the proposed Project may impede sustainable groundwater management. Impacts associated with groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant.
82 Cal Water. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Stockton District. June. Website:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/STK_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
c. Would the project 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; (Less Than Significant) Under existing conditions, stormwater at the Project site either infiltrates the Project site, sheet flows to one of the five ponds located within the Project site, or sheet flows west or south to discharge into Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, or the San Joaquin River. Upon development of the proposed Project, stormwater would be collected via catch basin and inlets and directed to bioretention basins and swales, which would treat stormwater before it infiltrates the Project site.

The bioretention basins and swales would capture and retain the required design capture volume (DCV) for the Project site. The DCV is the volume of stormwater runoff that must be captured and treated by stormwater BMPs.

Construction. During construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, drainage patterns would be temporarily altered, and there would be increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. As discussed above, the City would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs to be implemented during construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. Compliance with the Construction General Permit, which requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs, would ensure that construction impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Operation. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the Project site due to the construction of recreational amenities, including sports courts, a skate park, a bike pump track, and associated improvements. An increase in impervious surface area increases the rate and volume of runoff during a storm, which can more effectively transport sediments to receiving waters. However, the impervious surface areas on the Project site would not be prone to on-site erosion or siltation because there would be no exposed soil. The remaining pervious surfaces on the Project site would be landscaped with vegetation that would stabilize the soil and promote infiltration, thereby minimizing on-site erosion and siltation.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) and SMC regulations, which require the preparation of a Final SWQCP for the proposed Project that specifies the site design, source control, and volume reduction measures, and LID and treatment control BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff, and preparation and implementation of a Maintenance Plan to ensure that the controls detailed in the Final SWQCP are operated and maintained as intended. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that operational impacts related to on-site or offsite erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (Less Than Significant)
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06077C0470F (effective October 16, 2009),83 the Project site is located within Zone X, Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee.

Construction. As discussed above, Project construction would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and the City’s Municipal Code, which require preparation of a SWPPP that would specify Construction BMPs to control and direct on-site surface runoff to ensure that Project construction does not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff or impede or redirect flood flows in manner that would result in on-site or off-site flooding. With implementation of a SWPPP and associated Construction BMPs, construction impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff or impeding or redirecting flood flows in a manner that would result in on-site or off-site flooding would be less than significant.

Operation. As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed Project would increase the total impervious surface area at the Project site, which would increase stormwater runoff and could potentially result in flooding. However, as discussed above, the proposed LID BMPs (bioretention basins) would capture and treat stormwater runoff consistent with the requirements of the Regionwide MS4 Permit. In addition, the majority of the Project site would remain pervious, similar to existing conditions. Compliance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit would ensure that operational activities would not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff or impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding, and impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, with adherence to existing regulatory requirements, the proposed Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site or significantly impede or redirect flood flows. 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)
Construction. As discussed above, Project construction would comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit and the City’s Municipal Code, which require preparation of a SWPPP that would specify Construction BMPs to control and direct on-site surface runoff to ensure that stormwater runoff from the construction site does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system and does not discharge polluted runoff during construction activities. With adherence to existing regulatory requirements, construction impacts related to exceeding the capacity of the stormwater drainage system or additional polluted runoff would be less than significant.
83 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06077C0470F.

October 16.

EXHIBIT 1
Operation. As previously discussed, the Project site is undeveloped and stormwater at the Project site either infiltrates the Project site, sheet flows to one of the five ponds within the Project site, or sheet flows west or south to discharge into Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, or the San Joaquin River. With implementation of the proposed Project, stormwater at the Project site would be directed to bioretention basins and swales, which would treat stormwater before it infiltrates the Project site. The bioretention basins and swales would capture and retain the required DCV for the Project site. The DCV is the volume of stormwater runoff that must be captured and treated by stormwater BMPs. Overflows from the bioretention basins would be discharged to Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, or the San Joaquin River at a rate consistent with the pre-Project conditions, similar to existing conditions and consistent with the Region-wide MS4 Permit. As such, the proposed Project would not connect City-operated stormwater drainage systems and would therefore not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. In addition, the proposed Project would implement operational BMPs, including the proposed bioretention basins and swales, to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff in compliance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit. With adherence to existing regulatory requirements, operational impacts related to the creation or contribution of stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant.

Overall, with adherence to existing regulatory requirements, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (Less Than Significant) Please refer to Section 4.10.c.ii. This impact would be less than significant. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (Less Than Significant)
Flooding. As discussed above, the Project site is located within Zone X, Area with Reduced Flood Risk Due to Levee. During construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that during a rain event, pollutants would be retained on site and would be prevented from reaching downstream receiving waters in accordance with the Construction General Permit and SMC. In addition, additional BMPs would be required, consistent with the Groundwater Discharge Permit, to ensure that floodwaters would not impact the groundwater being pulled and disposed during construction groundwater dewatering.

During operation, the proposed Project would generally maintain the existing drainage pattern of the Project site, and development would include catch basins and inlets with storm filters, bioretention basins, and swales that would ensure that pollutants would be treated and prevented from reaching downstream receiving waters, consistent with the requirements of the Region-wide MS4 Permit.

Compliance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit, would ensure the proposed Project would not result in the release of pollutants due to flooding during operation. In addition, the Project site would remain predominantly pervious, similar to existing conditions, proposed improvements on the EXHIBIT 1
Project site would not include any new habitable structures, and uses at the Project site would generally generate the same type of pollutants of concern during operation as existing conditions.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a greater risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation from flooding compared to existing conditions.

In addition, according to the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams, the Project site is not located within a dam inundation area.84 Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the release of pollutants due to flooding caused by a dam failure.

Tsunami. The Project site is over 67 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is separated by several mountain ranges. Based on the distance from the Pacific Ocean and the presence of an intervening mountain range, the Project site would not be susceptible to inundation from a tsunami, and there is no risk of a release of pollutants from the Project site.

