City Council and Concurrent Authorities
September 9, 2025

Alteration (LSA) regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of Stockton
Objective: The City of Stockton proposes to develop a community park on a 192.71- acre former golf course. The expanded Van Buskirk Park would include additional outdoor basketball courts, a new bike and skate park with associated amenities, a community garden, a multi-purpose 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.

Location: The Project site is located at 734 Houston Avenue in the Conway neighborhood of the City 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 Interstate-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 miles to the north via South Fresno Avenue. Direct local access to the Project site is via Houston Avenue.

Timeframe: The proposed Project will be constructed in phases. Phase 1 will occur over an approximately 18-month period and is anticipated to begin in June 2026.

Construction of subsequent phases will depend on available funding. However, for the purposes of the IS/MND, the environmental analysis assumes that all of the recommended facilities will be constructed in a single phase.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act and Native Plant Protection Act A CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained from CDFW if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA or the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), either during construction or over the life of the Project. 









 

Under CESA, “take” means “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” (Fish & G. Code, § 86). CDFW’s issuance of an ITP is A-1 cont.

A-2
A-3
EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

subject to CEQA and to facilitate permit issuance, any project modifications and mitigation measures must be incorporated into the CEQA document analysis, discussion, and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA permit.

Candidate species for listing under CESA are afforded the same legal protections as CESA-listed species while under review (Fish and Game Code § 2608). Candidate species which may occur within the Project area include, but are not limited to, western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), white sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii).

CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance if a project is likely to substantially impact threatened or endangered species. Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064 & 15065.) In addition, pursuant to CEQA, the Lead Agency cannot approve a project unless all impacts to the environment are avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels, or the Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC) for impacts that remain significant despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation. FOC under CEQA, however, does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with the Fish and Game Code.

Fully Protected Species
Fully protected species, such as white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
x Take is for necessary scientific research;
x Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species; x Live capture and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock; or x They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

Specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an ITP for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (Fish & G. Code § 2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the project planning process.










 

Raptors and Other Nesting Birds
A-3
cont.

EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

CDFW has authority over actions that may result in the disturbance or destruction of active bird nest sites or the unauthorized take of birds. Fish and Game Code sections protecting birds, their eggs, and nests include section 3503 (regarding unlawful take, possession, or needless destruction of the nests or eggs of any bird), section 3503.5 (regarding the take, possession, or destruction of any birds-of-prey or their nests or eggs), and section 3513 (regarding unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird).

Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
CDFW requires notification for Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA), pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., for Project activities affecting river, lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat. Notification is required for any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank (including associated riparian or wetland resources); or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake, or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, drainage ditches, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains is generally subject to notification requirements. In addition, infrastructure installed beneath such aquatic features, such as horizontal directional drilling, is also generally subject to notification requirements. Therefore, any impact to the mainstems, tributaries, or floodplains or associated riparian habitat caused by the proposed Project will likely require an LSA notification. CDFW may not execute a final LSA Agreement until it has considered the IS/MND and complied with its responsibilities as a responsible agency under CEQA.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Stockton in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document.

COMMENT 1: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Minimization
Section: Table 4.D: Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Occurring within 1 Mile of the Project site Page 4-18 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 section 3 on pages 4-27 through 4-28.

Issue: Table 4.D in the IS/MND shows burrowing owl as a State Species of Special Concern, however burrowing owl is a candidate species for CESA listing and the 









 

table should be updated to reflect its current status. Additionally, mitigation measure BIO-4 does not adequately mitigate impacts to burrowing owl to less-than-significant.

A-3
cont.

A-4
EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

Specific impact: Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (Preconstruction and Construction Monitoring) section 3, is not sufficiently protective to burrowing owl. While multiple preconstruction surveys are proposed to locate burrowing owls should they be within the project site, a 250-foot no-work buffer around occupied burrows is not large enough to avoid disturbing burrowing owl and could cause nest abandonment, injury or death. Eviction using passive relocation techniques during the breeding and nonbreeding season is proposed and could also cause injury and death and is considered take of burrowing owl.

Why impact would occur: Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (Preconstruction and Construction Monitoring) section 3 includes surveys for burrowing owl, however the two preconstruction surveys described in the measure are inconsistent with the surveys recommended in the Department of Fish and Game [currently CDFW] Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) (CDFW 2012 Staff Report), which requires at least four surveys. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 subsections b and c discuss passive relocation and the preparation of an Exclusion Plan (page 4- 28). CDFW does not consider passive relocation to be a take avoidance measure because the long-term demographic consequences of exclusion techniques have not been thoroughly evaluated, and the survival rate of excluded owls is unknown.

Burrowing owl are dependent on burrows at all times of the year for survival or reproduction, therefore eviction from nesting, roosting, overwintering, and satellite burrows or other sheltering features may lead to indirect impacts or “take” which is prohibited under CESA and Fish and Game Code section 3503.5.

Evidence impact would be significant: The Project may impact burrowing owl utilizing burrows or burrow surrogates on or within up to 500 meters (1,640 feet) of the Project site. The Project could result in burrowing owl nest abandonment, loss of young, reduced health and vigor of owlets, injury or mortality of adults, and permanent habitat loss. Burrowing owl is a candidate species for CESA listing because the species’ population viability and survival are adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; evictions from nesting sites without habitat mitigation; human disturbance; and eradication of California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by burrowing owl for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter (Shuford and Gardali 2008; CDFW 2012 Staff Report). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding populations of burrowing owl have detected declines both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has experienced breeding range retraction (CDFW 2012 Staff Report). Burrowing owl have been 









 

extirpated from 16 percent of their former range and are at risk of being extirpated from another 13 percent of their range in the State (CDFW 2024). Therefore, if burrowing owl are on or within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of the Project site, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a CESA candidate species, A-4
cont.

EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15065, subdivision (a)(1) and 15380.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: To reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to less-than-significant and comply with CESA and Fish and Game Code section 3503 et seq., CDFW recommends including the mitigation measures below in the IS/MND:

Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment and Surveys. A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment and surveys, if habitat is present for burrowing owl prior to construction. The habitat assessment and surveys shall follow the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) methodology (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281284-birds) and the qualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the survey results, and 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 non-breeding or breeding burrowing owls shall be spread over four visits during the non-breeding and breeding season. 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 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 two years of experience implementing the above methodology. The Project shall immediately notify CDFW if burrowing owl is detected and implement a construction avoidance buffer around any detected burrowing owl pursuant to the buffer distances outlined in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012). Any detected owl shall be monitored by the qualified biologist to ensure it is not disturbed during construction activities.

