Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city,
ATTACHMENT E
1547
and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change.
Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), from mobile sources and utility usage.
The proposed Project’s short-term construction-related and long-term operational GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM.
CalEEMod is a statewide model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify GHG emissions from land use projects. The model quantifies direct GHG emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect GHG emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Emissions are expressed in annual metric tons of CO2 equivalent units of measure (i.e., MT CO2e), based on the global warming potential of the individual pollutants.
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Estimated maximum mitigated GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are summarized in Table GHG-1. These emissions include all worker vehicle, vendor vehicle, hauler vehicle, and off-road construction vehicle GHG emissions. For the purposes of this analysis, based on input from the Project proponents, the proposed Project is assumed to commence construction in 2027 and finish in 2039. It should be noted that this schedule is an approximation and may change over time. A regularized construction schedule was utilized for modelling purposes for the sake of simplicity.
Table GHG-1: Maximum Construction GHG Emissions (Mitigated Average MT CO2e/year) YEAR BIO- CO2 NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O CO2E
2031 0 2,060 2,060 0.04 0.11 2,096
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
As presented in the table above, short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated at a maximum of approximately 2,096 MT CO2e per year.
OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
The operational GHG emissions estimate for the proposed Project includes on-site area, energy, mobile, waste, and water emissions generated by the Project during its operation. Estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table GHG-2, below. It should be noted that CalEEMod does not account for the Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N-79-20), which requires that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Additionally, the CalEEMod modeling conducted does not account for the incorporation of additional Renewables Portfolio Standard attainment
ATTACHMENT E
1548
beyond CalEEMod defaults, incorporation of AB 341, and incorporation of Title 24 requirements for the EV charging stations. This is anticipated to substantially reduce the operational emissions associated with passenger vehicles (i.e. mobile emissions), energy emissions, and waste emissions, over time, including prior the 2035 final implementation year. Therefore, the operational emissions results are likely an overestimate for mobile, energy, and waste emissions.
As shown in the following table, as conservatively modeled, the annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 2,411 MT CO2e.
Table GHG-2: Operational GHG Emissions at Buildout (Metric Tons/Year) SECTOR BIO- CO2 NON-BIO- CO2 TOTAL CO2 CH4 N2O R CO2E
Mobile 0 29,685 29,685 1.14 1.41 47.3 30,180
Area 0 27.8 27.8 <0.1 <0.1 0 27.9
Energy 0 4,656 4,656 0.50 <0.1 0 4,677
Water 28.9 62.2 91.2 2.98 <0.1 0 187
Waste 177 0 177 17.7 0 0 620
Refrig. 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 5.18
Total 206 34,430 34,637 22.3 1.51 52.5 35,697
SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the electrical service provider for the Project site, will need to continue to annually increase renewable electricity through 2045 in order to meet the carbonfree electricity target set by SB 100. The Project would need to comply with AB 341, which set a target of reducing landfill waste by 75 percent by 2020, and the Title 24 standards, which require incorporation of rooftop PV systems and solar panels, as well as electric vehicle charging capabilities. The potential reductions in GHG emission associated with this requirement were not incorporated in the reductions, as the amount would be confirmed at a later stage; therefore, the operational emissions shown in Table GHG-2 are conservative.
PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE PLANS
Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the San Joaquin Valley region. The Project’s consistency with the State’s 2022 Scoping Plan, as well as the San Joaquin Council of Government’s (SJCOG’s) 2022 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan.
The CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan strategies that are applicable to the Project include reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The Project would be consistent with these goals through Project design, which includes complying with the latest requirements of the CALGreen Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards, providing EV parking spaces and charging equipment, and complying with the AB 341 waste diversion goal of 75 percent. In addition, the Project would receive electricity from PG&E, which is required to reduce GHG emissions by increasing procurement from eligible renewable energy by set target years. Moreover, the Project would provide extensive pedestrian connectivity to encourage alternative modes of
ATTACHMENT E
1549
transportation, and be consistent with the requirements of the latest (2022) version of the Title 24 Energy Code, or better. For example, the Project area has designated streets with enhanced walkways (i.e., wide sidewalks and landscaped areas) that will encourage pedestrians to walk to parks and open space features. In addition to the proposed wellness walks, multi-use pathways, and separated sidewalks, West Land and Morada Lane will be improved along the Project frontages to include sidewalks and bike lanes to further encourage walking and bicycling.
Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.5 Additionally, Table GHG3 and Table GHG-4, below, provide further analysis of the Project’s consistency with the Scoping Plan’s policies.
Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with Table 1 of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX D OF THE SCOPING PLAN
POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Transportation Electrification
Convert local government fleets to ZEVs and provide EV charging at public sites No Conflict. This goal is not
applicable to an individual
residential development project.
Create a jurisdiction-specific ZEV ecosystem to support deployment of ZEVs statewide (such as building standards that exceed state building codes, permit streamlining, infrastructure siting, consumer education, preferential parking policies, and ZEV readiness plans) VMT Reduction
Reduce or eliminate minimum parking standards
No Conflict. Although this goal is
not applicable to an individual
residential development project,
the Project is implementing
neighborhood design
improvements such as pedestrian
network improvements and traffic
calming measures. Furthermore,
the proposed Project would enable
walkable development.
Implement Complete Streets policies and investments, consistent with general plan circulation element requirements
Increase access to public transit by increasing density of development near transit, improving transit service by increasing service frequency, creating bus priority lanes, reducing or eliminating fares, microtransit, etc.
Increase public access to clean mobility options by planning for and investing in electric shuttles, bike share, car share, and walking Implement parking pricing or transportation demand management pricing strategies
Amend zoning or development codes to enable mixed-use, walkable, transit-oriented, and compact infill development (such as increasing the allowable density of a neighborhood)
Preserve natural and working lands by implementing land use policies that guide development toward infill areas and do not convert “greenfield” land to urban uses (e.g., green belts, strategic conservation easements)
Building Decarbonization
Adopt all-electric new construction reach codes for residential and commercial uses
No Conflict. Although this goal is
not applicable to an individual
residential development project,
the Project would be consistent
Adopt policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits for existing buildings, such as weatherization, lighting 5 It should be noted that, the 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D states that " Lead agencies may determine… that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals."
ATTACHMENT E
1550
TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX D OF THE SCOPING PLAN
POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY
upgrades, and replacing energy-intensive appliances and equipment with more efficient systems (such as Energy Star-rated equipment and equipment controllers)
with the applicable Title 24
Building Envelope Energy
Efficiency Standards, which ensure
highly energy efficient
development. Additionally, the
proposed Project would utilize
electricity from PG&E, which has
been increasing its overall supply
of renewable energy as part of its
overall energy portfolio, consistent
with the State’s Renewable
Portfolio Standard.
Adopt policies and incentive programs to electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings such as appliance rebates, existing building reach codes, or time of sale electrification ordinances Facilitate deployment of renewable energy production and distribution and energy storage on privately owned land uses (e.g., permit streamlining, information sharing)
Deploy renewable energy production and energy storage directly in new public projects and on existing public facilities (e.g., solar photovoltaic systems on rooftops of municipal buildings and on canopies in public parking lots, battery storage systems in municipal buildings)
SOURCE: 2022 SCOPING PLAN, TABLE 1, APPENDIX D
Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with Table 3 of Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan TABLE 3 OF APPENDIX D OF THE SCOPING PLAN
POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Transportation Electrification
Provides EV charging infrastructure
that, at minimum, meets the most
ambitious voluntary standard in the
California Green Building Standards
Code at the time of project approval
Inconsistent. Although the Project would provide EV charging infrastructure that would meet the minimum California Green Building Standards Code requirements (at the time of project approval), it is not anticipated that the Project would provide EV charging infrastructure that would meet the most ambitious voluntary standards.
VMT Reduction
Is located on infill sites that are
surrounded by existing urban uses
and reuses or redevelops previously
undeveloped or underutilized land
that is presently served by existing
utilities and essential public services
(e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer)
No Conflict. The Project is surrounded by existing development to the east and south. Additionally, the Project redevelops previously undeveloped land that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services.
Does not result in the loss or
conversion of natural and working
lands
Inconsistent. The General Plan designates approximately 16,160 acres of agricultural land for development to non-agricultural/urban uses, including the Project site. Therefore, the Project could lead to a net loss or conversion of natural and working lands.
ATTACHMENT E
1551
TABLE 3 OF APPENDIX D OF THE SCOPING PLAN
POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Consists of transit-supportive
densities (minimum of 20 residential
dwelling units per acre), or
Is in proximity to existing transit stops
(within a half mile), or
Satisfies more detailed and stringent
criteria specified in the region’s SCS
No Conflict. The proposed Project’s maximum density is 6.1 units per acre based on gross acreage and 8.7 units per acre based on net acreage. Refer to Chapter 2.0: Project Description, for further detail.
However, the proposed Project would be in proximity to transit stops within a half mile. Specifically, existing bus stops are located along the western boundary of the Project site along West Lane; additional bus stops are located approximately 0.36 miles from the Project site, along Sandalwood Drive.
Reduces parking requirements by:
Eliminating parking requirements or
including maximum allowable
parking ratios (i.e., the ratio of
parking spaces to residential units or
square feet); or Providing residential
parking supply at a ratio of less than
one parking space per dwelling unit;
or
For multifamily residential
development, requiring parking
costs to be unbundled from costs to
rent or own a residential unit.
Inconsistent. The proposed Project would not reduce parking requirements consistent with this policy, or require parking costs to be unbundled from costs to rent or own a residential unit, for multifamily development.
At least 20 percent of units included
are affordable to lower-income
residents
Inconsistent. Development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in at least 20 percent of units included to be affordable to lower-income residents.
Building Decarbonization
Uses all-electric appliances without
any natural gas connections and does
not use propane or other fossil fuels
for space heating, water heating, or
indoor cooking
Inconsistent. The Project is not anticipated to be entirely all-electric.
SOURCE: 2022 SCOPING PLAN, TABLE 3, APPENDIX D
SJCOG 2022 RTP/SCS
The SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS includes eight policies with corresponding implementation strategies for conserving energy, maximizing mobility and accessibility, increasing safety and security, preserving the transportation system, supporting economic development, promoting interagency cooperation and public participation, maximizing cost effectiveness, and improving quality of life for residents. These strategies include similar measures to the 2022 Scoping Plan, such as supporting energy and water efficiency. The Project’s consistency with the applicable 2022 RTP/SCS strategies is discussed in Table GHG-5, below. As shown therein, the Project would
ATTACHMENT E
1552
be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction strategies contained in the SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS.
Table GHG-5: Project Consistency with the SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS
POLICY PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Enhance the
Environment for Existing
and Future Generations
and Conserve Energy
No Conflict. The Project would utilize electricity provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) which is required to meet the year 2030, 2045, and 2050 performance standards. In addition, future development associated with Project implementation would be required to meet the applicable requirements of the 2022 (or more current) Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which include requirements relating to on-site rooftop solar PV for renewable electricity consumption, as well as a wide array of energy efficiency requirements. For example, other requirements include Title 24, Part 6, which contains energy standards for non-residential indoor lighting and outdoor lighting, as well as emissions reductions associated electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Maximize Mobility and
Accessibility
No Conflict. The Project would support the use of zero-emission and lowemission vehicles, by implementing EV-ready charging spaces, consistent with the requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.6 The
2022 Title 24 standard requires that the number of EV charging spaces depends on the building type and total number of parking spaces on-site.
Increase Safety and
Security
No Conflict. The Project would be developed using the latest State and local requirements relating to safety and security. Development of the Project site would include other uses to support and compliment the proposed residential development include public utility infrastructure, public and private roadways, curb/gutters/sidewalks, other pedestrian facilities, private parking, street lighting, and street signage, which would enhance the safety and security of the site and it surroundings, by connecting to existing development.
Preserve the Efficiency of
the Existing
Transportation System
Not applicable. This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable.
Support Economic
Vitality
No Conflict. The Project would add residential land uses to the local community, adding tax revenues, thereby supporting economic vitality.
Promote Interagency
Coordination and Public
Participation for
Transportation DecisionMaking and Planning
Efforts
Not applicable. This is not a transportation improvement project and is therefore not applicable.
Maximize the Cost
Effectiveness
No Conflict. The Project would add residential land uses to the local community, in a location that is logical and appropriate form a cost effectiveness perspective.
Improve the Quality of
Life for Residents
No Conflict. The Project would add recreational and other in-demand residential land uses the community.
SOURCE: SJCOG 2022 RTP/SCS
6 See Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment: Analyzing Charging Needs to Support Zero-Emission Vehicles in 2030. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/2020/assembly-bill-2127-electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructureassessment-analyzing
ATTACHMENT E
1553
Consistency with the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan: The City of Stockton adopted its CAP in 2014. The City’s GHG Inventory is evaluated for baselines years 2005 and 2010 and is projected for years 2020 and 2035. The proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan. For example, the proposed Project would comply with the applicable GHG reduction strategies identified in the CAP, such as CAP Strategy ENERGY-6, which requires the City encourage businesses and residents to install rooftop solar using Power Purchase Agreements and other low or zero up-front cost options for installing solar photovoltaic systems.