Seiches. Seiches are oscillations in enclosed bodies of water (e.g., a bay, lake, or harbor) that are caused by a number of factors, most often wind or seismic activity. Seiches go up and down or oscillate and do not progress forward like standard ocean waves. The nearest sizeable, enclosed body of water to the Project site is the Clinton Court Forebay, approximately 14 miles southwest of the Project site. Given the distance of the nearest large standing body of water from the Project site, there is no risk of a release of pollutants from the Project site due to seiche-related flooding.

With adherence to existing regulatory requirements (including the development of bioretention basins, swales, and associated on-site stormwater infrastructure at the Project site that would treat stormwater and address the volume and rate of stormwater flows), and because the Project site is not within a tsunami or seiche zone, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the release of pollutants from a flood, dam inundation, tsunami, or seiche. Impacts would be less than significant.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (Less Than Significant) The Project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB, which has adopted a Basin Plan85 that designates beneficial uses for all surface and groundwater within its jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. As previously discussed, the Project would comply with existing NPDES permit requirements, including the Construction General Permit, Groundwater Discharge Permit, and Region-wide MS4 Permit, and would implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed Project would not degrade or alter water quality, which would cause the receiving waters to exceed the 84 California Department of Water Resources. n.d.-a. Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher. Division of Safety Dams. Website: https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2 (accessed April 2025). 85 California RWQCB, Central Valley Region. 1975. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fifth Edition, the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. July. Revised February 2019 with Approved Amendments.

EXHIBIT 1
water quality objectives or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the proposed Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Basin Plan.

Construction and operational impacts related to a conflict with the Basin Plan would be less than significant.

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted in September 2014. SGMA requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft of groundwater basins. SGMA requires the formation of local GSAs, which are required to adopt GSPs to manage the sustainability of the groundwater basins. The Project site is located within the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, which identified by the Department of Water Resources as a high-priority basin86 The City of Stockton is a recognized GSA pursuant to the SGMA and a member of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (GWA), a joint powers authority that consists of 16 GSAs that overlie the subbasin and is responsible for the management of the GSP. In 2019, GWA completed the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin GSP to achieve groundwater sustainability in the subbasin by 2040. In general, the GSP shows that groundwater elevations have declined since the 1950s. Water quality issues were detected on the west side of the subbasin, some of which are from wells underlying the city. As discussed above, the GSP prepared for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin also identified 23 projects for potential development, along with management actions, that either replace groundwater use or supplement groundwater supplies to meet current and future water demands. The list of 23 potential projects included in the GSP represents a variety of project types, including direct and in-lieu recharge, intra-basin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and stormwater reuse, to be undertaken by the member agencies. Implementation of the projects and management actions provided in the GSP would ensure sustainable management of the subbasin. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project would not preclude implementation of the projects and management actions provided in the GSP.

As previously discussed, the depth to groundwater at the Project site ranges from 2.4 to 7 feet bgs.

Excavation at the Project site during construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to extend to a maximum depth of 10 feet bgs for construction of the proposed skate park. Therefore, groundwater dewatering would likely be required during Project construction. However, groundwater dewatering would be localized and temporary, and the volume of groundwater removed would not be substantial. In addition, extracted groundwater would be discharged to Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, or the San Joaquin River following testing and treatment (if necessary), which would facilitate recharge to the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Therefore, construction impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge would be less than significant.

In addition, although implementation of the proposed Project would increase water use, which would be partially obtained from groundwater, Cal Water’s UWMP indicates Cal Water does not expect any water supply shortages in future years, even in a drought. A drought risk assessment showed that even in 5 consecutive dry years, Cal Water has enough supply to meet customer 86 California Department of Water Resources. n.d.-c. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Website:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed April 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
demands. Cal Water also has the ability to put measures in place to reduce demand in response to water shortages, if necessary. Further, the proposed Project would include bioretention basins and swales to collect, treat, and filter stormwater at the Project site in accordance with the Region-wide MS4 Permit. Therefore, the proposed Project would continue to facilitate groundwater infiltration and recharge at the Project site.

For these reasons, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, with adherence to existing regulatory requirements, construction and operational impacts related to conflict with, or obstruction of, water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1

4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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? a. Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact) The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For instance, the construction of an interstate highway through an existing community may constrain travel from one side of the community to another; similarly, such construction may also impair travel to areas outside the community.

The Project site was previously developed as a golf course and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, recreational uses, waterways (e.g., Walker Slough and French Camp Slough) and undeveloped land. The proposed Project would result in the construction of new recreational facilities, multi-use fields, and other active (e.g., basketball courts and a play area) and passive (e.g., community garden and trails/paths) recreation facilities. With implementation of Phase 1, access to the Project site would be via an existing road/driveway, with a new park entry proposed at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Georgia Avenue and another on Houston Avenue east of Georgia Avenue. Subsequent phases would include expansion of the existing parking area/entry at the intersection of Houston Avenue and Fresno Avenue and development of a new parking area/entry in the western portion of the park near West 8th Street. However, the proposed Project would not construct a physical feature or remove any means of access that would impair mobility within an existing community. Instead, implementation of the proposed Project would provide an important recreation resource as well as bicycle and pedestrian pathways to enhance activity within the park and provide connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the physical division of an established community or adversely affect the continuity of land use in the vicinity, and no impact would occur. b. Would the project 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 within a suburban area in Stockton. The Project site encompasses a 192.71-acre property that was previously developed as a golf course. The site is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, recreational uses, waterways (e.g., Walker Slough and French Camp Slough), and undeveloped land.