If the Project cannot ensure burrowing owl and their burrows are fully avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW and obtain a CESA take authorization or otherwise demonstrate compliance with CESA. Take is likely to occur and the Project shall 









 

obtain an 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. If A-4
cont.

EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

burrowing owl, or their burrows or burrow surrogates, are detected within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of the Project site during burrowing owl surveys, but not on the Project site, the Project shall consult with CDFW to determine if avoidance is feasible or an ITP is warranted.

Cap Pipes and Hoses: To prevent burrowing owl from sheltering or nesting in exposed material; all construction pipes, culverts, hoses or similar materials greater than two 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.

COMMENT 2: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Avoidance and Minimization Issue: The Project area is within the current known range of Crotch’s bumble bee and suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the species may be present in the Project area. The IS/MND does consider the impact of Project activities on Crotch’s bumble bee in the Project area, however Table 4.D does not identify Crotch’s bumble bee as a candidate species and indicates there is no suitable habitat at the site. Moreover, on page 4-36 the IS/MND discusses Crotch’s bumble bee and recognizes it as a candidate species under CESA (CEQA Guidelines, §15380, subds. (c)(1)). As stated in the IS/MND as candidate species, Crotch’s bumble bee receive the same legal protections afforded to endangered or threatened species.

This section of the IS/MND also states suitable bumble bee foraging and nesting habitat and nectar plants exist within the Project site, which contradicts information provided in Table 4.D. Unauthorized take of Crotch’s bumble bee pursuant to CESA is a violation of California Fish and Game Code section 2080 et seq.

Evidence impact would be significant: Project activities, such as vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities could result in permanent and/or temporary loss of floral resources for Crotch’s bumble bee and other native pollinator species, loss of bumble bee nesting habitat, crushing, or filling of active bumble bee colonies and hibernating cavities, and reduced reproductive success. Bumble bees are critically important because they pollinate a wide range of plants over the lifecycles of their colonies, which typically live longer than most native solitary bee species.

Recommendation: To reduce impacts to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends including the following mitigation measures in the IS/MND:

If Project impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee cannot be completely avoided, CDFW recommends the Project proponent apply for CESA take authorization under an ITP. 









 

Crotch’s bumble bee and other bumble species are not covered by the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Open Space and Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) and therefore alternative mitigation will be required for impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee and A-4
cont.

A-5
EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

its habitat. If the Project will result in permanent impacts to suitable Crotch’s bumble bee habitat, CDFW recommends that the IS/MND include compensatory mitigation for the habitat loss. Bumble bee floral resources should be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts in the absence of information regarding the compensatory mitigation site. Floral resources should be replaced as close to their original location as is feasible. If active Crotch’s bumble bee nests have been identified and floral resources cannot be replaced within 200 meters (656 feet) of their original location, floral resources should be planted in the most centrally available location relative to identified nests. This location should be no more than 1.5-kilometer (4,921 feet) from any identified nest. Replaced floral resources may be split into multiple patches to meet distance requirements for multiple nests. The IS/MND should state that mitigation lands will be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement with an endowment established for long-term management of the lands.

COMMENT 3: Coordination and Consistency with the San Joaquin River Basin, Lower San Joaquin River Compensatory Mitigation Plan
Issue: CEQA requires analysis of reasonably foreseeable future projects and cumulative impacts. The San Joaquin River Basin, Lower San Joaquin River, California, Project (LSJR Project) is a cooperative flood risk management effort intended to reduce flood risk to the City of Stockton associated with seepage, stability, overtopping, and erosion for levees along the San Joaquin River, Calaveras River, Fourteen-mile Slough, Tenmile Slough, French Camp Slough, Mosher Slough, and Duck Creek. The LSJR Project includes 23 miles of levee improvements and two closure structures. The levee improvements include cutoff walls, deep soil mixing (seismic remediation), a new levee, levee geometry improvements, and erosion protection. The mitigation strategy for the Project initially relied primarily on the purchase of mitigation bank credits to compensate for habitat impacts. However, there are no suitable mitigation banks with both a service area that covers the Project site and appropriate credits in sufficient quantities to meet the Project’s compensatory mitigation requirements. Therefore, an updated compensatory mitigation plan proposes the establishment of six mitigation sites within the Project vicinity to address current estimated unavoidable Project impacts to biological resources.

Evidence impact would be significant: A proposed mitigation site for the LSJR Project occurs at Van Buskirk Park. The proposed action for Van Buskirk Park will convert the formerly urban land that was a public golf course into riparian and wetland habitat and restore river hydrology through setback of the existing levee.

Recommendation: CDFW recommends the IS/MND include a thorough analysis of 









 

all short-term and long-term impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the LSJR Project, a portion of which is proposed to be located within the Project area.

A-5
cont.

A-6
EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

COMMENT 4: Potential Waters of the US/ Lake and Streambed Alteration Program Issue: The IS/MND does not discuss the potential need to acquire an LSA Agreement from CDFW. 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 existing ponds will be preserved and maintained as part of Project implementation. 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. Additionally, on page 4-24 in section BIO-3 the IS/MND states that the Project will conduct all in-water construction activities between May 1 and November 30. Activities described in the IS/MND, including potential maintenance activities of the ponds, may require an LSA notification.

Evidence impact would be significant: Riparian habitats, including ponds, are important to watershed integrity because they perform many ecological functions such as enhancing water quality/quantity, biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and flood capacity. Impacts to riparian habitats have potential to cause a wide range of adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources.

Ponds often support greater biodiversity than other freshwater habitats (e.g., lakes and rivers), sustain many rare and endangered aquatic taxa, and act as important “refuges” in heavily modified landscapes. Alongside aquatic species, many terrestrial species—including insect pollinators, birds, bats, and other mammals—rely on ponds for water, food, and habitat. (Hill, 2021).