Table GHG-6, below, provides an analysis of the consistency of the proposed Project with the GHG reduction measures contained within the CAP. As shown, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable GHG reduction measures that would be applicable to the proposed Project.7
Table GHG-6 Project Consistency with the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan
GHG REDUCTION MEASURE PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Energy-1: Green Building
Ordinance
No Conflict. The Project would more than adhere to the 2008 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Standards, since the most recent version of the Title 24 Standards is much more stringent. Simply meeting the current Title 24 Standards would result in significant energy and GHG savings for the City because the state has regularly updated the Title 24 requirements since 2005 and plans to continue to update the Title 24 standards periodically in the future. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Energy-2: Outdoor Lighting
Upgrades for Existing
Development
Not applicable. The proposed Project is a new development; therefore, GHG reduction measures associated with existing development would not apply.
Energy-3: Energy Efficiency
Incentives and Programs to
Promote Retrofits for
Existing Residential
Buildings
Not applicable. The proposed Project is a new development; therefore, GHG reduction measures associated with existing development would not apply.
Energy-4: Energy Efficiency
Programs to Promote
Retrofits for Existing Non‐
Residential Buildings
Not applicable. The proposed Project is a new development; therefore, GHG reduction measures associated with existing development would not apply.
Moreover, the proposed Project does not include non-residential development.
Energy‐5: Solar‐Powered
Parking
No Conflict. The Project would be consistent with the current Title 24 Standards associated with solar PV, as applicable. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure. 7 It should be noted that, subsequent to adoption of the CAP, the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego case held that the use of a quantitative threshold (like the efficiency threshold included within the Stockton Climate Action Plan), which has historically been used for EIRs throughout California, must be adopted by the City via a resolution, ordinance or regulation based on a public review process, and supported by substantial evidence. However, such a quantitative threshold as included with the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan has never been specifically adopted as a threshold by the City via a resolution, ordinance, or regulation. Moreover, this efficiency threshold also relates only to year 2020, which has already come and gone.
Therefore, overall, the usage of a per capita efficiency metric, such as the one included within the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan, is also not relevant or appropriate in a CEQA context.
ATTACHMENT E
1554
GHG REDUCTION MEASURE PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Energy-6: Residential and
Non-residential Rooftop
Solar
No Conflict. The Project would be consistent with the current Title 24 Standards associated with solar PV. Specifically, based on the 2022 version of the Title 24 standards, although the exact percentage of electricity generated by the PV system can vary based on factors such as the climate zone, conditioned floor area, and possible plug loads of the building, the goal is to offset a large portion of electrical consumption of the proposed building.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Trans-1: Land
Use/Transportation System
Design Integration
No Conflict. The Project would increase density in the City of Stockton, thereby facilitating additional land use and existing transportation integration. That is, the development of the Project would increase use of existing roadways that have been designed to accommodate additional traffic, such as that as would be generated by the proposed Project. Overall, the Project land uses have been previously planned for and integrate appropriately with the existing transportation system Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Trans-2: Parking Policies Not applicable. This GHG reduction measure would apply to the downtown area, which the Project is not in. Therefore, this GHG reduction measure would not apply to the proposed Project.
Trans-3: Transit System
Support
No Conflict. The Project would not hinder the development of the City’s transit system. Furthermore, the increased residential density of the area that would occur with development of the proposed Project would incentivize further development of local transit options, beyond which would be anticipated to occur without development of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Trans-4: Efficient Goods
Movement
Not applicable. This GHG reduction measure would apply to the City’s rail lines.
Therefore, this GHG reduction measure would not apply to the proposed Project.
Trans-5: Reduce Barriers
for Non‐Motorized Travel
No Conflict. The Project would connect the City’s existing transportation system, via pedestrian walkways (including sidewalks) and connect with the existing system. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Trans‐6: Transit System
Improvements
No Conflict. This GHG reduction measure would apply to the City’s transit system. Nevertheless, the proposed Project would be accessible via the City’s existing transit system. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Trans‐7: Safe Routes to
School
No Conflict. The Project would connect the City’s existing transportation system, via pedestrian walkways (including sidewalks). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Trans‐8: Transportation
Demand Management and
Additional Safe Routes to
School
No Conflict. The Project is consistent with the land use presented in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (i.e., low density residential with less than
6.1 units per gross acre). The Project is also located within a half-mile of two transit stops on West Lane. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Waste‐1: Increased Waste
Diversion
No Conflict. The Project would be consistent with the State’s 75% waste diversion goal as required by AB 341. It should be noted that AB 341 has been superseded by California’s SB 1383, which sets a more stringent goal of diverting 75% of the waste stream from landfills by 2025 and includes enforcement mechanisms, such as monetary fines, for non-compliance. The Project would be required to comply with SB 1383, and since AB 341 has come
ATTACHMENT E
1555
GHG REDUCTION MEASURE PROJECT CONSISTENCY
and gone, the Project would not conflict with requirements associated with AB 341. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Water‐1: Comply with
Senate Bill X7‐7
No Conflict. The Project would be consistent with the State’s statewide goal of a 20% reduction in urban per capita use, as required by Senate Bill X7-7. Senate Bill X7-7 is a California state law that requires the state to reduce urban water consumption by 20% by the year 2020. Since the year 2020 has come and gone, the Project would not conflict with this law. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Water‐2: Promotion of
Water‐Efficiency for
Existing Development
Not applicable. This GHG reduction measure would apply only to existing development. The proposed Project does not contain any existing development; rather, it includes new development. Therefore, this GHG reduction measure would not apply to the proposed Project.
Wastewater‐1: Energy
Efficiency Improvements at
the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant
No Conflict. The Project would not conflict with the City’s goal of reducing energy usage as the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Project is not anticipated to be a large generate of wastewater demand, since it is a commercial and industrial project. Additionally, the Project would not hinder energy efficiency improvements or other upgrades at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Urban Forestry‐1: Urban
Tree Planting Programs
No Conflict. The Project would include landscaping trees that would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
High GWP GHG‐1:
Residential Responsible
Appliance Disposal
Programs
No Conflict. The Project is a new development that would install new energyefficient refrigerators and freezers. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goal of replacing existing inefficient sources of high global warming potential (GWP) appliances. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Off‐Road‐1: Electric‐
Powered Construction
Equipment
No Conflict. The Project would not conflict with the City’s goal of increasing the percentage of construction equipment that is electric powered. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Off‐Road‐2: Reduced Idling
Times for Construction
Equipment
No Conflict. The Project would be consistent with the CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel‐Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling currently limits diesel‐fueled commercial motor vehicle idling time to 5 minutes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
Off‐Road‐3: Electric
Landscaping Equipment
No Conflict. The Project would not conflict with the City’s goal of 15% of the City’s landscaping equipment to be electric or battery powered. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with this GHG reduction measure.
SOURCE: CITY OF STOCKTON CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, 2014
Consistency with the SJVAPCD Requirements: The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable SJVAPCD (i.e. Air District) Rules and regulations. For example, Regulations and rules that may apply to the proposed Project could include Regulation VIII provides fugitive PM10 dust prohibitions; Rule 8021 provides rules for PM10 dust prohibition associated with construction, demolition activities, excavation, extraction, and other earthmoving activities; Rule 4601 provides rules to limit VOC emissions for architectural coatings. In sum, the proposed Project would comply with all applicable SJVAPCD Rules and regulations.
ATTACHMENT E
1556
CONCLUSION
The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed as the Project site was assumed for development of low density residential uses in the General Plan EIR. The proposed low density residential uses are consistent with the assumed location and assumed use for the site that was analyzed in the General Plan EIR.8
However, the General Plan EIR identified that the General Plan EIR would not meet the 2050 climate stabilization target of 1.2 MTCO2e/SP. Furthermore, the General Plan identified that additional federal, State, and local GHG reductions would be needed to achieve the 2050 PlanLevel efficiency target and the State’s climate stabilization goals. Therefore, the General Plan EIR includes Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which requires an update to the City’s CAP.
Nevertheless, since publication of the General Plan EIR, the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego case held that the use of a quantitative threshold (like the efficiency thresholds included within the General Plan EIR, and the Stockton CAP), which has historically been used for EIRs throughout California, must be adopted by the City via a resolution, ordinance or regulation based on a public review process, and supported by substantial evidence. However, such quantitative thresholds as included with the General Plan EIR and the Stockton CAP have never been specifically adopted as a threshold by the City via a resolution, ordinance, or regulation.
Therefore, overall, the usage of any per capita efficiency metric is not relevant or appropriate in a CEQA context.
Separately, as stated in the General Plan EIR, development that would be accommodated by the General Plan would generate a net increase of approximately 3.12 million vehicle miles per day.
Implementation of proposed General Plan goals, policies, and actions could contribute in reducing GHG emissions compared to a no project buildout scenario. As discussed in Section 4.7, Air Quality, the Transportation Chapter of the Draft General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that encompass multi-modal and active transit improvements within the EIR Study Area (e.g., Goals TR-1 and TR-2). Improvements include requiring new development to incorporate design features that would provide easier access to transit (Action TR-2.2.A), dedication of adequate bicycle and transit right-of-way on arterial and collector streets (Action TR-2.3.B), and developing guidelines for installation of electric vehicle charging stations for new developments (Action TR-3.2.B). Additionally, support of infill and mixed-use development (see Policy LU-1.1 and Policy LU-6.2) further supports balanced development which contributes in reducing VMT by increasing use of alternative transit options (i.e., walking, biking, and public transit) and decreasing vehicle trips and the average trip distances traveled. Furthermore, the Safety Chapter includes a policy and action to encourage new employers to participate in a transportation demand management program (Policy SAF-4.2 and Action SAF-4.2.A). These goals, policies, and 8 The air emissions modeling within the General Plan EIR Included the SOI areas, which includes the Project site.
ATTACHMENT E
1557
actions would contribute to reducing VMT and in minimizing long-term mobile-source GHG emissions to the extent feasible.
Overall, the Project, including the off-site improvements, would be consistent with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the SJCOG’s 2022 RTP/SCS and the City of Stockton Climate Action Plan, as described in the above analysis.
Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, using a qualitative approach (consistent with the guidance provided by the 2022 Scoping Plan). The General Plan EIR found that impacts associated with greenhouse gases emissions were significant and unavoidable. The proposed Project would comply with the mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR. The potential for the proposed Project to be generate GHG impacts was anticipated for projects, like the proposed Project, that develop consistent with the General Plan in the General Plan EIR. Compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, existing rules and regulations, and General Plan EIR mitigation measures would reduce the criteria pollutant emissions from the Project, but the impacts could remain significant and unavoidable. As the General Plan EIR evaluated this topic and also concluded the impacts will remain significant and unavoidable.
Because the Project would be consistent with the land use and density assumed in the Proposed land use plan-year 2040 buildout used to evaluate air quality impacts in the General Plan, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Under the existing General Plan land use designation for the site (Low Density Residential), the 503.89-acre Development Area could be developed with up to
6.1 units per gross acre, or up to 3,073 units. Under the Project, up to 2,241 residential units would be constructed, which is well within the assumed housing units count for the Project site analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR shown in Appendix B of the General Plan EIR.9 The amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project directly correlates to the size of a project site and the unit count of a project. As the General Plan EIR’s greenhouse gas emissions modelling assumed the build out of areas in Sphere of Influence, including the Project site, and the Project is proposing units within the residential density range considered din the general Plan for this Project Site, no additional analysis is required. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to greenhouse gas emissions as compared with the General Plan EIR. 9 The air emissions modeling within the General Plan EIR Included the SOI areas, which includes the Project site.
ATTACHMENT E
1558
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
Project Impacts:
The proposed Project includes the development of a 2,241 single-family lot residential subdivision and would not result in activities that transport, store, or use hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed below, compliance with the General Plan goals and policies and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated human health and hazards impacts that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included wildland fire hazards, transportation, use and disposal of hazardous materials, and emergency response and evacuation plans (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018,
ATTACHMENT E
1559
pages 4.8-22 through 4.8-27). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the Stockton General Plan can introduce a variety of human health and hazards impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards in the Stockton Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding hazardous conditions, and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 4.8 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed as the Project site was assumed for development of low density residential uses in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed low density residential uses are consistent with the location and assumed use for the site that was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to hazards or hazardous materials. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
• Policy SAF-2.1 directs the City to ensure that community members are adequately prepared for emergencies through education and training, and in support of this policy, Action SAF-2.1.A directs the City to develop neighborhood watch and emergency support groups that are trained and ready to be put into action in the event of an emergency.
Implementation of this policy and action will ensure that community members know how to protect themselves and their neighbors in the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials.