EXHIBIT 1
The Project site is located within the City of Stockton and is subject to the land use and zoning designations of the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (2018) and relevant portions of the City of Stockton Municipal Code Zoning Regulations Title 16 (2008, as amended through 2025). Additionally, the Project site is located within the Secondary Zone of the Delta Plan.87 Following is an evaluation of the proposed Project’s consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing this section, it is important to understand that the determination of whether a project is consistent with a specific policy can be subjective and that consistency determinations are best made with a broad understanding of the often-competing policy objectives in a planning document. As a result, policy consistency determinations are ultimately made by the local decision-making body. As previously discussed, the City is the lead agency for environmental review. Therefore, the City Council would determine the proposed Project’s consistency with the City’s applicable plans and policies. The analysis in this chapter is intended to provide decision makers with a list of the goals and policies that are pertinent to the proposed Project and the Project site, as well as a recommendation regarding whether or not the proposed Project would directly conflict with relevant planning directives. These recommendations are intended to supplement decision makers’ own understanding of the various policy considerations. A conflict with an applicable policy is not itself a significant impact unless it results in a significant environmental impact, as described below.

Per CEQA Guidelines, policy conflicts do not, in and of themselves, constitute significant environmental impacts. Policy conflicts are considered to be environmental impacts only when they would result in direct physical impacts or where those conflicts relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. As such, associated physical environmental impacts are discussed in this Initial Study under specific topical sections.

General Plan. The City’s General Plan designates the site as Parks and Recreation (PR). The PR land use designation provides for City and County parks, golf courses, marinas, community centers, public and quasi-public uses, and other similar and compatible uses.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the following applicable General Plan goals and policies as discussed below.

Goal LU-3: Authentic Neighborhoods. Protect and preserve the authentic qualities of Stockton’s neighborhoods and historic districts.

Policy LU-3.2. Retain narrower roadways and reallocate right-of-way space to preserve street trees and mature landscaping and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle network within and adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU-3.3. Maintain or expand the currently available amount of public park and open space area in each neighborhood.
87 Delta Stewardship Council. 2013. Delta Plan. Website: https://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta-plan/ (accessed February 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
Goal LU-5: Protected Resources. Protect, maintain, and restore natural and cultural resources.

Policy LU-5.1. Integrate nature into the city and maintain Stockton’s urban forest.

Policy LU-5.2. Protect natural resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat, scenic areas, open space areas, agricultural lands, parks, and other cultural/historic resources from encroachment or destruction by incompatible development.

Policy LU-5.3. Define discrete and clear city edges that preserve agriculture, open space, and scenic views.

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

Goal TR-2: Active Community. Provide an integrated transportation system that enables safe and efficient movement of people and goods for all modes of travel.

Policy TR-2.1. Develop safe and interconnected bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including along “complete” streets that target multiple travel modes.

Goal SAF-1: Safe Community. Create a safe and welcoming environment in all areas of the city at all times of day.

Policy SAF-1.2. Reduce community violence and crime by fostering community connectivity, creating a sense of place, and encouraging social interactions between residents, employees, and business owners.

Policy SAF-1.3. Ensure that City-managed spaces and facilities support a feeling of safety for users.

Goal CH-1: Healthy People. Support the ability of the entire community to maintain healthy lifestyles.

Policy CH-1.1. Maintain walking and wheeling facilities and parks that are safe and accessible in all areas of Stockton.

Policy CH-1.3. Encourage activities that support local agriculture, such as farmers’ markets, urban farming and community gardening.

Goal CH-2: Restored Communities. Restore disadvantaged communities to help them become more vibrant and cohesive neighborhoods with high-quality affordable housing, a range of employment options, enhanced social and health services, and active public spaces.

Policy CH-2.1. Prioritize maintenance of streets and improvement of sidewalks, parks, and other infrastructure in areas of the city that historically have been comparatively underserved by public facilities, including implementation of complete streets where needed, especially in conjunction with infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects.

EXHIBIT 1
Goal CH-5: Sustainability Leadership. Exhibit leadership in sustainability for the Central Valley and beyond.

Policy CH-5.1. Accommodate a changing climate through adaptation, mitigation, and resiliency planning and projects.

The proposed Project would include redevelopment of the existing green space with a mix of fields, facilities, spaces for sports and learning, and other recreational activities, and would serve community needs and provide opportunities for increased physical activity and social interaction.

Additionally, the proposed Project would be limited to low-impact development/habitat restoration in the western portion of the park, which would support the City’s goals to preserve and protect its natural resources. The proposed Project would be compatible with the mix and intensity of uses within the vicinity of the site, which generally consist of commercial, residential, and recreational uses, and would include improved bicycle and pedestrian access within the site that would provide connections to the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City of Stockton General Plan.

Zoning Ordinance. The Project site is within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF district is intended for application to areas appropriate for a variety of public and quasi-public land uses, including facilities and lands owned by the City, County, State, or federal governments, as well as religious facilities. The PF zoning district is consistent with the Parks and Recreation land use designation of the City’s General Plan. The proposed Project would include the redevelopment of the former golf course as a park, which is a permitted use under the City’s zoning ordinance. Site plan review is required for new construction or for a change to a more intensive use. Further, the proposed Project would contribute to implementing the City of Stockton General Plan goals and policies related to the provision of parks and recreation facilities.

Delta Plan. The Delta Plan, adopted by the Delta Stewardship Council on May 16, 2013, is a comprehensive long-term management plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The Delta Plan includes rules and recommendations that support the State’s goals for the Delta to: (1) improve water supply; (2) protect and restore a vibrant and healthy Delta ecosystem; and (3) preserve, protect, and enhance the unique agricultural, cultural, and recreational characteristics of the Delta.

The 14 regulatory policies in the Delta Plan are enforceable through regulatory authority included in the Delta Reform Act, enacted as part of Senate Bill X7. These policies include a requirement for Delta Plan consistency findings for “covered actions.” The Delta Plan covers the Legal Delta and Suisun Marsh, an area west of the central part of the Legal Delta.