Recommendation: CDFW recommends early coordination with the CDFW for the potential need of an LSA Agreement prior to starting construction activities. The IS/MND should analyze all potential temporary, permanent, direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts to the above-mentioned features and associated biological resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted 









 

online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

A-7
A-8
EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND to assist the City of Stockton in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Ben Huffer, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at [email protected] or (707) 815-9950; or Brenda Blinn, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
ec: Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (SCH No. 2025061207)

REFERENCES
CDFW. 2024. Petition Evaluation for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea). Report to the Fish and Game Commission. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA.

CDFW. 2012. Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

State of California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 









 

Hill, M. J., H. M. Greaves, C. D. Sayer, C. Hassall, M. Milin, V. S. Milner, L. Marazzi, R.

Hall, L. R. Harper, I. Thornhill, R. E. Walton, J. Biggs, N. Ewald, A. Law, N.

Willby, J. C. White, R. A. Briers, K. Mathers, M. J. Jeffries, and P. J. Wood. 2021.

Pond Ecology and Conservation: Research Priorities and Knowledge Gaps.

Ecosphere 12 (12): e03853. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3853.

A-9
A-10
EXHIBIT 1
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton
July 18, 2025

Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.










 

EXHIBIT 1

July 22, 2025

VIA EMAIL
City of Stockton Public Works Department
Liszet Burgueno
22 E. Weber Avenue, Room 301
Stockton, CA 95202
[email protected]
Assessor Parcel Number(s): 163-07-036
Property Owner: City of Stockton
Project Location Address: 1740 Houston Avenue, Stockton CA 95206 PROJECT TITLE: Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project
Public Resources Code (PRC) section 3208.1 establishes re-abandonment responsibility when previously plugged and abandoned oil, gas or geothermal wells will be impacted by planned property development or construction activities. Local permitting agencies, property owners, and/or developers should be aware of, and fully understand, that significant and potentially dangerous issues may be associated with development near previously abandoned oil, gas, and geothermal wells.

The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) has received the abovereferenced project dated June 25, 2025. To assist local permitting agencies, property owners, and developers in making safe and practical land use decisions regarding potential development near oil, gas, or geothermal wells, CalGEM provides a table in the attached enclosure of the wells within the parcel boundary or in its vicinity, based on CalGEM’s Well Finder database (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/).

CalGEM categorically advises against building over, or in any way impeding access to, oil, gas, or geothermal wells. Impeding access to a well could result in the need to remove any structure or obstacle that prevents or impedes access including, but not limited to, buildings, housing, fencing, landscaping, trees, pools, patios, sidewalks, roadways, and decking at the landowner’s expense if there is a need to access a well. Maintaining sufficient access is considered the ability for a well servicing unit and associated necessary equipment (consisting of well servicing rig, pumping equipment, pipe trailer) to reach a well from a public street or access way, solely over the parcel on which the well is located. A well servicing unit, and any necessary equipment, should be able to pass unimpeded along and over the route, and should be able to access the well without disturbing the integrity of surrounding infrastructure. Impermeable barriers such as asphalt, concrete, and plastic may trap hazardous gases and liquids underneath and could create a safety hazard if built over a well that later develops a leak.

CalGEM recommends that any well for which access is impeded or built over, against CalGEM’s 












 



Comment Letter B
B-1
EXHIBIT 1

statutory objectives of isolating all hydrocarbon-bearing strata; protecting underground and surface waters; prevention of subsequent damage to life, health, property, and other resources; and prevention of loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy. CalGEM recommends that wells that do not meet these standards are abandoned or re-abandoned prior to construction. The well information can be accessed through CalGEM’s Well Finder database mentioned above. PRC section 3208, subdivision (a), provides the primary statutory authority for CalGEM to oversee adequate abandonment of wells. Additionally, CalGEM has developed the regulatory guidance for operators to be followed during well abandonment, which are listed within California Code of Regulation, title 14 (CCR) section 1723 and associated sub-sections (for onshore wells), and section 1745 and associated sub-sections (for offshore wells).

There is no guarantee that a well abandoned in compliance with current Division requirements as prescribed by law will not start leaking in the future. Due to the inability to predict all subsurface conditions or changes, it always remains a possibility that any well may start to leak oil, gas, and/or water after abandonment, no matter how thoroughly the well was plugged and abandoned. CalGEM acknowledges wells plugged and abandoned to the most current Division requirements as prescribed by law have a lower probability of leaking in the future, however there is no guarantee that such abandoned wells will not leak.

CalGEM advises that all wells identified on the development parcel prior to, or during, development activities be tested for liquid and gas leakage. Surveyed locations in Latitude and Longitude, NAD 83 decimal format, and leak testing results should be provided to CalGEM.

CalGEM expects any wells found leaking to be reported to CalGEM immediately.

PRC section 3208.1 gives CalGEM the authority to order or permit the re-abandonment of any well where it has reason to question the integrity of the previous abandonment. Responsibility for re-abandonment costs may be affected by the choices made by the local permitting agency, property owner, and/or developer in considering the general advice set forth in this letter. The PRC continues to define the person or entity responsible for re-abandonment as:

1. The property owner - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of abandonment, and in its current condition does not pose an immediate danger to life, health, and property, but requires additional work solely because the owner of the property on which the well is located proposes construction on the property that would prevent or impede access to the well for purposes of remedying a currently perceived future problem, then the owner of the property on which the well is located shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.

2. The person or entity causing construction over or near the well - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and the property owner, developer, or local agency permitting the construction failed either to obtain an opinion from the supervisor or district deputy as to whether the previously abandoned well is required to be re-abandoned, or to follow the advice of the supervisor or district deputy not to undertake construction that impedes access, then the person or entity causing the construction over or near the well shall obtain all rights necessary to re-abandon the well and be responsible for the re-abandonment.

3. The party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment - If the well was plugged and abandoned in conformance with Division requirements at the time of plugging and abandonment, and after that time someone other than the operator or an affiliate of the operator disturbed the integrity of the abandonment in the course of 












 



advice, should be evaluated by a qualified petroleum professional for compliance with the B-1
cont.

EXHIBIT 1

developing the property, then the party or parties responsible for disturbing the integrity of the abandonment shall be responsible for the re-abandonment.