• Policy SAF-2.2 directs the City to prepare sufficiently for major events to enable quick and effective response. To support this policy, Action SAF-2.2.A directs the City to require that new development provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes; Action SAF-2.2.C ensures that new critical facilities, including hospitals, emergency operations centers, communications facilities, fire stations, and police stations, are be located, designed, and constructed to avoid or mitigate potential risks and ensure functional operation during fires and explosions; and Action SAF-2.2.D directs cooperation with San Joaquin County, the County Office of Emergency Services, other cities in the region, and disaster agencies to coordinate disaster and emergency preparedness planning. This policy and associated actions will ensure that emergency response to the accidental release of hazardous materials is coordinated, quick, and effective.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): The proposed Project would place new residential uses in an area of the City that currently contains predominantly residential uses. The proposed residential land uses do not routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, or present a reasonably foreseeable release of hazardous materials, except for common residential grade hazardous materials such as household cleaners, paint, etc. The operational phase of the proposed Project does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) there are no Federal Superfund Sites, State Response Sites, or Voluntary Cleanup Sites on, or in the near vicinity of the Project site. The
ATTACHMENT E
1560
Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. There are no other listed cleanup sites located within 1,000 feet of the Project site.
Development of the Project would involve site grading, excavation for utilities, trenching, backfilling, and the construction of proposed facilities that could result in the exposure of construction workers and the general public to hazardous materials. Like most agricultural and farming operations in the Central Valley, agricultural practices in the area have used agricultural chemicals including pesticides and herbicides as a standard practice. Continuous spraying of crops over many years can potentially result in a residual buildup of pesticides, in farm soils. Of highest concern relative to agrichemicals are chlorinated herbicides, organophosphate pesticides, and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), such as such as Mecoprop (MCPP), Dinoseb, chlordane, dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE). Project Requirement 12 requires site-specific soil sampling to determine if chemicals of potential concern associated with the historical agricultural uses at the Project site are present in shallow soil at concentrations that would pose a threat to human health.
Any operations that involve the use of hazardous materials would be required to have the hazardous material transported, stored, used, and disposed of in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations. The San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health is the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA) for San Joaquin County and is responsible for the implementation of statewide programs within the city including Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) requirements, among numerous other programs. Additionally, businesses are regulated by Cal/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and are therefore required to ensure employee safety. Specific requirements include identifying hazardous materials in the workplace, providing safety information to workers that handle hazardous materials, and adequately training workers. To further ensure the safety of employees, and reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, the applicant must submit a HMBP to San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health for review and approval prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite.
Construction equipment and materials would likely require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of common chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, Project Requirement 11 (Hydrology and Water Quality) requires the Project applicant to implement a SWPPP during construction activities, which would prevent any contaminated runoff from leaving the Project site. Therefore, compliance with applicable federal, state, local statutes (including but not limited to the Storm Water Quality Control Criteria Plan [SWQCCP]), and regulations, and the SWPPP provided in Project Requirement 11, would ensure that the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to hazards as compared with the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1561
Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement 12: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to perform site-specific soil sampling to determine if chemicals of potential concern associated with the historical agricultural uses at the Project site are present in shallow soil at concentrations that would pose a threat to human health. In order to achieve this, a soil sampling and analysis workplan shall be submitted for approval by the San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health prior to the work. The sampling and analysis plan shall meet the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (2008).
If the sampling results indicate the presence of agrichemicals that exceed residential screening levels, a removal action workplan shall be prepared in coordination with San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health. The removal action workplan shall include a detailed engineering plan for conducting the removal action, a description of the onsite contamination, the goals to be achieved by the removal action, and any alternative removal options that were considered and rejected and the basis for that rejection. A no further action letter shall be issued by San Joaquin County Department of Environmental Health upon completion of the removal action.
The removal action shall be deemed complete when the confirmation samples exhibit concentrations below the residential screening levels, which will be established by the agencies.
Response c): The Project site is located within 1/4-mile of an existing school. The nearest school to the Project site is the Ronald McNair High School, located adjacent west of the Project site.
Project construction activities would involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, such as petroleum-based products and a variety of chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents with the potential of accidental release. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and federal law.
Additionally, the Project does not propose uses that would involve the use or storage of hazardous substances other than limited quantities of hazardous materials such as solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used for regular household maintenance of buildings and landscaping. The quantities of these materials would not typically be at an amount that would pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Should the LUSD decide to pursue building a school at the proposed school site, compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing hazardous materials would ensure all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would ensure that risks associated with the proposed Project’s limited use of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. Therefore, compliance with applicable federal, state, local statutes, and regulations would ensure that the Project would not result in any new significant
ATTACHMENT E
1562
effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to accidental release near schools as compared with the General Plan EIR.
Response d): The proposed Project would not be located on a Cortese List site, and no impact would occur. The Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
Response e): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes distances of ground clearance for take-off and landing safety based on such items as the type of aircraft using the airport.
The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is the closest airport to the Project site, located approximately
9.5 miles to the south. The probability of an aircraft accident is highest along the extended runway centerline, and within one mile of the runway end. According to SJCOG Guidelines there are seven zones in which land use restrictions apply due to proximity to the airport:
1. Zone 1 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)
2. Zone 2 Inner Approach/Departure Zone (IADZ)
3. Zone 3 Inner Turning Zone (ITZ)
4. Zone 4 Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ)
5. Zone 5 Sideline Safety Zone (SSZ)
6. Zone 7 Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ)
7. Zone 8 Airport Influence Area (AIA)
Land use constraints in these zones become progressively less restrictive from the RPZ to the TPZ. The proposed Project is not located within any of the safety zones. The proposed Project is not located within one mile of the airport, nor along the extended runway centerline, or within an AIA. Additionally, there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project consists of low-rise structures and does not propose any structures of substantial height that would protrude into active airspace. Therefore, safety hazards related to the Project’s proximity to the Stockton Metropolitan Airport are less than significant. And the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects as compared with the General Plan EIR.
Response f): The proposed Project does not include any actions that would impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project involves the development of residential land uses within an urbanized environment and would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. The nearest police station is approximately 6.1 miles south of the Project site. The nearest fire station is approximately 1.9 miles south of the Project site. Evacuation routes in the vicinity of the Project site include West Lane and Morada Lane.
As noted above, impacts related to emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans were determined to be less than significant in the General Plan EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-26). The application of development standards in the Stockton Municipal Code, the
ATTACHMENT E
1563
application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding hazardous conditions, and compliance with local, state and federal standards related to hazards and hazardous materials would be required for the proposed Project. For example, the proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that ensure community members know how to protect themselves and their neighbors during emergencies and that facilitate coordinated, quick, and effective emergency response. In particular, Action SAF-2.2.A directs the City to require that new development provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes. The Project would be subject to this action. Action SAF-2.2.B directs the City to formulate, review, periodically update, and make available to the public emergency management plans for the safe evacuation of people from areas subject to inundation from levee and dam failure; Action SAF-2.2.C requires new critical facilities, including hospitals, emergency operations centers, communications facilities, fire stations, and police stations, to be located, designed, and constructed to avoid or mitigate potential risks and ensure functional operation during flood events, seismic and geological events, fires, and explosions; and Action SAF-2.2.D directs the City to work with San Joaquin County, the County Office of Emergency Services, other cities in the region, and disaster agencies to coordinate disaster and emergency preparedness planning. Because the Project is consistent with land use designation and density assigned to the Project site in the General Plan, the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects as compared with the General Plan EIR.
Response g): Less than Significant. The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point, while fuels such as trees have a lower surface area to mass ratio and require more heat to reach the ignition point.
The City has areas with an abundance of flashy fuels (i.e. grassland) in the outlying residential parcels and open lands that, when combined with warm and dry summers with temperatures often exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit, create a situation that results in higher risk of wildland fires. Most wildland fires are human caused, so areas with easy human access to land with the appropriate fire parameters generally result in an increased risk of fire.
According to the General Plan EIR, impacts related to exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildlife fires were determined to be less than significant (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-26 and 4.8-27). The proposed General Plan includes policies and actions that support effective response in the event of an emergency, including from a wildfire. For example, Action LU-6.1.G ensures that there are adequate fire protection service providers in the event of a fire by directing the City to maintain adequate staffing levels to support achieving the City’s service level goals for fire protection. Furthermore, State and City regulations have established structural fire resistance and protection standards, as well as requirements regarding debris and vegetation in wildfire hazard areas. The Project would be subject to these State and City regulations.
ATTACHMENT E
1564
Since the Project site is not located within a designated wildfire hazard area and would comply with the state and local building regulations and the General Plan policies and actions, and because the Project is consistent with land use designation and density assigned to the Project site in the General Plan, the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects as compared with the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1565
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
X
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; X (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems to
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
X
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Project Impacts:
The proposed Project includes the development of a 2,241 single-family lot residential subdivision and would require grading activities that would remove some limited vegetation cover and expose soil to wind and water erosion and potentially impact water quality. Waterways in the Stockton area have the potential to flood and expose people or structures to flooding.
Additional impervious surfaces from roadways, curbs, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, backyards, and roofs would be created with the development of the proposed Project.
ATTACHMENT E
1566
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included water quality, ground water quality and supply, drainage, flooding, risks of seiche, tsunami and mudflow (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.9-23 through 4.9-35). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in hydrology and water quality impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards contained in the Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance and Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance of the Stockton Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies related to hydrology, flooding and water quality, and compliance with local, state, and federal water quality standards and floodplain development requirements.
These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to, erosion control measures, the City’s Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit requirements, and goals and policies in the General Plan Safety Elements requiring the protection of new and existing development from flood and drainage hazards, the prevention of storm drainage run-off in excess of pre- development levels, and the development and application of erosion control plans and best management practices.
These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 4.9 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential water quality impacts from the operation of new development The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
• Action SAF-2.2.A: Require new development to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes, including by designing roadway systems to provide multiple escape routes in the event of a levee failure. • Action SAF-2.2.B: Formulate, review, periodically update, and make available to the public emergency management plans for the safe evacuation of people from areas subject to inundation from levee and dam failure.
• Action SAF-3.1.A: Actively participate in appropriate forums designed to discuss and solve regional water supply and quality issues.
• Policy SAF-3.2: Protect the availability of clean potable water from groundwater sources. • Action SAF-3.2.B: Require new development to employ low impact development (LID) approaches, including:
o Conserving natural areas and reducing imperviousness. o Runoff storage.
o Hydro-modification (to mimic pre-development runoff volume and flow rate). o Reducing trash accumulation.
o Public education and outreach.
ATTACHMENT E
1567
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, the City requires the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site during both the construction and operational phases of the Project. Additionally, projects are required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and comply with the SWQCCP. The final storm drainage infrastructure plan for the Project would also be submitted to the City for review and approval.
The collection of fees and determined fair share fee amounts are adopted by the City as Conditions of Approval (COAs) for all new development projects prior to project approval. The payment of applicable development impact fees by the proposed Project would ensure that the Project pays its fair-share of capital improvement fees towards future system expansions.
Additionally, through compliance with the NPDES permit requirements, compliance with the SWQCCP, and compliance with the SWPPP, the proposed Project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Compliance with the NPDES, the SWPPP required by Project Requirement 13, and the final storm drainage infrastructure plan required by Project Requirement 14, would ensure that the Project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan, and the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects as compared with the General Plan EIR.
Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement 13: Pursuant to Section 15.48.080 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes specific types and sources of stormwater pollutants, determine the location and nature of potential impacts, and specify appropriate control measures to eliminate any potentially significant impacts on receiving water quality from stormwater runoff. The SWPPP shall require treatment BMPs that incorporate, at a minimum, the required hydraulic sizing design criteria for volume and flow to treat projected stormwater runoff. The SWPPP shall comply with the most current standards established by the Central Valley RWQCB. Best Management Practices shall be selected from the City’s Manual of Stormwater Quality Control Standards for New Development and Redevelopment according to site requirements and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Central Valley RWQCB.
Project Requirement 14: Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Project applicant shall submit a detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan to the City of Stockton Development Services Department for review and approval. Pursuant to Section 16.72.200 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to collect and direct all stormwater generated on the Project site within onsite retention/detention facilities to the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system, and demonstrate that the Project would not result in on- or off-site flooding impacts. The Projectshall also pay all applicable development impact fees, which would include funding for offsite
ATTACHMENT E
1568
Citywide storm drainage infrastructure improvements identified in the City of Stockton Stormwater Master Plan.