Delta Plan Policy DP P1 requires that any new residential, commercial, or industrial development must be limited to areas designated for development in city or county general plans as of the date of the Delta Plan’s adoption (May 16, 2013), as reflected in Appendices 6 and 7 of the Delta Plan regulations. Because the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the proposed Project is consistent with this key Delta Plan policy. As described throughout this Initial Study, the proposed Project would not reduce water supply, would include restoration/mitigation to enhance the site’s natural resources, and would provide a new recreational amenity for the community.

Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the policies outlined in the Delta Plan.

EXHIBIT 1
Project impacts are less than significant or limited to the short-term construction phase of the Project described in relevant sections of this Initial Study. With the mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study, the proposed Project is consistent with all the relevant regulations and policies contained in these documents. No additional mitigation measures would be required. The proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This impact would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1

4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
a. Would the project 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? (No Impact) Minerals are any naturally occurring chemical element or compound, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances, including, but not limited to, coal, peat, and oil-bearing rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas, and petroleum.

Rock, sand, gravel, and earth are also considered minerals by the DOC when extracted by surface mining operations. The Project site is located in a developed, suburban area of Stockton and is not within a designated mineral resource zone as defined by the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA).
88 Additionally, according to the DOC’s Division of Mine Reclamation, there are no active mines in Stockton.
89 The nearest mines in San Joaquin County occur
in the cities of Lathrop and Manteca and include the open sand pits located approximately 8.6 and

10.25 miles southeast of the Project site, respectively.90 Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the State, and there would be no impact related to the availability of mineral resources. b. Would the project 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? (No Impact) Please refer to Section 4.12.a. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of any known locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, no impact related to the availability of a mineral resources recovery site would occur. 88 California Department of Conservation (DOC). n.d.-a. California Geological Survey, SMARA Mineral Land Classification Special Report 199. Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/ Publications/SMARA-Publications-California-a11y.pdf (accessed March 2025). 89 DOC. n.d.-d. Division of Mine Reclamation, Mines Online Mapper. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html (accessed March 2025). 90 Ibid.

EXHIBIT 1

4.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 2 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?
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound.

Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a tenfold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness; and similarly, each 10 dB decrease in sound level is perceived as half as loud. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted sound level (dBA), and this scale 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 24-hour sound measurements which better represent how humans are more sensitive to sound at night.

As noise spreads from a source, it loses energy so that the farther away the noise receiver is from the noise source, the lower the perceived noise level would be. Geometric spreading causes the sound level to attenuate or be reduced, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in the noise level for each doubling of distance from a single point source of noise to the noise sensitive receptor of concern.

There are many ways to rate noise for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting humans also accounts for the annoying effects of sound. Equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) is the total sound energy of time varying noise over a sample period. However, the predominant rating scales for human communities in the State of California are the Leq, the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day-night average level (Ldn) based on A-weighted decibels. CNEL is the time varying noise over a 24-hour period, with a 5 dBA weighting factor applied to the hourly Leq for noises occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (defined as relaxation hours) and 10 dBA weighting factor applied to noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (defined as sleeping hours). Ldn is similar to the CNEL scale, but without the adjustment for events occurring during the evening relaxation hours. CNEL and Ldn are within 1 dBA of each other and are normally EXHIBIT 1
exchangeable. The noise adjustments are added to the noise events occurring during the more sensitive hours.

Regulatory Framework. A project would result in a significant noise effect if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of applicable regulatory agencies, including, as appropriate, the City of Stockton.

City of Stockton. The City of Stockton General Plan addresses noise. The General Plan contains goals and policies for noise control and abatement in the city. The goals and policies address noise in relation to land use planning, the noise environment, transportation noise, construction and industrial noise, population and housing noise, and public health and safety. General noise goals for Stockton aim to attain a healthier and quieter environment for all citizens while maintaining a reasonable level of economic progress and development.

The City has established land use compatibility guidelines for determining acceptable noise levels for specified land uses as shown in Table 4.H. The land use compatibility guidelines are intended to be an advisory resource when considering changes in land use and policies, such as zoning modifications. For residential uses, the normally acceptable allowable noise exposure is 60 dBA Ldn. For playgrounds and neighborhood parks, such as the project, the normally acceptable allowable noise exposure is 70 dBA Ldn. The City addresses noise impacts in Chapter

16.60, Noise Standards, of the Municipal Code. Section 16.60.020, Activities exempt from noise regulations, exempts activities conducted on parks and playgrounds and school grounds, between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., except for additional hours that may be granted by the City Manager.

Section 16.60.030, Activities deemed violations of this chapter, prohibits construction noise, including operating or causing the operation of tools or equipment on private property used in alteration, construction, demolition, drilling, or repair work between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., so that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities.

Section 16.60.040, Standards, sets noise limits for land use-related projects that will create new noise sources or expand existing noise sources, and shall be required to mitigate their noise levels so that the resulting noise (1) does not adversely impact noise-sensitive land uses; and (2) does not exceed the standards specified in Table 4.I.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.H: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure By Land Use Table 4.I: Land Use Related Noise Standard
Noise Level Descriptor Outdoor Activity Areas
Day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Hourly equivalent sound level (Leq), dB 55 45
Maximum sound level (Lmax), dB 75 65
Source: City of Stockton (2024).

Notes:
1 The noise standard shall be applied at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards shall be applied on the receiving side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures. 2 Each of the noise level standards specified shall be decreased by five for impulse noise, simple-tone noise, or noise consisting primarily of speech or music.
dB = decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
EXHIBIT 1
Federal Transit Administration. Because the City does not have construction noise level limits, construction noise was assessed using criteria from the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.91 Table 4.J shows the FTA’s Detailed Analysist Construction Noise Criteria based on the composite noise levels per construction phase.