Should any wells require abandonment or re-abandonment, the responsible party must submit a Notice of Intention (NOI) to CalGEM through WellSTAR. The NOI form can be accessed in the ‘Plugging and Abandonment’ section of the following link:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/for_operators.

No well work may be performed on any oil, gas, or geothermal well without written approval from CalGEM. Well work requiring approval includes, but is not limited to, mitigating leaking gas or other fluids from abandoned wells, modifications to well casings, and/or any other reabandonment work. CalGEM also regulates the top of a plugged and abandoned well's minimum and maximum depth below final grade. CCR section1723.5 states well casings shall be cut off at least 5 feet but no more than 10 feet below the surface of the ground. If any well needs to be lowered or raised (i.e. casing cut down or casing riser added) to meet this regulation, a permit from CalGEM is required before work can start.

CalGEM makes the following additional recommendations to the local permitting agency, property owner, and developer:

1. To ensure that present and future property owners are aware of (a) the existence of all wells located on the property, and (b) potentially significant issues associated with any improvements near oil or gas wells, CalGEM recommends that information regarding the below identified well(s), and any other pertinent information obtained after the issuance of this letter, be communicated to the appropriate county recorder for inclusion in the title information of the subject real property.

2. CalGEM recommends that any soil containing hydrocarbons be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. Please notify the appropriate authorities if soil containing significant amounts of hydrocarbons is discovered during development.

As indicated in PRC section 3106, CalGEM has statutory authority over the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells, and attendant facilities, to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil, gas, and geothermal deposits; and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes. In addition to CalGEM's authority to order work on wells pursuant to PRC sections 3208.1 and 3224, it has authority to issue civil and criminal penalties under PRC sections 3236, 3236.5, and 3359 for violations within CalGEM's jurisdictional authority. CalGEM does not regulate grading, excavations, or other land use issues. Should you have any questions, or if any wells are encountered that were not part of this letter, contact CalGEM at 916-322-1110 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
May Soe
Supervising Oil & Gas Engineer
cc: The State Clearinghouse, [email protected] Enclosure













 



B-1
cont.

EXHIBIT 1

Enclosure: The wells listed below are reported to be located within and nearby the parcel boundary and may have future access impeded.

There are no wells within the project area.













 



B-1
cont
EXHIBIT 1
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
17 July 2025
Liszet Burgueno
City of Stockton Public Works Department
22 East Weber Avenue, Room 301
Stockton, CA 95202
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, VAN BUSKIRK PARK REVITALIZATION PROJECT,
SCH#2025061207, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 25 June 2025 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project, located in San Joaquin County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by Comment Letter C
C-1
EXHIBIT 1
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

C-1
cont.

C-2
EXHIBIT 1
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

C-2
cont.

EXHIBIT 1
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ C-2
cont.

EXHIBIT 1
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
Shanna Guiler
LSA
[email protected]
EXHIBIT 1
July 25, 2025
Liszet Burgueño, Junior Engineer
CIP, Public Works Department, City of Stockton
22 E. Weber Avenue, Room 301, Stockton, CA 95202
Dear Ms. Burgueño and City of Stockton,
On behalf of American Rivers (AR), Restore the Delta (RTD), we appreciate the opportunity to review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project (IS/MND) and submit comments. After reviewing the IS/MND, we have comments on the following topics: park amenities & waterway access, setback levee, unhoused community, green gentrification, community engagement & project communication, and tribal involvement.

Park Amenities and Waterway Access
We are incredibly supportive of the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project because it creates an accessible greenspace that will allow for a plethora of opportunities in one of the most significant remaining public land parcels in South Stockton. We concur that there will be a dramatic improvement in aesthetics and recreational opportunities (Section 4.1), and climate resilience for thousands of Stockton residents upon completion. In addition to the benefits stated above, research and data have shown that communities with higher quantities of nature and trees, tend to have greater community well-being, which includes happiness, general health, lower stress, less aggression, and increased attention (Jaffe, 2015). Therefore, if done with proper community engagement and planning, the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project will be a transformative project that will greatly benefit the community in a variety of ways. As exemplified by the support of the recent McKinley Park renovation at the 6/24 City Council Meeting, Stocktonians want improved parks and recreation infrastructure, and we want to help the City of Stockton make the Van Buskirk Park’s revitalization great for the community.

Waterways such as Walker Slough, French Camp Slough, and the San Joaquin River all border Van Buskirk Park; however, we noticed that there is no infrastructure that promotes the access and use of these public resources that are so nearby. We want to emphasize that these waterways provide an incredible opportunity for aquatic recreation, which could come in the form of nature viewing, man-powered boats, and fishing. The local community, along with other Stocktonians, are demonstrably interested in aquatic recreation. For example, fishing and fishing ponds are one of the top requested amenities of the Van Buskirk Park Master Plan Online Survey #2. Additionally, a survey conducted by RTD in collaboration with AR (survey results can be provided upon request) with the community surrounding Van Buskirk Park (2023) showed that water recreation was a top priority (35/35 Comment Letter D
D-1
D-2
EXHIBIT 1
respondents), with the majority of the respondents likely to use a designated area for boating and fishing (29/35 respondents).

In addition to recreation, access to waterscapes have been shown to further promote people’s psychological resilience and promote psychological and mental health (Zhang et al. 2021). Access can also be utilized by local organizations to help educate the community on waterways. Local schools can use the waterway access as an educational resource to students of the South Stockton community on riparian habitat and how water affects their local ecosystems. The improved access can also be used to help the community learn about rivers and how they affect their lives. For example, if Walker Slough was accessible through a levee-top trail, community-based organizations, such as RTD, would have the opportunity to lead tours on the levee to educate local residents on the importance of the levee and what it means for flooding in their community. Spreading awareness and educating the community on levees and flood protection would better allow the community to engage with the City on projects, such as other phases of the Lower San Joaquin Project River Project.

We would like to continue helping the City of Stockton create more waterway access opportunities in any way we can. For example, we believe that there is a great opportunity to include Van Buskirk Park in a network of paddle sports trails that connects other sites, such as Louis Park and the potential Delta Aquatic Center at the confluence of the Calaveras River and San Joaquin River. Whether it involves brainstorming, fundraising, project management, planning, performing outreach, or any other tasks, we have the expertise and drive to support the City of Stockton to improve waterway accessibility at Van Buskirk Park.