Response b): The proposed Project would not result in the construction of new groundwater wells, nor would it increase existing levels of groundwater pumping. As previously discussed, the certified General Plan EIR assumed full development and buildout of the Project site with uses that are proposed under the current application. As stated in the Envision Stockton General Plan EIR, “This EIR does not evaluate the changes in the General Plan relative to the existing 2035 General Plan but rather evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan relative to existing conditions, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2.” In other words, the General Plan EIR described the baseline/existing conditions for Bear Creek South as agriculture and vacant and compared the existing agricultural uses/vacant site with the proposed low density residential uses planned for the site based on the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan. As discussed in Appendix G, the Stockton General Plan EIR assumes 40,900 new residential units to be constructed through the Horizon Year of 2040. These projections are based in part on the land use inventory from the General Plan land use map, in addition to market and economic factors that drive growth. The Project site provides approximately 5% of the total housing demand through the Horizon-Year Projection, and approximately 1.8% of the total housing demand through the Full Buildout Projection. Therefore was considered in the City’s planning projections, including the water planning projections. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would not be considered to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP that would include BMPs for capturing stormwater. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
Groundwater recharge occurs primarily through percolation of surface waters through the soil and into the groundwater basin. The addition of significant areas of impervious surfaces (such as roads, parking lots, buildings, etc.) can interfere with this natural groundwater recharge process.
Upon full Project buildout, portions of the Project site would be covered in impervious surfaces, which would limit the potential for groundwater percolation to occur on the Project site.
However, the Project would be required to incorporate BMPs and LID approaches that minimize impervious areas and retain, reuse, and/or infiltrate stormwater, as per General Plan Action SAF3.2.B. And because the City has adequate existing water service capacity to serve the Project, and the limited scope of impervious surface coverage (when compared to the larger groundwater basin), the proposed Project would result in not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to depletion of groundwater supplies and interference with groundwater recharge as compared with the General Plan EIR.
Response c): When land is in a natural or undeveloped condition, soils, mulch, vegetation, and plant roots absorb rainwater. This absorption process is called infiltration or percolation. Much of the rainwater that falls on natural or undeveloped land slowly infiltrates the soil and is stored either temporarily or permanently in underground layers of soil. When the soil becomes completely soaked or saturated with water or the rate of rainfall exceeds the infiltration capacity of the soil, the rainwater begins to flow on the surface of land to low lying areas, ditches, channels,
ATTACHMENT E
1569
streams, and rivers. Rainwater that flows off a site is defined as storm water runoff. When a site is in a natural condition or is undeveloped, a larger percentage of rainwater infiltrates into the soil and a smaller percentage flow off the Project site as storm water runoff.
The infiltration and runoff process are altered when a site is developed with urban uses. Houses, buildings, roads, and parking lots introduce asphalt, concrete, and roofing materials to the landscape. These materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. As impervious surfaces are added to the ground conditions, the natural infiltration process is reduced. As a result, the volume and rate of storm water runoff increases. The increased volumes and rates of storm water runoff may result in flooding if adequate storm drainage facilities are not provided.
There are no waterways, creeks, streams, or other water courses within the Project site. As such, there is no potential for the Project to alter a water course, which could lead to on or offsite flooding. Drainage improvements associated with the Project site would be located on the Project site as per General Plan Policies and Actions requirements, and the Project would not alter or adversely impact offsite drainage facilities. Specifically, the General Plan includes policies and actions to prevent flooding, including the following:
• Policy SAF-2.3: Protect the community from potential flood events. • Action SAF-2.3A: Coordinate with appropriate State, federal, and local flood control agencies to develop a flood protection plan for the levee systems protecting the city that:
o Identifies the levees protecting the city and the entities responsible for the operation and maintenance of the levees;
o Determines the flood levels in the waterways and the level of protection offered by the existing levees along the waterways;
o Identifies a long-term plan to upgrade the system as necessary to provide at least a 100-year level of flood protection to the city, and 200-year level of flood protection, where feasible;
o Encourages multi-purpose flood management projects that, where feasible, incorporate recreation, resource conservation, preservation of natural riparian habitat, and scenic values of the city's streams, creeks, and lakes; and o Includes provisions for updates to reflect future State or federally mandated levels of flood protection.
• Action SAF-2.3B: Collaborate with State and local flood management agencies and other interested parties to develop funding mechanisms to finance the local share of flood management responsibilities, and maintain cooperative working relationships with appropriate agencies to minimize flood hazards and improve safety. • Action SAF-2.3C: Require new public and private waterfront development to be oriented to waterways and provide setbacks and easements along levees and channels to provide space for levee widening, flood fighting, roadway and maintenance access, open space and trail amenities, and appropriate landscaping.
ATTACHMENT E
1570
• Action SAF-2.4C: Preserve floodways and floodplains for non-urban uses to maintain existing flood carrying capacities, except when mitigated in conformance with the City's floodplain management program.
Development of the Project site would place impervious surfaces on portions of the Project site.
Development of the Project site would potentially increase local runoff production, and would introduce constituents into storm water that are typically associated with urban runoff. These constituents include heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper) and petroleum hydrocarbons.
BMPs will be applied to the proposed site development to limit the concentrations of these constituents in any site runoff that is discharged into downstream facilities to acceptable levels.
Storm mains will be installed within the subdivision to serve the Project. Onsite stormwater runoff would be directed into an underground pipe system which would collect the runoff and direct it to the central storm drainage basin. Stormwater from this basin would be discharged via a new pump station and force main into Bear Creek through an existing 24-inch diameter outfall structure located on the south side of Bear Creek, just east of the West Lane overcrossing. The basin drawdown rate would meet COSMUD standards to discharge the 100-year, 24-hour design storm volume over a period of 48 hours and would be less than predeveloped runoff rates from the Project area.
To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, Project Requirement 13 requires the preparation of a SWPPP. As described previously, the SWPPP would require the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site during both the construction and operational phases of the Project.
The Project is also required to pay all applicable development impact fees. To ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, or otherwise degrade water quality, Project Requirement 13 requires the preparation of a SWPPP, and structural BMPs. As described above, the SWPPP would require the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the Project site, which would ensure that stormwater runoff does not adversely increase pollutant levels, and would reduce the potential for disturbed soils and ground surfaces to result in erosion and sediment discharge into adjacent surface waters during construction and operational phases of the Project. The implementation of this requirement would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Ultimately, to ensure that stormwater runoff generated at the Project site because of new impervious surfaces does not exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system, Project Requirement 14 above requires the Project applicant to submit a detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan to the City of Stockton Community Development Department for review and approval. The Project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans shall, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to collect and direct all stormwater generated on the Project site within onsite retention/detention facilities to the City’s existing stormwater conveyance system, and demonstrate that the Project would not result in
ATTACHMENT E
1571
on- or off-site flooding impacts. The implementation of this requirement would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
The payment of all applicable fees, compliance with General Plan policies and actions, and the implementation of Project Requirements 13 and 14, would ensure that the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effect related to drainage patterns as compared with the General Plan EIR Response d): The General Plan EIR identifies special flood hazard areas mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). As shown, the Project site is not located within a regulatory floodway or flood zone delineated by FEMA. The Project site is in the FEMA flood zone X which is an area of minimal flood hazard. Similarly, the Project site is not located within a dam inundation area. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
Response e): The proposed Project would be subject to a Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and would ensure that adequate drainage would be provided through connection to the City’s existing water and sanitary sewer lines and development of bioretention areas for stormwater runoff. As previously mentioned, the proposed Project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP in accordance with applicable federal and state requirements. The SWPPP would identify BMPs that are intended to prevent erosion runoff during construction. The Project would also be required to comply with the requirements of the SWQCCP. Furthermore, the General Plan contains several policies and actions intended to protect groundwater supplies. For example, General Plan Action SAF-3.2.B requires new development to employ LID approaches that conserve natural areas and reduce impervious areas. Additionally, General Plan Policy SAF-3.2 and Actions SAF-3.1.A and SAF-3.2.A support regional efforts to reduce reliance on groundwater by directing the City to actively participate in regional forums to address water supply issues, protect the availability of clean potable water from groundwater sources, and cooperate with other regional agencies to monitor groundwater withdrawals and ensure that they fall within the target yield for the drinking water aquifer. In addition, proposed General Plan Actions LU-5.1.C and 5.4.A require new development to minimize overall water use through drought-tolerant landscaping, other best management practices for water use efficiency, and demonstrated water conservation measures.
The General Plan designates the Project site for residential use, and the Project site would be developed consistent with that land use designation. Therefore, the proposed Project is considered planned growth and would not conflict with the Water Quality Control Plan, Urban Water Management Plan, or Comprehensive Groundwater Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. As such, the Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review is not met.
ATTACHMENT E
1572
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X
Project Impacts:
The development of 2,241 single-family residences would not physically divide the community, and there are no conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on land use because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included dividing an established community and potential conflicts with established land uses within and adjacent to the City (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.10-13 through 4.10-24). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in land use impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding land use impacts.
These goals and policies include but are not limited to goals and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element requiring buffering of land uses, reviewing development proposals for compatibility issues, establishing, and maintaining development standards and encouraging communication between adjacent jurisdictions.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The Project site is surrounded by existing and proposed residential and agricultural uses. The Project is consistent with the land use designation and density assigned to the Project Site in the General Plan, and would be consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses (which generally include vacant agricultural land proposed for development of residential uses, an elementary school, commercial uses, residential uses, and UPRR right-ofway) and would not divide an established community. As such, the Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was disclosed in the General Plan EIR .
Response b): The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use designation and density for the Project site designated in the General Plan. Thus, the Project has been designed consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation, goals and policies, and relevant ordinances, and is therefore considered planned growth that would not conflict with the General Plan. Therefore, the development of 2,241 residential lots would be consistent with the General Plan Low Density Residential designation and would not result in any impacts and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1573
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): The Stockton General Plan EIR does not identify significant mineral resources within the area. Furthermore, there are no mineral resources of local or statewide importance within the Project site. Therefore, there is no possibility of loss of mineral resources of local or statewide importance. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites. The proposed Project would result in no impact and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1574
XIII. NOISE
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Generation of a temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Project Impacts:
As discussed below, development of the proposed Project will result in an increase in noise from construction and operational activities. Compliance with the General Plan goals and policies, and the City of Stockton Noise Ordinance, in addition to specific Project requirements provided herein, would reduce noise related impacts to a less-than-significant level. An Environmental Noise Assessment has been prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix D).
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of noise associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included construction noise, traffic noise, operational noise, groundborne vibration, and overall increased in noise resulting from implementation of the General Plan (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.11-30 through 4.11-53).
Noise reduction measures to address the noise impacts are incorporated into the General Plan in the Noise Element, which includes policies that require acoustical analyses to determine noise compatibility between land uses, application of stationary and mobile noise source sound limits/design standards, restriction of development of noise-sensitive land uses unless effective noise mitigations are incorporated into projects, and mitigation of noise levels to ensure that the noise level design standards of the Noise Element are not exceeded.
The General Plan EIR concluded that, despite these goals and policies, significant noise impacts will occur because of development under the General Plan and further, that these impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Specifically, the General Plan EIR noted that the existing and proposed policies, actions, and regulations would serve to reduce noise from vehicles at the source and to otherwise shield sensitive uses from excessive noise. However, while these policies, actions, and regulations would help to reduce the severity of the effects of traffic noise, they
ATTACHMENT E
1575
would not prevent all the anticipated traffic noise increases along the impacted roadway segments identified in Table 4.11-14 of the EIR, and the impact would be significant. Thus, because no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate noise impacts to a less than significant level, traffic noise would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Stockton City Council regarding these impacts.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a):
Traffic Noise Increases at Off-Site Receptors
The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise guidelines specify criteria to determine the significance of traffic noise impacts. Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant. The maximum increase is traffic noise at the nearest sensitive receptor is predicted to be 1.2 dBA. Therefore, impacts resulting from increased traffic noise would be considered less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required.
Operational Noise at Existing Sensitive Receptors
The proposed Project would include typical residential noise which would be compatible with the existing adjacent residential uses. Sensitive receptors (existing residential uses) are located 150 feet or further from the Project site. Common noise sources associated with residential, open space, and passive recreational land uses include: property maintenance equipment, music playback systems, social gatherings, public trails, and picnic areas. These types of noise sources are typically intermittent and infrequent (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-39). As disccused in the General Plan Draft EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-39) through the implementation and enforcement of the proposed General Plan policies and actions and the existing Municipal Code standards, stationary source noise from long-term operations associated with the various types of proposed land uses would not substantially increase the noise environment within the EIR Study Area, and the impact would be less than significant. Because the Project is consistent with the land use designation and density assigned to the Project Site in the General Plan, and would be required to comply with the General Plan policies and actions, the City’s development standards and the Municipal Code requirements, the proposed Project would result in new or substantially more severe operational noise impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the Project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate Project vicinity. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet.
Construction activities would also be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours.
ATTACHMENT E
1576
The City of Stockton Municipal Code exempts construction noise from the noise ordinance between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Construction equipment that may be used in the development of the Project has the potential to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA LMAX at 50 feet. It is noted that sensitive receptors (existing residential uses) are located 150 feet or further from the Project site. Caltrans defines a significant increase due to noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels. This criterion was used to evaluate increases due to construction noise associated with the Project. Table NOI-1 shows the predicted maximum noise levels for each phase of project construction, assuming the equipment are to be used near the edge of each phase closest to existing receptors. Based upon Table NOI-1, construction related noise levels are predicted to be less than existing ambient noise levels.