Table 4.J: Detailed Assessment Construction Noise Criteria Land Use Daytime 1-hour Leq (dBA)
Residential 80
Commercial 85
Industrial 90
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018). dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
California Department of Transportation. Vibration standards included in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual92 (Caltrans Manual) are used in this analysis for groundborne vibration impacts on human annoyance and building damage. The criteria for environmental impact from groundborne vibration are based on the maximum levels for a single event and the root-meansquare (RMS) vibration level. Table 4.K provides the criteria for assessing the potential for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.

Table 4.K: Vibration Criteria for Annoyance Assessment
Human Response Vibration Level (RMS in/sec)
Barely perceptible 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.10
Severe 0.40
Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2020).

Caltrans = California Department of Transportation
in/sec = inches per second RMS = root-mean-square
Table 4.L lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as suggested in the Caltrans Manual. Caltrans’ guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.5 inch per second (in/sec) in peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe for newer residential structures and modern industrial or commercial buildings and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
91 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual FTA Report No. 0123. September. 92 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.L: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Structure/Condition PPV (in/sec)
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.25
Older residential structures 0.30
New residential structures 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 0.50
Source: Table 19, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2020).

Caltrans = California Department of Transportation
in/sec = inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
Existing Noise Environment. Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others.

Examples of these include residential areas, educational facilities, hospitals, childcare facilities, and senior housing. The Project site is generally surrounded by residential uses. The closest sensitive receptors are the residences located north, approximately 30 feet from the Project site boundary.

Existing noise sources at the Project site are primarily associated with traffic on surrounding roadways, including I-5 and Houston Avenue.

To assess existing noise levels, LSA conducted two long-term noise measurements in the vicinity of the Project site. The long-term (24-hour) noise level measurements were conducted on April 22 and 23, 2025, using two Larson Davis Spark 706RC Dosimeters. Table 4.M provides a summary of the measured hourly noise levels and calculated Ldn level from the long-term noise level measurements.

Noise measurement sheets are provided in Appendix C. Figure 4-2 shows the long-term monitoring locations.

Table 4.M: Long-Term 24-Hour Ambient Noise Monitoring Results Location
Daytime Noise
Levels1
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels2
(dBA Leq)
Daily Noise
Levels
(dBA Ldn)
LT-1
734 Houston Avenue, Stockton, CA 95206. In
a tree, approximately 53 feet south of the
Houston Avenue centerline and 1,240 feet
west of Manthey Road.

57.2–62.2 50.5–58.0 62.4
LT-2
2772 South Fresno Avenue, Stockton, CA
95206. In a tree, approximately 23 feet
south of the Houston Avenue centerline and
4,170 feet southeast of SR-4.

55.2–61.6 48.3–57.8 61.6
Source: Compiled by LSA (2025).

Note: Noise measurements were conducted from April 22 to April 23, 2025, starting at 3:00 p.m. 1 Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. dBA = A-weighted decibels
ft = foot/feet
Ldn = day-night average sound level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
SR = State Route
EXHIBIT 1
SOURCE: Google Earth 2025
FEET
0 450 900
FIGURE 4-2
Noise Monitoring Locations
I:\2025\20252166\G\Noise_Locs.ai (6/2/2025)
Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Houston Ave
W 8th St
5 Lever Blvd
S Fresno Ave
Dry Creek Way
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary
LT-X Long-term Noise Monitoring Location
LT-2
LT-1
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
a. Would the project result in 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 with Mitigation Incorporated)
Construction-Period Impacts. Construction of the proposed Project could include construction activities that would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the Project site vicinity.

Maximum construction noise levels would be short-term, generally intermittent depending on the construction phase, and variable depending on receiver distance from the active construction zone.

The duration of noise impacts generally would be from 1 day to several days, depending on the phase of construction. Project construction would occur for approximately 18 months. The level and types of noise impacts that would occur during construction are described below.

Short-term noise impacts would occur during paving and site preparation activities. Table 4.N lists maximum noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments for typical construction equipment, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.

Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels currently in the Project area but would no longer occur once construction of the Project is completed.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed Project. The first type involves construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed Project, which would incrementally increase noise levels on roads leading to the site. As shown in Table 4.N, there would be a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential at a maximum level of 84 dBA maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) with trucks passing from 50 feet.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, construction, paving, and architectural coating on the Project site. Construction is performed in discrete steps, or phases, each with its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on site. Therefore, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Average maximum noise levels range up to 91 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation and grading phases tend to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving machinery is the noisiest construction equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.N: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Description Acoustical Usage Factor (%) Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) at 50 Feet1 Backhoes 40 80
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Compressor 40 80
Cranes 16 85
Dozers 40 85
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flat Bed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-end Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Impact Pile Drivers 20 95
Jackhammers 20 85
Pick-up Truck 40 55
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Pumps 50 77
Rock Drills 20 85
Rollers 20 85
Scrapers 40 85
Tractors 40 84
Welder 40 73
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2006).

Note: Noise levels reported in this table are rounded to the nearest whole number. 1 Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from the CA/T program to be consistent with the City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project.

CA/T = Central Artery/Tunnel
FHWA = Federal Highway Administration
Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level
As identified above, the Project site is generally surrounded by residential uses. The closest sensitive receptors during Phase 1 include the residences located north of the Project site approximately 730 feet from the center of Project site. The 730-foot distance would decrease the noise level by approximately 23 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet (88 dBA Leq) from the construction activity. The closest sensitive receptors during proposed subsequent phases include the residences located north of the Project site approximately 530 feet from the center of the Project site. The 530-foot distance would decrease the noise level by approximately 20 dBA compared to the noise level measured at 50 feet (88 dBA Leq) from the construction activity.

Therefore, the closest off-site receptors may be subject to short-term construction noise levels of 65 dBA Leq and 68 dBA Leq during Phase 1 and subsequent phases, respectively, when construction is occurring at the center of the Project site. These predicted noise levels would only occur when all construction equipment is operating simultaneously; therefore, the noise levels are assumed to be rather conservative in nature. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once Project construction is completed.