Setback Levee
Stockton is an incredibly resilient city that has been addressing flooding since its founding. However, as of 2024, it is one of the highest flood-vulnerable cities in the United States. With 93% of residential properties at risk of flood damage within the next 30 years (Admin, 2024), it is incredibly important to build infrastructure that protects the community. That is one of the reasons why we are supportive of setting back the levee on the northwestern portion Van Buskirk Park from its current configuration to reconnect the San Joaquin River and French Camp Slough to the historic adjacent floodplain, restore hydrology, grade and plant native vegetation to establish appropriate elevations for wetland and riparian habitat, and remove rock from the remnant levee. A levee setback has multiple ecological and flood risk reduction benefits. According to the National Levee Safety Guidelines (NLSG), ecological benefits include decreased scour and erosion, improved aquatic habitat, increased wetlands, increased overbank flows and inundation areas, improved upland habitat and wildlife connection, and the development of new drainage pathways (Table 1). The new levee will reduce the flood risk to people and property; but a levee set further back from the water will decrease water velocity and erosion, placing less strain on the levee and reducing the risk of failure. By allowing the San Joaquin River to spread out across a larger floodplain, the City of Stockton will reduce flood risk to the South Stockton community, while simultaneously creating the opportunity for USACE to meet mitigation requirements.

We would like to acknowledge that the details of the environmental mitigation for the northwestern portion of the park, as well as other subsequent phases, still need to be determined. We look forward to reviewing the subsequent, project-level CEQA analyses for those phases. We also acknowledge that USACE is currently creating a conceptual design of the potential setback levee for the portion. However, none of the plans are set yet. Therefore, we would like to emphasize the importance of the City of Stockton promoting a setback levee at the northwestern portion of Van Buskirk Park and collaborating with USACE to effectively integrate the two congruent projects.

Having had communications with USACE and city employees on the Van Buskirk Park project and reviewed publicly available information, it is not apparent that the City and USACE are collaborating closely together to integrate the D-2
cont.

D-3
EXHIBIT 1
potential setback levee into the other various phases of the revitalization project. Therefore, we urge the City of Stockton to work more closely with USACE to integrate both projects before USACE breaks ground in 2032. We believe that the future community meeting surrounding the proposed Van Buskirk setback levee, organized by USACE and the City of Stockton, and subsequent integration of community input into the mitigation planning at Van Buskirk Park is great for collaboration and vital to the overall success of the project.

Table 1. Levee removal and associated ecological effects table from the National Levee Safety Guidelines. Though the table title shows only ”levee removal” these benefits also apply to setback levees according to the document.

Unhoused Community
Section 4.14 Population and Housing Question B: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? We believe that the City of Stockton’s assessment and response to Section 4.14 Question B is incomplete. Although we concur that no permanent housing is located in Van Buskirk Park, that does not mean that there are no people “existing” in the project area. People experiencing homelessness often use greenspaces, such as Van Buskirk Park and the closed golf course site as a place of refuge and rest. Often-times establishing encampments and in place of increasingly inaccessible housing. These people, who are members of the Stockton community, are incredibly vulnerable to displacement.

San Joaquin County Continuum of Care found that the number of unhoused individuals in San Joaquin County increased by 104% from 2022 to 2024 (Franco, 2024). 73% of these individuals were unsheltered at the time of their study. If this trend continues the number of people affected by the construction of Van Buskirk would likely be more substantial than it is today, putting strain on temporary shelter and other related services in the county.

Although we acknowledge that the City of Stockton has been creating new temporary housing through projects such as the Carol and Henry Zeiter Navigation Center with St. Mary’s Community Services. These projects take time, money, and might not be enough to accommodate the influx of individuals that need shelter.

D-3
cont.

D-4
EXHIBIT 1
Therefore, the City of Stockton needs to have a plan to appropriately work with the unhoused community to help them transition out of the project site and prepare the city’s infrastructure in a way that safely relocates people with the resources that they need. This plan should include best practices that need to be implemented. Below are a few examples of applicable best practices that are provided in the 19 Strategies for Communities to Address Encampments Humanely and Effectively document written by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (2024):
● Create timelines for planning, outreach, engagement, notice, closure, and site restoration ● Ask encampment residents what housing and service options they need and want ● Collaborate with the agencies responsible for providing and connecting people to services and housing and connect resources to Coordinated Entry
● Secure and coordinate transportation from encampments to housing and services for every resident ● Provide encampment residents with verbal and written notices in plain and multiple languages of a closure at least 30 days in advance.
● Offer low-barrier shelter, short-term or permanent housing, or residential treatment to every person living in an encampment, and ensure availability on day of closure. ● Communicate clearly with residents early and often about the process, housing and shelter options, and storage, among other things. Provide residents at least two days to sort and pack personal items prior to closure—unless there is an environmental health or urgent safety issue It is imperative to have a plan and timeline with the unhoused community to minimize the impact of displacement.

AR strongly urges the City of Stockton to work with local NGOs such as St. Mary’s Community Service and Stockton209Cares to get a better understanding of the unhoused community at Van Buskirk, develop a plan/timeline for potential encampment closure, and ensure that there is adequate temporary and permanent housing for the displaced people.

Green Gentrification, Community Engagement, Project Communication Section 4.14 Population and Housing Question 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)?
We disagree with the City of Stockton's response to Section 4.14 Question A. Although no new housing, commercial, or industrial space will be directly constructed as the result of the project, this project is centered around building park infrastructure that expands upon amenities to the South Stockton community. Furthermore, the project would provide public access to currently-inaccessible areas. For example, this project will likely remove the gates that are currently preventing people from going into the former golf course area.

This increase of infrastructure and access to the park will very likely affect the nearby community “indirectly”. Since people want to have access to the great park infrastructure that will be built as part of this project, they are more incentivized to move to nearby communities, such as Conway Homes, increasing the demand of the area. With increased demands for housing in the surrounding communities and limited space to build housing, nearby housing costs will likely increase, leading to a phenomenon called green gentrification.

Green gentrification, the displacement of typically working-class communities of color as a result of new greenspaces that leads to increased housing costs (Anguelovski et al., 2022), would nullify the positive socioeconomic impact of the Van Buskirk Revitalization project. In many instances, urban green development projects, such as the Van Buskirk Park project have led to increased economic distress in the surrounding area.