Table NOI-1: Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors PHASE
DISTANCE TO
RECEPTORS (FEET)
CONSTRUCTION
LMAX, 50'
CONSTRUCTION
LMAX AT RECEPTOR
EXISTING LMAX1 CHANGE
A1 2,210 90 dBA 57.1 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
A2 2,210 90 dBA 57.1 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
A3 2,700 90 dBA 55.4 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
K1 185 90 dBA 78.6 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
K2 775 90 dBA 66.2 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
K3 1,470 90 dBA 60.6 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
T1 185 90 dBA 78.6 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
T2 510 90 dBA 69.8 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
T3 510 90 dBA 69.8 dBA 80-81 dBA 0.0
SOURCE: SAXELBY ACOUSTICS, 2025.
It is also noted that the Municipal Code Section 16.60.030 includes restrictions on construction noise. Operating or causing the operation of tools or equipment on private property used in alteration, construction, demolition, drilling, or repair work between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., so that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential property line, is prohibited, except for emergency work of public service utilities. Therefore, Project construction would not cause an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels.
Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A Project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur during daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM), as required by Section 16.60.030 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noisesensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours. As discussed in the General Plan Draft EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-51), impacts from temporary or periodic increases to ambient noise levels as a result of construction would be reduced to a less–than-significant level. Because the Project is consistent with the General Plan and the analysis in the General Plan EIR, construction of the
ATTACHMENT E
1577
Project would not result in new or substantially increased impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR.
Along with Project Requirement 15 discussed below, and the Project’s compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, the City’s development standards and the Municipal Code requirements, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe noise impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement 15: The City of Stockton Community Development Services Department shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any permit that results in the use of construction equipment:
• Construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., as required by Section 16.60.030 of the City’s Municipal Code.
• All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
• Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.
• All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the Project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. • The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all Project construction.
Response b): Based on information obtained from the City of Stockton General Plan DEIR, it is estimated that approximately 28 trains per day currently operate on the tracks adjacent to the Project site. As mentioned previously, information contained in the General Plan DEIR suggests that current railroad operations within the city are at or near full capacity. According to the FTA guidelines, vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 80 VdB (for “infrequent” events, or fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day). Measured vibration levels at the Project site did not exceed 74 VdB at 60 feet from the center of the tracks.
When projected to the building facades of the nearest residences of the development located approximately 80 feet away, vibration levels are calculated to be approximately 48 VdB. Because the projected vibration levels at the Project site would satisfy the applicable FTA vibration level criterion of 80 VdB by a wide margin, railroad vibration impacts are not identified for this Project and no additional consideration of vibration mitigation would be warranted.
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed Project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and roadway construction occur. Construction vibration levels anticipated for the Project are less than the 0.2
ATTACHMENT E
1578
in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. It is noted that sensitive receptors (existing residential uses) are located 150 feet or further from the Project site. As such, sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from typical construction activities. At distances greater than 26 feet construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours.
Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage.
Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.
As described in the General Plan EIR, the adopted regulations included in the Stockton Municipal Code would serve to ensure that perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum, and as such would not result in a significant impact with respect to perception. Therefore, the potential for significant impacts associated with construction vibration is less than significant. The proposed Project would comply with Action N 1e and is consistent with the analysis and conclusions included within the General Plan and General Plan EIR. As a result, short-term groundborne vibration impacts of the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe vibration impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR..
Response c): There are no airports within two miles of the Project vicinity. The Stockton Metropolitan Airport is the closest airport to the Project site, located approximately 9.5 miles to the south. The Project site is located outside of both the 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the 60 dB CNEL noise contours for the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, and the Project site is outside of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise from the Stockton Metropolitan Airport, and the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe airport noise impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1579
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Project Impacts:
The proposed Project will result in the construction of 2,241 single-family residential units, which would increase population growth within the Project area.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated population and housing impacts that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included population growth and availability of housing opportunities (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.12-5 through 4.12-8). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in population and housing impacts, implementation of the General Plan would not contribute to a significant generation of growth that would substantially exceed any established growth projections nor would it displace substantial numbers of housing units or people. Moreover, the proposed Project will not construct off-site infrastructure that would induce substantial development, unplanned or otherwise. As such, population and housing impacts were determined to be less than significant.
These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 4.12 of the General Plan EIR.
As noted previously, the Stockton General Plan EIR (the EIR) provides the Development Projections that are used in the EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-20). The EIR explains that it uses a “horizon-year projection,” which is based on an estimate of the amount of development that would occur by 2040. The EIR also uses a Buildout Projection which represents full buildout of the General Plan, but with a date uncertain. Each projection is described below:
The horizon-year projection includes the following (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-20):
• 40,900 new dwelling units, including:
o 26,300 new single-family units
o 14,600 new multi-family units
• 132,200 new residents
• 13.8 million square feet of new commercial and office space • 35.6 million square feet of new industrial space
ATTACHMENT E
1580
The full buildout projection includes the following (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-22, and Table 3-2):
• 119,700 new dwelling units, including:
o 43,800 new single-family units
o 75,900 new multi-family units
o
• 386,700 new residents
• 50.9 million square feet of new commercial and office space • 242.4 million square feet of new industrial space
The EIR indicates that there are almost 7,000 acres of vacant within the SOI (i.e. the EIR Study Area) (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp.3-22), which specifically includes the 530.18-acre Project site. The EIR indicates that a land use demand forecast (prepared as part of a Market Analysis that supports the projections for the General Plan) for Stockton in 2040 results in between 19,800 and 41,000 new housing units, including between 13,800 and 28,700 new single-family units and between 5,900 and 12,300 new multi-family units (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-24). These projections are based in part on the land use inventory from the General Plan land use map, in addition to market and economic factors that drive growth. Out of the 40,900 new units projected for the horizon year of the General Plan buildout, 12,100 units would result from the growth projected in 2040 from the General Plan and 28,800 units are expected as a result of the growth from Approved and Pending Projects. (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-22, and Table 3-2): As the Project’s proposed 2,241 units are being proposed in accordance with the Proposed density and land use designation in the General Plan, they are assumed to be included in the 12,100 units resulting from the growth projected in 2040 from the General Plan. Further, the Project site provides approximately 5% of the total housing demand through the Horizon-Year Projection, and approximately 1.8% of the total housing demand through the Full Buildout Projection. There is nothing peculiar about the Project as it relates to house capacity/demand provided in the Horizon-Year Projection, Full Buildout Projection, or the Market Study Projections.
The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and density in the General Plan and can be considered planned growth assumed under the General Plan. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Response b): The Project site is undeveloped and does not include any existing housing or residents requiring replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur, and the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1581
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
X
i) Fire protection? X
ii) Police protection? X
iii) Schools? X
iv) Parks? X
v) Other public facilities? X
Project Impacts:
The proposed Project includes the development of a 2,241 single-family lot residential subdivision and would be anticipated to increase the need for the provision of new and/or expanded public services or facilities.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for fire and police protection and school and recreation facilities because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included increased demand for fire, police and school services, provision of adequate fire flow, and increased demand for parks and recreation (City of Stockton General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.13-10 through 4.13-40). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in public services and facilities impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of public services and facilities and through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to public services and facilities.
These goals, policies and standards include, but are not limited to the California Fire Code, the California Health and Safety Code, Chapters 5.08 and 5.12 of the Stockton Municipal Code, and goals and policies in the General Plan Safety Element requiring periodic review of the City’s Development Impact Fee requirements, proportional share participation in the financial costs of public services and facilities, maintaining adequate staffing levels, providing adequate access for
ATTACHMENT E
1582
emergency vehicles and evacuation routes, and requiring certain types of development that may generate higher demand or special needs to mitigate the demands/needs.
These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 4. 13 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to public services of the City. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
• Action LU-6.1.G: Maintain adequate staffing levels to support achieving the City’s service level goals for police and fire protection.
• Action SAF-1.2.A: Update the City’s Design Guidelines and Development Code to require new and retrofitted development to support effective police and fire protection response and services by using the following principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED):
o Delineate private and public spaces
o Enhance visibility
o Control property access
o Ensure adequate property maintenance
• Action SAF-2.2.A: Require new development to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and evacuation routes, including by designing roadway systems to provide multiple escape routes in the event of a levee failure. • Action SAF-2.2.C: Require new critical facilities, including hospitals, emergency operations centers, communications facilities, fire stations, and police stations, to be located, designed, and constructed to avoid or mitigate potential risks and ensure functional operation during flood events (i.e., avoid locating in the 100-year and 200-year floodplains), seismic and geological events, fires, and explosions. • Action LU-6.3.A: Require development to mitigate any impacts to existing sewer, water, stormwater, street, fire station, park, or library infrastructure that would reduce service levels.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a):
i) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services: The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Stockton Fire Department (SFD). All new future construction would meet all applicable building and safety codes and would be required to be reviewed for safety access.
The Project would not require the development of any new SFD facilities. The Project would be served by Fire Station 13 (3606 Hendrix Drive, Stockton), which is located approximately 1.43 road miles from the southeastern proposed Project entry, or Station 11 (1211 E Swain Road, Stockton), which is located approximately 2.22 miles from the southwestern proposed Project entry.
ATTACHMENT E
1583
Fire response time is a function of the time interval for receiving and processing an emergency call (911 dispatch/emergency communication center), the turnout time (responding fire company), and the travel time to the incident (responding fire company). In calculating fire response times, the time interval for the receiving and processing an emergency call and the fire company turnout is generally a fixed time interval as established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The time interval for travel time, however, is highly variable because it is dependent on travel distance to the incident and the speed at which the fire vehicle/apparatus can safely travel given the roadway infrastructure, weather conditions, number of turns/intersections, roadway congestion, and other factors. Urban and suburban areas will generally have different travel conditions, which will affect travel speeds. The roadway design speed can vary significantly on roadways and will affect the safe travel speed for emergency vehicles (i.e. freeways, arterials, collectors, and local roads will accommodate varying travel speeds).
The RAND Corporation conducted extensive studies of fire department response times and developed a formula for calculating travel time. ISO, working with several fire departments, recently conducted its own review of the formula and found the RAND work still valid as a predictive tool. The RAND formula is as follows:
T = 0.65 + (S)D
• T = time in minutes to the nearest 1/10 of a minute
• 0.65 = a vehicle-acceleration constant for the first 0.5 mile traveled • S = a vehicle-speed constant validated for response distances ranging from
0.5 miles to 8.0 miles.
o Average Speed Factor = 60 ÷ Average Speed
• D = distance traveled in miles
The General Plan indicates that the Stockton Fire Department attempts to achieve a travel time standard of 4 minutes or less for the initial arriving company, and 8 minutes or less for the full alarm assignment. (*It is noted that “travel time” does not include call processing and turnout time.) The City’s travel time goal is consistent with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710, which indicates that travel time to a fire incident should be 4 minutes or less for the initial arriving company and within 8 minutes for all other arriving companies. NFPA 1710 also indicates that turnout time should be 80 seconds for fire incidents and 60 seconds for EMS incidents. To achieve this rating, and to meet the City’s recommended goal, the Stockton Fire Department must maintain adequate personnel, updated equipment and facilities to provide service within their territory to meet the demand (call volume). The following discussion summarizes the calculated fire department response times specifically for the proposed Project.
ATTACHMENT E
1584
The anticipated fire response time to reach the Project site would be 2.55 to 3.10 minutes, which is below the four-minute travel time goal for fire response.
Expected Travel Time in Minutes = 0.65 + (1.33 × 1.43 Miles) Expected Travel Time in Minutes = 2.55
Expected Travel Time in Minutes = 0.65 + (1.5 × 1.43 Miles) Expected Travel Time in Minutes = 2.80
Expected Travel Time in Minutes = 0.65 + (1.71 × 1.43 Miles) Expected Travel Time in Minutes = 3.10
Emergency vehicle access is anticipated to be sufficient since the onsite road would connect to the entrance of the Project site and emergency vehicles would have adequate ability to turn around on the Project site. Furthermore, impact fees from new development are collected based upon projected impacts from each development. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant as COAs prior to Project approval, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, sales taxes, and other revenues generated by the Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with fire protection services.
To provide adequate fire protection and suppression services to the Project site, the SFD must have access to adequate onsite hydrants with adequate fire-flow pressure available to meet the needs of fire suppression units. The final site plans and development specifications developed for the proposed Project will indicate the location and design specifications of the fire hydrants that will be required within the Project site.
The proposed Project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies related to reducing fire risks. Project plans would also be reviewed by the SFD to ensure that the Project site is acceptable for fire safety purposes. As noted in Section XX, Wildfire, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The City of Stockton, including the Project site, is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire.