EXHIBIT 1
Table 4.O shows the nearest sensitive uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, and composite noise levels expected during construction. These noise level projections do not consider intervening topography or barriers.

Table 4.O: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 ft1
Phase 1 Subsequent Phases
Distance
(ft)
Composite
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Distance (ft)
Composite
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Residential Use (North) 88 730 65 530 68
Residential Use (South) 1,180 61 1.390 60
Source: Compiled by LSA (2025). 1 The composite construction noise level represents the site preparation and grading phases, which are expected to result in the greatest noise levels compared to other phases.
dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
ft = foot/feet
Compliance with the allowed construction hours in the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that construction noise does not disturb residents during typical sleeping hours or during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). In addition, the proposed Project would implement several best practices for reducing construction noise, including, but not limited to, maximizing the distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities, equipping construction equipment with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers, and establishing a noise disturbance coordinator for the proposed Project. These best practices are included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1, provided below. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, all feasible and reasonable measures to reduce construction noise would be implemented, and a less than significant impact would occur.

Mitigation MeasureNOI-1 Construction Noise and Vibration. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of Stockton (City) Director of Community Development Department, or designee, shall verify that grading and construction plans include the following requirements:
• Ensure that the greatest distance between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities has been achieved.
• Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained noise mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
• Construction staging areas shall be located away from off-site sensitive uses during the later phases of Project development. • The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away EXHIBIT 1
from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site whenever feasible.
• The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where
feasible.
• A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet, shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.” • A “noise disturbance coordinator” shall be established. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall be required to implement reasonable measures to reduce noise levels. All signs posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator.

Operational Noise Impacts. The Project’s potential to generate long-term noise impacts from both traffic and stationary noise sources is discussed below.

Traffic Noise Impact. Motor vehicles with their distinctive noise characteristics are the dominant noise source in the Project vicinity. The amount of noise varies according to many factors, such as traffic volume, vehicle mix (percentage of cars and trucks), average traffic speed, and distance from the observer. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in new daily trips on local roadways in the Project site vicinity. A characteristic of sound is that a doubling of a noise source is required in order to result in a perceptible (3 dBA or greater) increase in the resulting noise level.

Trip generation rates for the Project were based on the trip generation analysis, which indicates that the Project would generate approximately 575 net new trips. The adjacent Houston Avenue, according to the City’s General Plan, is considered a collector street; collector streets typically carry up to 10,000 vehicles per day. Project trips would represent a small increase in noise level (up to approximately 0.2 dBA CNEL) based on the following equation:

𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖 (𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) = 10 ∗ lo g10 �
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑉𝑉
Future Volume �
Therefore, Project daily trips would not result in a perceptible noise increase along any roadway segment in the Project vicinity, and impacts associated with traffic noise would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
Stationary Noise Impact. The proposed Project would renovate the land currently not in use, which could result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project area associated with outdoor play and parking lot noise. Implementation of Phase 1 of the proposed Project could result in the shifting of noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site associated with proposed recreational improvements, including the additional basketball courts, a skate park, a community garden, a splash pad, and others. Implementation of subsequent phases of the proposed Project could result in a similar shift in noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site with implementation of proposed improvements, including the event lawn, event staging area, community building, and pickleball courts. The potential noise impacts associated with these proposed facilities are described below.

Community Building. It is expected that the proposed community building would install heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. It is expected that the equipment installed would comply with the City’s noise standards of 55 dBA Leq. The specific design of on-site mechanical equipment associated with the proposed structure has not yet been determined. However, mechanical equipment systems would typically be shielded from direct public exposure and usually housed on rooftops, within equipment rooms, or within exterior enclosures. The use of building mechanical systems is typically intermittent, would likely be limited to the daytime hours of operation, and would be largely masked by ambient traffic noise levels.

Outdoor Facilities. The proposed uses are expected to be similar to those of the existing community center. Any instances in which noise levels generated would result in a disturbance, the City’s Municipal Code would be utilized to minimize the operational impacts classified as nuisance issues. Additionally, typical activities at the event lawn and multipurpose lawn/fields are not expected to generate excessive noise levels and would only occur during daytime hours. The closest outdoor facility (the event Lawn/Group Gathering) would be approximately 400 feet from the closest sensitive receptor (residences to the north). To achieve compliance with the City’s threshold of 55 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive receptors, noise levels at the outdoor patios and amphitheater should not exceed 65 dBA at 50 feet.

Pickleball Activities. The proposed Project would generate noise from pickleball activities.

The closest off-site uses are the single-family residences approximately 200 feet north of the acoustical center of the pickleball courts. The reduction of noise levels from pickleball activities would be provided primarily by distance attenuation to off-site uses.

Assuming each court is hosting a doubles game, with each court generating an average noise level of 64.9 dBA Leq at 25 feet, based on measurements conducted by LSA for a similar pickleball project, pickleball activity noise levels are estimated to approach 63 dBA Leq at the residential uses approximately 200 feet away from the acoustical center of the pickleball courts. This noise level would exceed the City’s exterior daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) noise standards of 55 dBA Leq. Because the design of the proposed pickleball courts is not yet known, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required to ensure that the future design of the pickleball courts includes a noise barrier to reduce the noise levels generated during pickleball activities to a less than significant level.

EXHIBIT 1
Mitigation Measure NOI-2 As part of the final design for the subsequent phase(s) of development, the City of Stockton (City) shall require
installation of a noise barrier along the northern and
eastern boundaries of the proposed pickleball courts. The noise barrier may consist of any solid material, without gaps or holes, that meets a minimum density of 4 pounds/square foot, or is sound rated and has a minimum Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. The noise barrier shall provide noise reduction sufficient to ensure that noise levels at the nearest residential uses would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime noise standard of 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent continuous sound level (Leq).