Green gentrification is well-documented and prevalent with many urban greenspace projects similar to the Van D-4
cont.

D-5
EXHIBIT 1
Buskirk Park and Calaveras River Parcel projects. It has been recorded in Atlanta, GA, with the Atlanta Beltline Project, in Brooklyn, NY with the Gowanus Canal and Prospect Park revitalizations, and many more cases around the world.

Below are some articles, that have documented this phenomenon:
● Literature Review on Green Gentrification (Jelks et al., 2021) ● Atlanta, GA: The Atlanta Beltline Project (Immergluck & Balan, T. 2017) ● Brooklyn, NY: Gowanus Canal & Prospect Park (Gould & Lewis, 2012) ● New York City: Census + Housing Analysis (Du & Zhang, 2020) ● Barcelona, Spain: Spatial Analysis of Green Gentrification (Anguelovski et al., 2017) The threat of green gentrification does not mean that the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project should not occur; however, it means it is vital that the project team take the necessary steps to address the potential damage to the community. Figure 1 is a graphic from the Equitable Development Toolkit, written by River Network and NPS (Fullmer & Mazurek, 2024), that shows how green projects can lead to gentrification and potential ways to reduce the risk to communities throughout the process. It is important to note that all solutions to reduce the risk of green gentrification involve authentic community engagement. Endeavors, such as the 11th Street Bridge Project and other projects within the Highline Network, have utilized similar methods to address gentrification (Jacobs, 2017).

Figure 1. Cycle of Development, Gentrification, and Displacement and Ways to Interrupt the Cycle from the Equity Development Toolkit written by written by River Network and the National Park Service (Fullmer & Mazurek, 2024) D-5
cont.

EXHIBIT 1
The City of Stockton has already performed projects that work towards addressing green gentrification, such as the Transformative Climate Communities project (TCC). In the TCC, the City of Stockton worked with local partners, community residents, and contractors to develop a variety of plans, including a Community Engagement Plan, to address the potential negative effects of the TCC project. The Community Engagement Plan included resident-centered programs, educational campaigns, quarterly Community Coalition meetings, Stockton Rising summits and bi-annual celebratory Block Parties. The team surrounding the TCC project will also develop a Collaborative Stakeholder Structure to provide stewardship and feedback throughout their grant term.

Currently, the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization project has no publicly-accessible plan to work alongside the community or address green gentrification. Although we greatly appreciate previous outreach efforts and the integration of the community’s feedback for the park’s design, this project currently has minimal engagement with local partners. In fact, there have been no meetings or outreach on the project since September of 2022. We understand that the TCC project had funds allowed for more robust community engagement. However, we strongly urge the City of Stockton to adopt a similar, active approach to community engagement for the Van Buskirk Revitalization Project. For successful community engagement, there should be a publicly available community engagement plan. We believe this will not only help the overall success of the project, but also secure the support infrastructure and long term funding of the revitalization beyond Phase 1. This plan can include the following:
● A timeline for the project and its phases
● A strategy to outreach to various communities
● A strategy to maintain regular communication between communities previously outreached (consistent meetings)
● A strategy to work alongside local community-based organizations ● The community engagement plan in various languages such as Spanish and Tagalog Tribal Involvement
Although we do not represent any tribal entities within Stockon, we encourage the city to continue engaging with the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe and Nototome Cultural Preservation beyond tribal consultation for cultural resources. It is crucial to continue to coordinate and consult with those with ancestral ties to the area. As the geoarchaeological analysis revealed probable past use for resource extraction (Tule, sedge,etc.), we would also like to encourage the development of gathering opportunities within the project area and encourage the history and practices of the area be shared through interpretive means.

Conclusion
Overall, we are supportive of the Van Buskirk Revitalization Project. If done with authentic community engagement and proper communication, this project and its various phases will have the potential to provide a net benefit for the people of South Stockton that goes beyond recreation. However, it is important to work alongside the community to have an equitable result. We believe that increased access to the waterway, closer partnership with USACE, a plan/timeline of working with the unhoused community, and a community engagement plan will further improve the project and reduce the risk of detrimental effects that might result from this project.

D-5
cont.

D-6
D-7
EXHIBIT 1
Sincerely,
Teague Tran, American Rivers,
Associate Director, Central Valley River Restoration
Artie Valencia, Restore The Delta,
Flood and Land Restoration Manager
Work Cited
Admin. (2024). Two California cities among most likely to experience flood damage. Insurance Journal. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2024/01/12/755477.htm Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., Cole, H. et al. Green gentrification in European and North American cities. Nat Commun 13, 3816 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31572-1 Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Masip, L., & Pearsall, H. (2017). Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: a longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography, 39(3), 458–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1349987
Franco, V. (2024, August 9). San Joaquin County sees dramatic increase in numbers of unsheltered homeless residents. Local News Matters.
https://localnewsmatters.org/2024/08/09/san-joaquin-county-sees-dramatic-increase-in-numbers-of-unshelteredhomeless-residents/ Fullmer, G., & Mazurek, R. (2024). Introducing a new Equitable Development Toolkit. River Network. https://www.rivernetwork.org/community-centered-solutions-for-green-gentrification-and-displacement/ Gould, Kenneth & Lewis, Tammy. (2012). The environmental injustice of green gentrification: the case of Brooklyn's prospect park. The World in Brooklyn: Gentrification, Immigration, and Ethnic Politics in a Global City. 113-146.

EXHIBIT 1
Immergluck, D., & Balan, T. (2017). Sustainable for whom? Green Urban Development, environmental gentrification, and the Atlanta beltline. Urban Geography, 39(4), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1360041
Jacobs, K. (2017, October 17). The high line network tackles gentrification. www.architectmagazine.com. https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/the-high-line-network-tackles-gentrification Jaffe, E. (2015). The (basically) complete health case for urban parks, trees, and nature - bloomberg. bloomberg.com.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-20/the-basically-complete-health-case-for-urban-parks-treesand-nature Jelks, N. O., Jennings, V., & Rigolon, A. (2021). Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030907
Mengbing Du, Xiaoling Zhang (2020). Urban greening: A new paradox of economic or social sustainability?, Land Use Policy, Volume 92, 2020, 104487, ISSN 0264-8377,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.10487
Neild, M., & Rose, J. (2019). Addressing homelessness in public parks: Feature: Parks and Recreation Magazine.