Further, the proposed Project is consistent with the Residential land use designation for the Project site, and therefore to the extent that the Project would increase demand for fire protection services was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. There is no anticipated requirement for a new fire station with this Project. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR, no mitigation measures are required, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met. ii) Police Protection: Impact fees from new developments are collected based upon projected impacts from each development by the City as COAs prior to Project approval. The adequacy of impact fees is reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the fee is commensurate with the
ATTACHMENT E
1585
service. Payment of the applicable impact fees by the Project applicant, and ongoing revenues that would come from property taxes, and other revenues generated by the Project, would fund capital and labor costs associated with police services.
Upon annexation into the City of Stockton, the Project site would be served by the Stockton Police Department. As previously discussed, the proposed Project is consistent with the Residential land use designation for the Project site, and therefore the extent that the Project would increase demand for police protection services was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR, no mitigation measures are required, and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
It is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant new demand for police services. Project implementation would not require the construction of new police facilities to serve the Project site, nor would it result in impacts to the existing response times and existing police protection service levels.
iii) Schools: The proposed Project is within the service area of the Lodi Unified School District (LUSD). All new residential development in the City is required to pay a developer impact fee to fund school improvement projects to mitigate impacts to school facilities, as applicable. The development impact fee is the source of school capital improvement funding provided by new development. The LUSD is eligible to levy Level 1 development impact fees on new residential and commercial development. Development impact fees for LUSD are $3.48 per square foot of single-family residential development. The proposed Project includes the development of 2,241 additional housing units. The number of students generated by the proposed residential Project would be consistent with the levels assumed in General Plan EIR as the Project is consistent with General Plan’s land use assumptions for the Project site.
Payment of development fees is considered to fully mitigate the impacts of new development on school facilities under Section 65996 of the California Government Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are required and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
iv) Parks: Potential Project impacts to parks and recreational facilities are addressed in Section XVI below.
v) Other Public Facilities: The Project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses on the Project site are assumed in the General Plan EIR. The Project would result in the construction of an additional 2,241 residential units that would increase demand for other public facilities.
As described in the General Plan EIR Impact 3.1339 the General Plan implementation potential to result in adverse physical impacts associated with the deterioration of other public facilities, such as Stockton-San Joaquin County Public Library (SSJCPL) library facilities, was found to be
ATTACHMENT E
1586
less than significant. Development anticipated under the proposed Project would be consistent with development levels analyzed in the Stockton General Plan EIR. In-lieu fees would be required upon issuance of a building permit. In-lieu fees would ultimately fund the construction of other public facilities to offset the increased demand for these facilities, but location and timing new or expanded library of such facilities is not yet known. (See General Plan EIR, p. 4.13-40.) Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are required and the criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
ATTACHMENT E
1587
XVI. RECREATION
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
Project Impacts:
The proposed Project includes the development of a 2,241 single-family lot residential subdivision and would be anticipated to increase the use of, and demand for, recreational facilities.
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for recreation facilities because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included increased demand for parks and recreation (City of Stockton General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.13-26 through 4.13-30). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in recreation facilities impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to recreation facilities. The General Plan has established a parkland standard of 2 acres of neighborhood parkland, 3 acres of community parkland, and 3 acres of regional parkland per 1,000 residents. The General Plan has adopted goals and policies to ensure that this standard is met. These goals and policies call for the provision of new park and recreational facilities as needed by new development through parkland dedication and the payment of park and recreation fees. These programs and practices are recognized in the General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, which mitigates these impacts to a less than significant level.
In addition, compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of public services and facilities and the application of General Plan goals and policies would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to public services and facilities, as noted above. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to park and recreational facilities of the City. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
• Policy LU-3.3: Maintain or expand the currently available amount of public park and open space area in each neighborhood.
ATTACHMENT E
1588
• Action LU-3.3.A: Continue to improve and maintain park facilities and fields to address deficiencies and improve park sustainability, including lighting improvements, conversion to solar lighting, drinking fountain maintenance, and natural stormwater management.
• Action LU-3.3.B: Pursue joint use recreational facilities where possible, including on school grounds and utility easements.
• Action LU-3.3.C: Establish a citywide park maintenance assessment district. • Action LU-3.3.D: Periodically review the City’s Development Impact Fee requirements to determine whether they should be adjusted to reflect the City’s priorities for parks, community centers, and libraries that serve the surrounding neighborhoods. • Action SAF-1.3.A: Design and maintain parks, waterways, trail corridors, and other facilities to meet the recreational needs of the community, while maximizing public safety and access concerns, such as through the following approaches:
Locate facilities to ensure visibility along public roadways where appropriate; Provide clear access points;
Maintain vegetation to maximize visibility and demonstrate active attention to the Project site; and Use signage to clearly convey site ownership and rules. • Policy CH-1.1: Maintain walking and wheeling facilities and parks that are safe and accessible in all areas of Stockton.
• Action CH-1.1.B: Prepare a parks master plan that assesses the quality and distribution of existing parks, facilities, and community centers throughout the city relative to the population served (i.e., within a set walking distance) and their needs (i.e., considering age, income, and abilities), and, based on this information, identifies and prioritizes new, renovation, and expansion park and community center projects and describes funding means and timelines.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): As discussed in the General Plan EIR, new residents from development allowed by the General Plan would increase the demand for recreational opportunities and facilities. In addition, the proposed Project includes construction of additional parks or recreational facilities. The Project is constructing its fair share of local and neighborhood parks in accordance with General Plan parkland requirements and the resulting proposed Project population to adequately serve future project residents. The potential for environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of a park within the residential areas on the Project site are addressed throughout this document. There are no other anticipated impacts associated with the park facility construction activities beyond what is already discussed throughout this document.
The General Plan contains policies and actions that would support parkland goals, and, as described in Section 4.13.3.1, the Stockton Municipal Code establishes parkland dedication and/or fee requirements for new development. The collection of fees and determined fair share fee amounts are adopted by the City as COAs for all new development projects prior to project
ATTACHMENT E
1589
approval. Fees paid aid in the development of new park-space and maintenance as required, to ensure continued high quality park facilities for all City residents.
Furthermore, the Project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses on the Project site areas assumed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the Project includes construction of certain parks to serve the Project residents, the construction impacts of which are addressed throughout this document. Thus, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR, and the overall impact of constructing new park facilities on the Project site will be less than significantimpact.
ATTACHMENT E
1590
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Project Impacts:
The following is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis completed for the Project by Barrios Transportation Consulting (July 25, 2024). See Appendix E.
Project Trip Generation
This section presents the forecasted Project trip generation, including trip distribution and assignment.
Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a Project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Estimates are created for the daily condition and for the peak one-hour period during the morning and evening commute when traffic volumes on the adjacent streets are typically the highest. Project trip generation was estimated using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), with the resulting estimates presented in Table Traffic-1. The Project is expected to generate approximately 17,633 new daily vehicle trips, including approximately 1,262 morning peak hour and 1,848 evening peak hour trips.
Table Traffic-1: Project Trip Generation
LAND USE QUANTITY
DAILY
TRIPS
AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Single-family detached
housing (ITE 210)
2,241 Dwelling
Units 17,633 316 946 1,262 1,164 684 1,848
Notes:
ITE land use category 210 – Single-Family Homes (Adj Streets, 7-9A, 4-6P):
Daily: Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X) + 2.68
AM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.91Ln(X)+0.12; Enter = 25%; Exit = 75% PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.94Ln(X) + 0.27; Enter = 63%; Exit = 37% SOURCE: BTC, 2024.
ATTACHMENT E
1591
Trip Distribution
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. Estimates of Project trip distribution were developed based on City of Stockton Travel Demand Model and engineering judgement using existing traffic count data and land use patterns. The trip distribution percentages are shown in Table Traffic-2 and traffic assignment is shown on Figure 3-1 of Appendix E.
Table Traffic-2: Project Trip Generation
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL % OF TRAVEL
Eight Mile Road: West of West Lane 6%
West Lane: North of Eight Mile Road 11%
Eight Mile Road: East of West Lane 2%
Morada Lane: East of Diamond Bar Place 40%
Holman Road: North of Morada Lane 3%
Holman Road: South of Morada Lane 4%
Hammer Lane: West of West Lane 7%
Hammer Lane: East of West Lane 4%
West Lane: South of Hammer Lane 14%
South of Morada Lane: West of West Lane 3%
South of Morada Lane: East of West Lane 2%
Morada Lane: West of West Lane 4%
SOURCE: BTC, 2024.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): Barrios Transportation Consulting reviewed the City of Stockton Envision 2040 General Plan (2018) and City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017) to determine if the proposed Project results in any inconsistencies with adopted transportation related policies or design standards.
Stockton General Plan
Land Use & Zoning: The adopted City of Stockton General Plan designates the Project site as low density residential allowing the maximum density of 6.1 dwelling units per acre. The Project is consistent with the adopted General Plan land use designation and density included in the Envision General Plan 2040 as the Project proposes an average density of 5.8 single family dwelling units per acre.
Transportation: Relevant policies include:
• Policy TR-1.1: Ensure that roadways safely and efficiently accommodate all modes and users, including private, commercial, and transit vehicles, as well as bicycles and pedestrians and vehicles for disabled travelers.
ATTACHMENT E
1592
• Policy TR-2.1: Develop safe and interconnected bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including along “complete” streets that target multiple travel modes. • Policy TR-3.1: Avoid widening existing roadways in an effort to preclude inducement of additional vehicle traffic.
Proposed street sections for new streets to be constructed by the Project meet the minimum City of Stockton design standards for low and medium volume residential streets (City of Stockton Standard Drawings, No. R-4, R-14), which comply with the General Plan policy and action listed above. An assessment of existing and proposed transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities is provided below.
Transit Network: In the Project vicinity, within one half-mile walking distance, transit service (Route 93) is provided along West Lane by the San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJRTD).
SJRTD is the regional transit provider for San Joaquin County, serving the Stockton Metropolitan Area and the County with intercity, interregional, and rural transit services. Route 93 travels between Lodi (Lodi Transit Station [LTS]) and Downtown Stockton (Downtown Transit Center [DTS]). A bus stop for northbound travel is provided on the east side of West Lane at the southeast corner of the West Lane/Morada Lane intersection. A bus stop for southbound travel is provided on the west side of West Lane about 600 feet north of Morada Lane. Neither bus stop provides transit stop amenities (e.g., benches, shelters, etc.).
As of July 30, 2023, northbound bus service begins at the DTC at 6:10 AM and ends at the LTS at 7:39 PM. The frequency of service ranges from 1 to 3 hours. Southbound bus service begins at the LTS at 6:03 AM and ends at the DTC at 8:52 AM. The frequency of service ranges from 1 to 2.5 hours.
The Project does not disrupt an existing transit facility or service and would not interfere with the implementation of future transit service; therefore, the Project’s impact to transit would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Bicycle Network: Bicycle facilities include the following:
• Bike paths (Class I) – Bike paths are paved trails that are separated from roadways. These trails are sometimes shared with pedestrians.
• Bike lanes (Class II) – Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles through striping, pavement legends, and signs.
• Bike routes (Class III) – Bike routes provide a right-of-way designated by signs and/or pavement markings (also known as “sharrows”) to alert motorists to expect to share this roadway with bicyclists. A Bicycle Boulevard is a special type of shared route that optimizes bicycle travel. Bike Boulevards can have a variety of traffic calming elements to improve safety and comfort for bicycles.
• Separated bikeways (Class IV) – Separated bikeways, also referred to as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are bikeways for the exclusive use of bicycles which are physically separated from vehicle traffic. Types of separation may include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking.
ATTACHMENT E
1593
In the Project vicinity, within a two-mile bicycling distance, there are Class III bicycle facilities on West Lane between Morada Lane and Bear Creek. Although there are paved shoulders on West Lane north of Bear Creek (within San Joaquin County) there are no signs or pavement markings indicating Class III bicycle facilities.
Class II bicycle facilities are provided on Morada Lane on both the north and south sides but the start and end points are different. On the south side, the bicycle lane starts about 250 feet west of Fox Creek Drive and ends at the Maranatha Drive intersection.
On the north side, the bicycle lane starts at the Diamond Bar Place intersection and ends at the Holman Road intersection. Between Holman Road and the UPRR tracks there are sections of paved shoulder but there are no bicycle pavement markings or signs. Just west of the UPRR tracks there is about 200 feet of striped Class II bicycle facility that is unusable because the start of the bike lane is blocked by K-rail (temporary concrete traffic barrier).
The Project would provide the following along its frontage: 1) Class II bike lanes on Morada Lane and 2) one-way separated bikeway (Class IV) on West Lane. The proposed bicycle facilities are consistent with the City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan (2017). The Project does not disrupt existing bicycle facilities, interfere with planned bicycle facilities, or propose any changes to the bicycle system that are inconsistent with adopted bicycle system plans; therefore, the Project’s impact to the bicycle system would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR. .
Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and multi-use trails. In the Project vicinity, sidewalks are not currently provided on West Lane or Morada Lane along the Project’s frontage. Existing sidewalk (within one half-mile walking distance from the Project site) is provided on the following roadways:
• West side of West Lane north of Morada Lane (8-foot sidewalk) • East side of West Lane south of Morada Lane (4-foot sidewalk) • South side of Morada Lane (4-foot sidewalk)
• North side of Morada Lane east of the eastern edge of the Project site boundary (4-foot sidewalk)
• Both sides of the Caywood Drive, Cherbourg Way, and Fox Creek Drive (4-foot sidewalk) Near the Project vicinity, the intersection of West Lane/Morada Lane provides crosswalks on the west and south legs of the intersection. The West Lane/Morada Lane intersection provides access to the Ronald E. McNair High School and as a result there is high pedestrian demand at the intersection.
There are currently no pedestrian facilities along the Project frontage. The Project would construct eight-foot-wide sidewalks along the Project frontage on Morada Lane and West Lane, which is consistent with the City of Stockton Standard Plans and Specifications. The Project does not disrupt existing pedestrian facilities, interfere with planned pedestrian facilities, or propose any changes to the pedestrian system that would be inconsistent with pedestrian system policies,
ATTACHMENT E
1594
therefore the Project’s impact to the pedestrian system would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Policy Consistency Determination
The proposed street network will connect into the greater Stockton community at five access points, including three along Morada Lane and two along West Lane. These connection points will be made up of a combination of minor arterial roads, with and without a median, and collector roads. The street network within Project site is intended to contribute to the aesthetics of the community, with residents experiencing varied street scenes and street designs.
As noted previously, the Project will include full frontage improvements along West Lane and Morada Lane. Included in these improvements will be full signalized intersections at the northern entry point along West Lane and at the central entrance along Morada Lane.
The proposed Project is consistent with adopted transportation-related programs, plans, ordinances, and policies. The Project's street improvements are subject to the City’s adopted street plans and design standards. Therefore, the Project is not expected to impact the proposed and surrounding circulation system, including planned transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
The payment of applicable traffic impact fees by the proposed Project would ensure that the Project pays its fair-share of capital improvement fees towards the future transportation system improvements and expansions. Payment of these fair-share traffic impact fees would assist the City with implementation of various improvements, to maintain acceptable levels of service throughout the City.
The proposed Project would not induce any additional required improvements. The collection of fees and determined fair share fee amounts are adopted by the City as COAs for all new development projects prior to project approval. The payment of the required traffic impact fees to the City of Stockton would reduce Project-related traffic impacts to a less than significant level.
Moreover, the Project is within the scope of projected growth under the General Plan and the anticipated uses on the Project site as assumed in the General Plan EIR. As discussed in Appendix G, the Project is considered planned growth under the General Plan and was considered in the analysis of the General Plan EIR, which acknowledged LOS impacts from buildout of the City.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe LOS impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Response b): As of July 1, 2020, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that the recommended metric for the evaluation of transportation impacts is VMT. It outlines the criteria for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts. For land use projects, this section states that “vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact.”
ATTACHMENT E
1595
For the purposes of CEQA, level of service cannot be used to determine a project’s environmental impact; CEQA Guidelines Section §15064.3 requires Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) analysis for land use developments. The City of Stockton VMT impact analysis process is documented in the City of Stockton Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Adopted May 2, 2023).
According to the City’s TIA Guidelines, a project is relieved from VMT impact analysis if it meets one of the following screening criteria:
1. Within a Transit Priority Area (TPA);
2. Is 100% restricted affordable housing;
3. Small project (generating 110 trips or less per day);
4. Is a locally serving public facility that contributes and supports community needs;
5. Neighborhood-serving retail project less than 50,000 square feet;
6. Located within a low VMT area; or
7. For specific project types that are consistent with General Plan and zoning standards, and do not trigger and EIR such as:
a. Housing: Residential projects within the City Limits that are consistent with all General Plan and zoning standards, are near transit (i.e., is within half a mile of a transit stop), or included as a housing capacity site needed to meet the City’s fair share of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as outlined in the City’s Housing Element.
b. General Plan and Zoning Consistency: Projects that are:
i. Consistent with the General Plan and Zoning that do not require a General Plan land use map amendment.
ii. Do not require an EIR for project related impacts beyond the General Plan EIR.
iii. Located within the Greater Downtown Planning area, as defined in the General Plan, and do not require a land use map amendment or EIR.
As discussed in Appendix G, the Project meets screening criteria #7 (consistent with General Plan & zoning standards). The Project is consistent with the land use presented in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan (i.e., low density residential with less than 6.1 units per gross acre).
The Project is also located within a half-mile of two transit stops on West Lane. Based on the screening criteria the Project is presumed to not require additional CEQA VMT impact analysis.
Response c): Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided by two unsignalized and three signalized intersections that are designed to be perpendicular to the major streets. Parking is restricted on the major streets and there are no additional obstructions that would limit sight distance from the Project driveways. The Project would also provide turn pockets with adequate vehicle storage and deceleration lane distance. As with current practice, the improvements would be designed and reviewed in accordance to the City of Stockton Standard Specifications, which are developed by the Public Works Department and adopted by the City. The Project does not propose any substandard design features, therefore, the Project’s impact to geometric design
ATTACHMENT E
1596
hazards would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
Response d): Several factors determine whether a project has adequate access for emergency vehicles, including the following:
1. Number of access points (both public and emergency access only)
2. Width of internal roadways
3. Turnarounds at dead-end streets
As discussed in the General Plan Draft EIR, impacts related to hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) were determined to be less than significant (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-37).
Emergency vehicle access to the Project site is provided from all five roadway access locations that are designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Cross-sections for the proposed streets within the Project site were reviewed and all street sections provide a minimum of 20-feet of clearway (meaning no obstructions in terms of parked vehicles, landscaping, etc.), such that sufficient width is provided for emergency vehicle access and circulation. There are several deadend streets provided within the residential development that measure less than 500-feet and provide 96-foot diameter cul-de-sacs. This meets the requirements of the California Fire Code.
Emergency vehicle access to the Project site is consistent with Policy SAF-2.2 and Action SAF2.2A of the General Plan. As the Project would be subject to City engineering standards and the proposed General Plan actions, the Project’s impact to emergency access would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1597
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
X
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resources to a California Native
American tribe.
X
Project Impacts:
As discussed above in Section V, a Cultural Resource Assessment Summary was prepared for the proposed Project, which was prepared based on a records search, check of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands files, and a field survey of the Project Site by a qualified archeologist. The Project site does not contain any known resources that are listed with the California Register of Historical Resources or that have been determined by the lead agency to have significance to a California Native American Tribe. However, during the field survey of the Project site, prehistoric period artifacts and prehistoric flakes were found in three locations in roughly the same area as the recorded location of P-39-00005 and P-39-004641. The field survey, however, failed to re-locate the recorded sites in the site records, which may be due to crop rotation, error in the original site recordation, or plowing within the development area. The proposed Project is in a region where cultural resources have been recorded in the past and there remains a potential that some undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resource definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during grounddisturbing and construction activities. Thus, the City is treating these prerecorded period resources as Tribal Cultural Resources under PRC section 21074.
However, less-than-significant impacts to tribal cultural resources are anticipated with incorporation of Project Requirements.
ATTACHMENT E
1598
Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to historical, cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources within the Planning area because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included potential destruction or damage to any historical, cultural, and paleontological resources (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.5-16 through 4.5-20). However, the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions for the preservation and treatment of prehistoric, archaeological, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources. In particular, prior to development, as part of the permitting process, Action LU-5.2.D and Project Requirement 6 requires subsurface testing of the property prior to construction for identification of any buried sites are located on-site via subsurface testing and protection of archaeological resources, including avoidance and through a treatment plan in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Archaeological Sites where avoidance is not feasible. In addition, as described in Section 4.5.1.1, the Stockton Municipal Code requires appropriate evaluation of unanticipated archaeological deposits discovered during ground-disturbance. The General Plan action described above, combined with the Stockton Municipal Code requirements, would protect historical archaeological deposits in the EIR planning area by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection, and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archaeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. Implementation of the proposed action identified above, as well as compliance with federal, State, and local laws and regulations, would reduce potential impacts to historical archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): According to the General Plan EIR, cultural resources have been identified within the Stockton Planning Area; however, as noted previously, five resources have been reported in the Project area. One of the sites listed as in the Project area is the bridge over Bear Creek on the railroad line, technically outside the Project area (P-3900363). Another site records the levees along Bear Creek (P-39-004875). Further, as discussed above in Section V, the proposed Project is in a region where cultural resources have been recorded and during the field survey of the Project site, prehistoric period artifacts and prehistoric flakes were found in three locations in roughly the same area as the recorded location of P-39-00005 and P-39-004641. (See Section V above). But the field survey failed to re-locate the recorded sites in the site records, which may be due to crop rotation, error in the original site recordation, or plowing within the development area. There remains a potential that some undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resource definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during ground-disturbing and construction activities.
Due to the possible presence of undiscovered/undocumented archeological or Tribal Cultural Resources within the Project site, appropriate steps to detect, preserve and/or document any previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during construction and/or operational activities, including human remains, would be required. The Stockton General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological
ATTACHMENT E
1599
resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the General Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to these environmental topics were less than significant. These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 4.1 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to archaeological, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources of the City. Furthermore, in accordance with the City of Stockton General Plan, a cultural resources constraints analysis was prepared for the Project, which included several recommendations to be incorporated into the construction of the proposed Project. These recommendations have been incorporated into the Project Requirements in Section V, Cultural Resources (see pages 79 through 83. Pursuant to General Plan Action LU-5.2D requirements, implementation of the Project Requirements 6 through 8 (see Section V, Cultural Resources) would ensure the potential impacts are less than significant.
ATTACHMENT E
1600
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reductions goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
Project Impacts:
The proposed Project includes the development of a 2,241 single-family lot residential subdivision and would be anticipated to increase the use of, and demand for utilities and service systems. Public utilities will be constructed with the proposed Project, including the extension of water, sewer, storm, and dry utilities into the Project site.
The Project will construct a potable water distribution system with pipe sizes ranging from six inches to 12 inches. Stubs from the transmission pipelines will be constructed as required by the City to connect to the Project potable water distribution system. The Project may also construct a parallel distribution pipeline for connection of fire hydrants along Project frontage roads if required by the City, with interconnection to the transmission pipeline as required. The Project would construct wastewater infrastructure in accordance with the 2022 Wastewater Master Plan Update, which shows a 21-inch diameter future gravity sewer connection from the Project to existing City of Stockton gravity sewer locate in Morada Lane. Effluent from all tributary areas would be collected and conveyed through gravity sewer pipelines. All sewer collection and conveyance infrastructure would be sized and constructed according to adopted City of Stockton sewer hydrologic and hydraulic design criteria, design standards, and specifications.
ATTACHMENT E
1601
Onsite stormwater runoff would be directed into an underground pipe system which would collect the runoff and direct it to the central storm drainage basin. Stormwater from this basin would be discharged via a new pump station and force main into Bear Creek through an existing 24-inch diameter outfall structure located on the south side of Bear Creek, just east of the West Lane overcrossing. The basin drawdown rate would meet COSMUD standards to discharge the 100-year, 24-hour design storm volume over a period of 48 hours and would be less than predeveloped runoff rates from the Project area.
Electrical, gas, phone, cable, and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along West Lane and Morada Lane, or other utility systems in the Project vicinity. Utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements.
Although upgrades and improvements to the utility system (including water, wastewater, stormwater, electrical, gas, phone, cable, and internet) may be required in order to serve the proposed Project, this would not cause additional significant environmental effects due to the proposed Project, as such potential improvements have already been planned for. No off-site utility improvements are required as part of the Project. All utility improvements would be within the bounds of the Project site. The potential for environmental impacts associated with installation of the proposed utility system and construction activities within the Project site are addressed throughout this document. There are no other anticipated impacts associated with the infrastructure construction activities beyond what is already discussed throughout this document.
As discussed in greater detail below, there is adequate wastewater treatment and water capacity to meet the water and wastewater treatment demands of the proposed Project, and no expansions would be required because of the Project. Utility extensions to the Project site are nearby and would need to extend services to serve the Project area Prior Environmental Analysis:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts on the demand for utilities and service systems because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan.
These impacts included increased demand for utilities and service systems (City of Stockton General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.15-8 through 4.15-33). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in utilities and service system impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to utilities and service systems. In addition, compliance with state and local standards related to the provision of utilities and service systems and the application of General Plan goals and policies would assist in minimizing or avoiding impacts to utilities and service systems, as noted above.
The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to utilities and service systems of the City. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
ATTACHMENT E
1602
• Action LU-5.1.C: Require landscape plans to incorporate native and drought-tolerant plants in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, conserve water, provide habitat conditions suitable for native vegetation, and ensure that a maximum number and variety of well-adapted plants are maintained.
• Policy LU-5.4: Require water and energy conservation and efficiency in both new construction and retrofits.