With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which requires installation of a noise barrier around the pickleball courts, potential long-term noise levels associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely perceived as a problem outdoors. Vibration energy propagates from a source, through intervening soil and rock layers, to the foundations of nearby buildings. The vibration then propagates from the foundation throughout the remainder of the structure. Building vibration may be perceived by the occupants as the motion of building surfaces, rattling of items on shelves or hanging on walls, or as a low-frequency rumbling noise. The rumbling noise is caused by the vibrating walls, floors, and ceilings radiating sound waves.

Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by 10 dB or less. This is an order of magnitude below the damage threshold for normal buildings.

Typical sources of groundborne vibration are construction activities (e.g., pavement breaking, operating heavy-duty earthmoving equipment), rail activity, and occasional traffic on rough roads.

In general, groundborne vibration from standard construction practices is only a potential issue when within 25 feet of sensitive uses. Groundborne vibration levels from construction activities very rarely reach levels that can damage structures; however, these levels are perceptible near the active construction site. With the exception of older buildings built prior to the 1950s or buildings of historic significance, potential structural damage from heavy construction activities rarely occurs.

When roadways are smooth, vibration from traffic (even heavy trucks) is rarely perceptible.

The roadways surrounding the Project area, including Houston Avenue, are paved, smooth, and unlikely to cause significant groundborne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems of buses and other on-road vehicles make it unusual for on-road vehicles to cause groundborne noise or vibration problems. It is, therefore, assumed that no such vehicular vibration impacts would occur, and no vibration impact analysis of on-road vehicles is necessary.

EXHIBIT 1
The following vibration impact analysis discusses the level of human annoyance using vibration levels in RMS and assesses the potential for structural damages using vibration levels in PPV (in/sec) because vibration levels calculated in RMS are best for characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best used to characterize potential for damage.

Construction Vibration. Construction of the proposed Project could result in the generation of groundborne vibration. Table 4.P shows the PPV and RMS values at 25 feet from a construction vibration source. As shown in Table 4.P, bulldozers and other heavy-tracked construction equipment (except for pile drivers and vibratory rollers) generate approximately 0.089 PPV (in/sec) or 0.062 RMS (in/sec) of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.93 At this level, groundborne vibration would result in potential annoyance to residents and workers but would not cause any damage to the buildings. Construction vibration, similar to vibration from other sources, would not have any significant effects on outdoor activities (e.g., those outside of residences and commercial/office buildings in the Project vicinity).

Outdoor site preparation for the proposed Project is expected to include the use of bulldozers and loaded trucks. The greatest levels of vibration are anticipated to occur during the site preparation phase. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels.

Table 4.P: Vibration Source Amplitudes for Construction Equipment Equipment Reference PPV/LV at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) RMS (in/sec)
1 Pile Driver (Impact), Typical 0.644 0.451
Pile Driver (Sonic), Typical 0.170 0.119
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.147
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.062
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.062
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.062
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.053
Jackhammer 0.035 0.025
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.002
Sources: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2018). 1 RMS vibration velocity is 70 percent of maximum PPV.

Caltrans = California Department of Transportation
ft = foot/feet
in/sec = inches per second
PPV = peak particle velocity
RMS = root-mean-square
The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest off-site buildings and the Project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the Project boundary) because vibration impacts occur normally within the buildings. The formula for vibration transmission is provided below. The material dampening coefficient, “n,” ranges between 1.1 and 1.5 depending on soil type and distance from equipment.

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)n
93 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual FTA Report No. 0123. September.

EXHIBIT 1
The reference distance for potential vibration annoyance impacts at nearest receptors is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses, while the reference distance for potential construction vibration damage impacts at the nearest receptor is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures. Tables 4.Q and 4.R provide the estimated construction vibration levels for the nearest receptors to the project site.

Table 4.Q: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (RMS) at 25 ft1
Phase 1 Subsequent Phases
Distance (ft) 2 Vibration Level
(RMS) Distance (ft) 2 Vibration Level(RMS)
Residential Use (North) 0.062 730 0.002 530 0.002
Residential Use (South) 1,180 0.001 1,390 0.001
Source: Compiled by LSA (2025). 1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The assessment distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the center of construction activities to surrounding uses.
ft = foot/feet
RMS = root-mean-square
Table 4.R: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Impacts at Nearest Receptor Receptor (Location)
Reference
Vibration Level
(PPV) at 25 ft1
Phase 1 Subsequent Phases
Distance (ft)2 Vibration Level
(PPV) Distance (ft)2 Vibration Level (PPV)
Residential Use (North) 0.089 70 0.019 70 0.019
Residential Use (South) 440 0.001 1,000 <0.001
Source: Compiled by LSA (2025). 1 The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment used during construction. 2 The assessment distance is associated with the peak condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction activities to surrounding structures.
ft = foot/feet
PPV = peak particle velocity
Based on the information provided in Table 4.Q, vibration levels at the closest residential uses to the north are expected to approach 0.002 RMS during Phase 1 and subsequent phases, which is below the 0.04 RMS threshold for annoyance. Project construction would not result in vibration levels that would typically result in human annoyance. Therefore, this level of groundborne vibration would be less than significant for human annoyance.

Based on the information provided in Table 4.R, vibration levels during Phase 1 are expected to approach 0.019 PPV at the closest residential uses to the north. This vibration level would not exceed the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold considered safe for newer residential structures and modern industrial or commercial buildings, which would result in a less than significant impact. Vibration EXHIBIT 1
levels at all other buildings would be lower. Therefore, construction would not result in any vibration damage, and impacts would be less than significant.
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 2 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? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The closest airport to the Project site is Stockton Metropolitan Airport, which is located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Project site. Based on Figure 4-2 of the City’s General Plan, the Project site is located within the Airport Influence Area (Zone 8) for Stockton Municipal Airport.