NRPA. https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2019/january/addressing-homelessness-in-public-parks/ U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, 19 strategies for communities to address encampments humanely and effectively (2024). Washington, D.C.; United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.

Zhang X, Zhang Y, Zhai J, Wu Y, Mao A. Waterscapes for Promoting Mental Health in the General Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Nov 10;18(22):11792. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182211792. PMID: 34831547; PMCID:

PMC8618438
EXHIBIT 1
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Stockton. Do not click any links or open attachments if this is unsolicited email.

From: Patrisia Avelar <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 6:33 PM
To: Liszet Burgueno <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project To the attention of Liszet Burgueño,
Public Works Department, City of Stockton:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project, particularly around issues of noise, safety, and the park’s impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

While I support the idea of revitalizing and expanding public spaces, I am concerned that new features such as sports courts, a skate park, mini-golf, and event areas may result in a noticeable increase in noise, especially during evenings and weekends. This could disrupt the peace for those of us living nearby.

I am also concerned about the potential for people hanging out in the park after hours, which could raise safety and nuisance issues. With more amenities drawing larger crowds, it’s important to know if the City plans to implement security measures. Will there be:

Park rangers,security staff, or police patrols on-site? Gates or fencing that can be locked after hours?
Clearly posted and enforced park hours?
Measures to deter loitering or overnight presence?
In addition, I’d like to know if there will be any kind ofseparation between the park and nearby homes—such as fencing, landscaping barriers, or buffer zones—to protect resident privacy, reduce noise, and discourage trespassing.

I appreciate that the City isinvesting in community spaces, but I urge you to prioritize neighborhood concerns as part of this process. I hope these issues will be considered seriously during the final planning stages.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response.

Comment Letter E
E-1
E-2
E-3
E-4
EXHIBIT 1

APPENDIX E

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is formulated based upon the findings of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Van Buskirk Park Revitalization Project (project). The MMRP, which is presented in Table A, lists mitigation measures recommended in the IS/MND and identifies mitigation monitoring requirements.

This MMRP has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the Lead Agency to adopt an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The MMRP is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND during implementation of the project.

The MMRP is organized in a matrix format. The first column identifies the recommended mitigation measures. The second column, entitled Implementation Actions, refers to the actions taken by the party responsible for oversight to ensure compliance. The third column, entitled Timing Requirements, refers to when the monitoring will occur to ensure that the mitigating action is completed. The fourth column, entitled Monitoring/Reporting Responsibility refers to the party responsible for oversight or ensuring that the mitigation measure is implemented. The fifth column, entitled Verified By and Date, refers to the party and date the action was verified as complete.

EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank
EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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 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.
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Prior to and
throughout the
duration of project
construction
 The City of Stockton (City)
is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring the
Qualified Biologist, and
for ensuring compliance
prior to and during
construction.
 The Qualified Biologist
are responsible for
implementing this
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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Prior to grounddisturbing activities
associated with project
construction.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring the
Qualified Biologist, and
for ensuring compliance
during construction.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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.
 The Qualified Biologist
and all persons employed
or otherwise working on
the project site are
responsible for
implementing this
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.  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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Throughout the
construction period.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications and for
ensuring compliance
during construction.
 The Construction
Contractor is responsible
for implementing this
measure.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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.

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:
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of project
construction.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, for hiring a
Qualified Biologist,
consulting with CDFW,
EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date

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” ; 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 be reduced to a minimum of 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours outlined in the
measure.
obtaining any necessary
permits, and providing
compensatory mitigation,
if required.
 The Qualified Biologist is
responsible for
conducting preconstruction surveys,
conducting monitoring,
establishing avoidance
areas, and halting work, if
needed.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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.
e. 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, etc.) may need an avoidance area of at least 6 meters (20 feet) from the dripline.

3. A qualified biologist shall conduct a 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 Mitigation1 methodology and the qualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the survey results, and 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 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 1 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
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
small mammal burrows, can be created within a few hours or days. Surveys for either non-breeding or breeding burrowing owls shall be spread over four visits during the non-breeding and breeding season. 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 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 two years of experience implementing the above methodology. The following measures shall be implemented should preconstruction 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 owl pursuant to the buffer distances outlined in the Department of Fish and Game State Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Any detected owl shall be monitored by the qualified biologist to ensure it is not disturbed during construction activities.
b. If the City cannot ensure burrowing owl 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.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
c. If burrowing owl, or their burrows or burrow surrogates are detected within 500 meters (1,640 feet0 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 owl from sheltering or nesting in exposed material; all construction pipes, culverts, hoses or similar materials greater than two 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 (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 EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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 floral availability through the entire active season of the western bumble bee (March through September).

If Project impacts to special-status bumble bee 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 EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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- kilometer (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 determine that the species is present and nesting within this area, an appropriate nest protection buffer shall be established by a EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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.

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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.

During construction
activities
 The City is responsible for
ensuring incorporating
this measure into
contract specifications
and developing and
EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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) 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  Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.
implementing a salvage
and relocation plan.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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 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.

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.
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

During and following
completion of
construction activities.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring a
Qualified Applicator, and
implementing this
measure.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Prior to, during, and
following completion
of construction
activities
 The City is responsible for
hiring a Qualified
Biologist and ensuring
implementation of this
measure.
 The Qualified Biologist is
responsible for
establishing avoidance
areas, providing training,
and monitoring during
construction.
 The Construction
Contractor and Qualified
Biologist are responsible
for implementing erosion
control and transplanting
shrubs.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
removal of any branches or stems that are greater than or equal to 1 inch in diameter. Measures to address regular and/or largescale maintenance (trimming) shall be established in consultation with the USFWS. Mechanical 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 EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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 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.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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.
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Prior to and during
construction activities.
 The City is responsible for
hiring a Qualified
Biologist and ensuring
implementation of this
measure.
 The Qualified Biologist is
responsible for
implementing this
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 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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Before the spring
breeding season and
prior and during
project construction.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring a
Qualified Biologist, and
ensuring compliance
during construction.
 The Qualified Biologist is
responsible for surveys,
establishing buffers,
monitoring during
construction, and evicting
bats, if needed.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
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:
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Prior to ground
disturbance.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring a
Qualified Archaeologist,
and for reviewing the
Cultural Resources
Management Plan, and
ensuring implementation
during construction.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
 As survey of the entire Project area would be unproductive (due to thick, ubiquitous xeric vegetation), a controlled clear-and-grub 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 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.  The Qualified
Archaeologist is
responsible for preparing
the Cultural Resources
Management Plan and
monitoring ground
disturbing activities.