According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Municipal Airport,94 there are no limits on the non-residential density intensity within this zone. Although aircraft-related noise is occasionally audible on the Project site, the site does not lie within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contours of Stockton Municipal Airport. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels due to the proximity of a public airport. This impact would be less than significant.
94 Coffman Associates, Inc. 2016. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update for Stockton Metropolitan Airport. May. (Amended February 2018).

EXHIBIT 1

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
a. Would the project 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)? (No Impact)
The proposed Project would renovate the former golf course for use as park. Existing City park staff or their hired maintenance contractors would operate and maintain park facilities. No increase in employment is anticipated as a result of Project implementation. No new housing, commercial, or industrial space would be developed as part of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not result in the conversion of adjacent land uses or provide access to previously inaccessible areas.

It would not provide additional major infrastructure or increase the capacity of the existing water system. Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth. No impact would occur.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The Project site was previously developed as a golf course, and no permanent housing is located on the Project site. As such, development of the proposed Project would not remove existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.

EXHIBIT 1

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. 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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
a. 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:

The following section addresses the proposed Project’s potential effects on: fire service, police service, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Impacts to public services would occur if the proposed Project would increase demand for services such that new or expanded facilities would be required, and construction or operation of these new facilities would cause environmental impacts. i. Fire protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The SFD provides fire protection and life safety services to the Project site. The SFD continuously operates 13 fire stations housing 13 engine companies and 4 truck companies. Each fire station has one fire engine. The truck companies are located at Stations 2, 3, 4, and 7. In addition, the Training Division, and Communications Division are located at the central fire station, Station 2. The Hazardous Material (HazMat) Team is staffed by Station 3, and the Urban Search and Rescue Team is staffed by Station 2. The SFD is currently staffed with 196 sworn firefighters and 46 civilian staff. The SFD responded to 42,613 calls for service in 2023, approximately 42 percent of which were for emergency medical services.95 Primary service to the Project site would be provided by Fire Stations 1 and 5, located approximately 0.73 mile north of the Project site at 1818 South Fresno Avenue and approximately 1 mile southeast of the Project site at 3499 Manthey Road, respectively. 95 City of Stockton. 2023. City of Stockton Annual Comprehensive Financial Report FY 2022-23. Website:
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/stockton/Documents/Government/Budget%20And%20Financial%20Repor ts/Financial%20Reports/ACFR/2023_ACFR.pdf (accessed March 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
Although the proposed Project would renovate a former golf course, the golf course has been closed since 2019, and no activity or use is currently occurring at the Project site. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project, which would include development of new recreation facilities, would result in an increase in the daytime population at the Project site and incrementally increase the demand for emergency fire service and emergency medical services compared to existing conditions. However, as noted in Section 4.17.1.d, the proposed Project would have adequate emergency access.

The SFD would continue providing services to the Project site and would not require additional firefighters to serve the proposed Project. Because proposed improvements would be for recreation and would not include housing units or other structures, the incremental increase in demand for fire protection services would not be significant and would not exceed the physical and financial capabilities of the SFD. The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact on the physical environment due to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection and life safety services, and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing response times to the site or within the city. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on fire protection and safety services and facilities. ii. Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Stockton Police Department (SPD) provides police protection to the Project area and Project site.

The SPD headquarters are located at 22 East Market Street, approximately 2.4 miles northeast of the Project site. SPD currently employs 400 sworn police officers. With a current population of 320,804,
96 existing staffing levels are approximately 1 sworn officer per 800 residents.

The proposed Project would redevelop the former golf course site as a park to serve the surrounding residential neighborhood. Although the proposed Project would renovate the former golf course, the golf course has been closed since 2019, and no activity or use is currently occurring at the Project site. As a result, implementation of the proposed Project, which would include development of new recreation facilities, would result in an increase in the daytime population at the Project site and incrementally increase the demand for police protection compared to existing conditions. However, visitors to the site are anticipated to be those who generally reside within walking distance of the Project site or come primarily from the local neighborhood. Because proposed improvements would be for recreation and would not include housing units or other structures, the incremental increase in demand for police protection services would not be significant and would not exceed the physical and financial capabilities of the Police Department, resulting in the need for new or expanded police protection services. SPD would continue to provide services to the Project site and would not require additional officers to serve the Project site. In addition, provision of the proposed park would enhance the quality of life for the community, which promotes community cohesion and reduces crime. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse impact associated with the provision of additional police facilities or services, and impacts to police services represent a less than significant impact.
96 United States Census Bureau. City of Stockton Quick Facts. Website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ fact/table/stocktoncitycalifornia/POP010220 (accessed March 2025).

EXHIBIT 1
iii. Schools? (No Impact)
The proposed Project does not include the construction of any new residential uses. As described in Section 4.14.1.a, the proposed Project would not substantially induce housing or population growth, either directly or indirectly, within the city. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the number of school-age children in the area. As such, the proposed Project would not increase demand for schools, and no impact would occur. iv. Parks? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Implementation of the proposed Project would improve the site as a park to serve the adjacent residential development. As previously stated, 72 percent of Stockton residents live in areas with less than 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Additionally, 55 percent of residents in the Conway neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods lack access to a vehicle, further limiting their ability to reach recreational spaces.97 The proposed Project would serve an existing demand for park uses for residents of Stockton. The proposed Project would have a beneficial impact, as use at other existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities could be reduced with provision of the proposed park improvements. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with new parks or the need for new parks, which could cause environmental impacts. This impact would be less than significant. v. Other public facilities? (No Impact)
As noted above, the proposed Project does not include the construction of any new residential uses and would not substantially induce housing or population growth, either directly or indirectly, within the city. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in increased demand for other public facilities, such as libraries or community centers. This impact would be less than significant. 97 California Department of Parks and Recreation. Parks for All Californians – Community Fact Finder.