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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.

Prior to
commencement of
ground disturbing
activities.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring a
EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
(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.  Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Qualified Archaeologist,
and for ensuring
compliance prior to
construction.
 The Qualified
Archaeologist is
responsible for
implementing this
measure.

CUL-1c: Unanticipated Discovery. In the event that any precontact or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing 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.

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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

During constructionrelated ground
disturbing activities.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring a
Qualified Archaeologist,
and for ensuring
compliance during
construction.
 The Qualified
Archaeologist and
Construction Contractor
are responsible for
implementing this
measure.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
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.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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 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.
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

During constructionrelated ground
disturbing activities.
 The City is responsible for
incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, hiring a
Qualified Paleontologist,
and for ensuring
compliance during
construction.
 The Qualified
Paleontologist and
Construction Contractor
are responsible for
implementing this
measure.

NOISE
NOI-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.
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities.
 The City is responsible for
verifying that grading and
construction plans
include the relevant
requirements and for
ensuring compliance
during construction.
 The Construction
Contractor is responsible
for implementing the
EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
 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 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.
identified measures
during construction.

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  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

During final design. The City is responsible for
ensuring that the
appropriate noise barrier is
included in the project
design.

EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
daytime noise standard of 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA) equivalent continuous sound level (Leq).

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1: Native American Monitoring. Prior to ground-disturbing activities, tribal monitor(s) from the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation (CVLN), the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe, and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe shall be retained. Native American monitoring by a representative of the North Valley Yokuts Tribe, CVLN, and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe shall be required during all ground disturbing activities associated with project implementation.

Monitoring procedures shall follow the Cultural Resources Management Plan prepared under Mitigation Measure CUL-1a.

Tribal monitor(s) shall have the authority to halt and redirect work should any archeological or tribal cultural resources be identified during monitoring. If archaeological or tribal cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 100 feet of the find must halt and the find be evaluated for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) and National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Monitoring may be reduced or halted at the discretion of the tribal monitor(s), in consultation with the lead agency, if site conditions indicate there is little likelihood of encountering intact deposits (e.g., encountering bedrock, sediments being excavated are fill, or negative findings for 50 percent of ground disturbance). If monitoring is reduced to spot checking, spot checking shall occur when ground-disturbing activities moves to a new location within the Project site and when ground disturbance will extend to depths not previously reached (unless those depths are within bedrock).
 Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.

During grounddisturbing activities. The City is responsible for incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, for
contacting the Tribe and
for ensuring compliance
during construction.
 The Tribal Monitor(s) are
responsible for
implementing this
measure.

TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during grading or excavation of the proposed Project, all ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet must cease until a qualified professional archaeologist (either an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.
 Implementation
actions are
During grounddisturbing activities. The City is responsible for incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, for
contacting the Tribe and
EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology or an archaeologist supervised by such an archaeologist) has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource, and the City of Stockton (City) representative has consulted a representative from the CVLN, the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribe, and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. The archaeologist will stake the area of discovery, placing stakes no more than 10 feet apart, forming a circle with a radius of no less than 100 feet from the point of discovery. If the City, in consultation with the consulting tribe(s), determines the resource is a Tribal Cultural Resource and thus significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or to the tribe(s), the entity shall retain a qualified archeologist and a tribal monitor, at the applicant’s expense, to prepare and implement a mitigation plan, in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with the consulting tribe(s). The mitigation plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is feasible, shall outline appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the consulting tribe(s) and, if applicable, the qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for the tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resources, protecting traditional use of the resources, protecting the confidentiality of the resources, or heritage recovery. Curation of Tribal cultural resources is not considered to be appropriate or respectful and materials shall not be permanently curated unless specifically requested by the Tribes. Any Tribal cultural resources discovered as part of the proposed Project shall be recorded in the Sacred Lands File maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission. The City and its contractor(s) shall not photograph, publicize, post, or share information about any discovered Tribal cultural resources.
outlined in the
measure.
for ensuring compliance
during construction.
 The Tribal Monitor(s), the
Qualified Archaeologist,
and the Construction
Contractor are
responsible for
implementing this
measure.

TCR-3: Halt Work/Coroners Evaluation/Impact to Previously Undiscovered Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during construction and ground disturbing activities, the City or the City’s contractor must redirect all work within 100 feet of the  Include measure as
Condition of
Approval.

During grounddisturbing activities. The City is responsible for incorporating this
measure into contract
specifications, for
EXHIBIT 1
Table A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Actions
Timing
Requirements
Monitoring/Reporting
Responsibility Verified By and Date
remains and immediately contact the County Coroner, the City of Stockton, and a qualified professional archaeologist (either an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology or an archaeologist supervised by such an archaeologist) to assess the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification. The NAHC will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and any associated funerary objects. The archaeologist shall recover scientifically valuable information, as appropriate and in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD. Upon completion of the archaeologist’s assessment, a report must be prepared documenting methods and results, as well as recommendations regarding the treatment of the human remains and any associated archaeological materials. The report must be submitted to the City, the Project proponent, the Central California Information Center (CCAIC) and the consulting tribe. Tribal representatives will rebury the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects with the appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD, if available, or in the Project vicinity at a location selected in consultation with the tribe, the professional archaeologist, and the City, where the reburial would be accessible to tribal members in perpetuity and would not be subject to further disturbance. The discovery and reburial is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance.
 Implementation
actions are
outlined in the
measure.
contacting the County
Coroner, and for ensuring
compliance during
construction.
 The Construction
Contractor is responsible
for stopping work and
contacting the City.
 The Qualified
Archaeologist is
responsible for examining
the find and making
recommendations.
 The MLD is responsible
for reviewing the report
and making
recommendations
regarding reburial.

Source: LSA (2025).

EXHIBIT 1