• Action LU-5.4.A: Require all new development, including major rehabilitation, renovation, and redevelopment, to adopt best management practices for water use efficiency and demonstrate specific water conservation measures. • Policy LU-6.3: Ensure that all neighborhoods have access to well-maintained public facilities and utilities that meet community service needs. • Action LU-6.3.A: Require development to mitigate any impacts to existing sewer, water, stormwater, street, fire station, park, or library infrastructure that would reduce service levels.
• Action LU-6.3.B: Ensure that public facilities, infrastructure, and related land area and other elements are designed and right-of-way is acquired to meet 2040 planned development requirements to avoid the need for future upsizing or expansion, unless planned as phased construction.
• Action LU-6.3.C: Coordinate, to the extent possible, upgrades and repairs to roadways with utility needs, infrastructure upgrades, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements (i.e., “dig once”).
• Policy SAF-3.1: Secure long-term renewable contracts and related agreements to ensure that surface water rights will be available to meet projected demand. • Action SAF-3.1.A: Actively participate in appropriate forums designed to discuss and solve regional water supply and quality issues.
• Policy SAF-3.2: Protect the availability of clean potable water from groundwater sources. • Policy SAF-3.3: Encourage use of recycled (“gray”) water for landscaping irrigation to reduce demand on potable supplies.
• Action SAF-3.3.A: Require new development to install non-potable water infrastructure for irrigation of large landscaped areas where feasible. • Action SAF-3.3.B: Investigate and implement Code amendments to allow installation of dual plumbing and/or rainwater capture systems to enable use of recycled water and/or captured rainwater generated on- site.
• Policy CH-5.2: Expand opportunities for recycling, re-use of materials, and waste reduction.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), c): The City’s sewer system includes approximately 914 miles of gravity sewers and force mains (pressure pipelines) ranging from less than 6-inches to 72-inches in diameter and 28 sewer pump stations. The sewer system flows to the Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility (RWCF), where it is treated and discharged to the San Joaquin River. The Stockton RWCF consists of a main treatment plant with 48 MGD capacity, and a tertiary treatment plant
ATTACHMENT E
1603
with 55 MGD capacity. The tertiary treatment plant includes approximately 630 acres of oxidation ponds, an engineered wetland, disinfection facilities, and a river outfall discharge system. Wastewater treatment requirements for discharges from the Stockton RWCF are set forth in CVRWQCB Order No. R5-2014-0070-03 issued by the CVRWQCB in 2014.
The General Plan EIR concluded that wastewater generation and discharges from development allowed under the General Plan would not cause exceedances of wastewater treatment requirements for effluent or capacity of the RWCF, and impacts would be less than significant.
The City has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand for wastewater treatment services in addition to its existing commitments, and no improvements or expansions to the existing RWCF are required to serve the proposed Project. The addition of Project-generated wastewater would not result in any CVRWQCB violations related to effluent treatment or discharge.
The General Plan designates the Project site for Low Density Residential use and the proposed Projectis consistent with that land use designation. Therefore, the proposed Projectis considered planned growth. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Response b):
The construction of the proposed Project would increase water demand on-site. The General Plan designates the Project site for Residential use and the proposed Project is consistent with that land use designation. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR concluded that the City of Stockton will have sufficient water supplies to meet the projected demands from development allowed by the General Plan, and therefore has sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed Project from existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The proposed Project is considered planned growth and to the extent that the proposed Project would require additional water supply, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. Further, according to the Bear Creek South Residential Project Water Supply Assessment (Appendix F) (West Yost, 2024), the City has adequate water supplies to serve the Project.
For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Responses d), e): The proposed Project would not generate significant or abnormal volumes of solid waste. Because the General Plan EIR determined that solid waste capacity is adequate to serve the demand resulting from General Plan build-out and the proposed Project’s use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the Project site and would not result in new or increased impacts. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR concluded that construction and operation of development allowed under the General Plan would not conflict with State and local regulations governing solid waste disposal and diversion, and the proposed General Plan includes policies and actions to promote consistency with other solid waste regulations. The
ATTACHMENT E
1604
proposed Project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local regulations regarding solid waste. To the extent that the proposed Project would generate both construction and operational solid waste, this was previously considered by the General Plan EIR. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan FEIR. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
ATTACHMENT E
1605
XX. WILDFIRE
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines, or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
Project Impacts
The Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA). The City of Stockton, including the Project site, is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by CalFire. Therefore, this CEQA topic is not relevant to the proposed Project and does not require further analysis. Nevertheless, a discussion of this topic is included below.
Prior Environmental Review:
The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of wildland fires that would occur because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, impairment, or interference with implementation of emergency response and evacuation plans and cumulative hazard impacts (City of Stockton General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.8-26 through 4.8-27). The analysis concluded that because there are no High or Very High FHSZs within the EIR planning area, and because existing State and local regulations, combined with General Plan policies and actions, would further prevent the exposure of people and structures to significant risks from wildland fires, the impact would be less than significant.
As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that support effective response in the event of an emergency, including from a wildfire. In addition, Action LU6.1.G ensures that there are adequate fire protection service providers in the event of a fire by directing the City to maintain adequate staffing levels to support achieving the City’s service level
ATTACHMENT E
1606
goals for fire protection. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.8.1.1 of the General Plan EIR, State and City regulations have established structural fire resistance and protection standards, as well as requirements regarding debris and vegetation in wildfire hazard areas.
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The Project site would connect to an existing network of City streets. The appropriate turning radiuses have been planned to accommodate fire trucks on-site. The proposed circulation improvements would allow for greater emergency access relative to existing conditions. Moreover, the proposed Project would require building construction to meet the fire code requirements, and would have fire hydrants consistent with the standards of the City; such fire hydrants would assist with fire suppression efforts if a fire was to occur on or near the Project site. The proposed Project would also not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter any roadways, access points, or otherwise degrade traffic operations and access to the area in such a way as to interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to adopted emergency response plans or evacuation plans. Moreover, the Project would also be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
Response b): The risk of wildfire is related to a variety of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazard by intensifying the effects of wind and making fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. The Project site is in an area that is predominately residential, which is not considered at a significant risk of wildfire. There are no steep slopes on or near the Project site. Development of the Project would not exacerbate fire risks. Therefore, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to the spread of wildfire. Moreover, the Project would also be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
Response c): The Project includes development of infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage) to serve the proposed residential buildings. The Project does not include the construction of fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or power lines. As noted above, the proposed Project would require fire hydrants consistent with the standards of the City, and such fire hydrants would assist with fire suppression efforts if a fire was to occur. The proposed infrastructure improvements would allow for decreased fire risk relative to existing conditions.
Therefore, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Moreover, the Project would also
ATTACHMENT E
1607
be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
Response d): The proposed Project would require the installation of storm drainage infrastructure to ensure that storm waters properly drain from the Project site and does not result in downstream flooding or major drainage changes. Overall, impacts from Project implementation would be considered less than significant impact relative to risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Moreover, the Project would also be constructed consistent with California Fire Code requirements for emergency access as directed by the City’s Fire Department preliminary review. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR.
ATTACHMENT E
1608
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project or
the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the General
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
General Plan
EIR
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): As discussed in this document, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR and would comply with applicable General Plan FEIR mitigation measures. The criteria for requiring further CEQA review are not met.
Response b): The General Plan EIR assumed full development and buildout of the Project site, consistent with the use and density proposed by the Project. The cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the City of Stockton General Plan, including the Project site, were fully addressed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, as described throughout the analysis above, the proposed Project would not result in any significant individual or cumulative impacts that would not be reduced to less than significant levels through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards.
Response c): As described throughout the analysis above, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts that would have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans that have not already been addressed n the General Plan EIR. The analysis in the relevant sections above provides the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards reduce any potentially significant impacts on humans to less than significant levels. A variety of requirements including those related to aesthetics and light and glare, GHG and air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials, seismic hazards,
ATTACHMENT E
1609
water pollution and water quality, and noise, ensure any adverse effects on humans are reduce to an acceptable standard. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
ATTACHMENT E
1610
REFERENCES
• Barrios Transportation Consulting. Bear Creek South Residential Project Transportation Impact Analysis. May 31, 2024.
• C Donald Ahrens. 2006. Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment.
• California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf.
• California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmlands Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
• California Department of Conservation. Williamson Act/Land Conservation Act. Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife. CNDDB BIOS viewer. Version 6, Available at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS.
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. “California State Scenic Highways.” Last updated July 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. • California Energy Commission. 2024. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2023 Edition. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data • City of Stockton. 2018. Stockton General Plan. Available:
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/stockton/Documents/Business/Planning%20&%20En gineering/General%20Plan/Adopted_Plan.pdf
• City of Stockton. 2018. Stockton General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Available:
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/stockton/Documents/Business/Planning%20&%20En gineering/General%20Plan/EnvisionStockton2040GP_DEIR.pdf • Department Of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database. 2024. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/.
• Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. (Staff Final Report), California Energy Commission, 2006.
• Meteorology Today: An Introduction to Weather, Climate, & the Environment, 2003, D.C.
Ahrens.
• Peak & Associates, Inc. Cultural Resource Assessment Summary for the Bear Creek South Project, San Joaquin County, California. December 2025.
ATTACHMENT E
1611
• San Joaquin Council of Governments, Airport Land Use Commission. July 2009, Amended January 2018. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update, San Joaquin County Aviation System, San Joaquin County, California.
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. March 19, 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI).
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Small Project Analysis Level (SPAL).
November 2020. Available at:
https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/CEQA%20Rules/GAMAQI-SPAL.PDF. • Saxelby Acoustics. Environmental Noise Assessment, Bear Creek South, City of Stockton, California. April 1, 2025.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Sense Guide. Available At https://www.epa.gov/watersense/program-guidelines.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (WSS).
• West Yost. Bear Creek South Residential Project Water Supply Assessment. October 2024.
ATTACHMENT E
1612
Appendix A: CalEEMod Results
ATTACHMENT E
1613
This page left intentionally blank.
ATTACHMENT E
1614
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
1 / 95
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated
3.3. Site Preparation (2028) - Unmitigated
3.5. Grading (2028) - Unmitigated
3.7. Grading (2029) - Unmitigated
3.9. Grading (2030) - Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT E
1615
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
2 / 95
3.11. Building Construction (2030) - Unmitigated
3.13. Building Construction (2031) - Unmitigated
3.15. Building Construction (2032) - Unmitigated
3.17. Building Construction (2033) - Unmitigated
3.19. Building Construction (2034) - Unmitigated
3.21. Building Construction (2035) - Unmitigated
3.23. Building Construction (2036) - Unmitigated
3.25. Building Construction (2037) - Unmitigated
3.27. Building Construction (2038) - Unmitigated
3.29. Building Construction (2039) - Unmitigated
3.31. Paving (2030) - Unmitigated
3.33. Paving (2031) - Unmitigated
3.35. Paving (2032) - Unmitigated
3.37. Architectural Coating (2030) - Unmitigated
3.39. Architectural Coating (2031) - Unmitigated
3.41. Architectural Coating (2032) - Unmitigated
3.43. Architectural Coating (2033) - Unmitigated
3.45. Architectural Coating (2034) - Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT E
1616
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
3 / 95
3.47. Architectural Coating (2035) - Unmitigated
3.49. Architectural Coating (2036) - Unmitigated
3.51. Architectural Coating (2037) - Unmitigated
3.53. Architectural Coating (2038) - Unmitigated
3.55. Architectural Coating (2039) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
ATTACHMENT E
1617
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
4 / 95
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
ATTACHMENT E
1618
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
5 / 95
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT E
1619
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
6 / 95
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
ATTACHMENT E
1620
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
7 / 95
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
ATTACHMENT E
1621
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
8 / 95
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Stockton Bear Creek South
Construction Start Date 3/1/2025
Operational Year 2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.40
Precipitation (days) 0.40
Location 38.043498060622966, -121.28645599809919
County San Joaquin
City Unincorporated
Air District San Joaquin Valley APCD
Air Basin San Joaquin Valley
TAZ 2149
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.26
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
2,461 Dwelling Unit 301 4,798,950 28,825,341 0.00 7,949 Residential Uses
ATTACHMENT E
1622
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
9 / 95
City Park 26.1 Acre 26.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Parks
City Park 22.3 Acre 22.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Open Space
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
141 Acre 141 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Project Street
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 19.4 18.6 28.0 63.2 0.09 1.17 19.8 21.0 1.08 10.1 11.2 — 19,371 19,371 0.37 1.08 31.5 19,719 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 19.4 18.5 28.0 57.6 0.09 1.17 19.8 21.0 1.08 10.1 11.2 — 18,880 18,880 0.44 1.38 0.82 19,302 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 13.5 13.1 18.4 40.1 0.07 0.77 13.0 13.8 0.71 6.65 7.35 — 13,374 13,374 0.28 0.78 8.57 13,611 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.46 2.39 3.35 7.32 0.01 0.14 2.37 2.51 0.13 1.21 1.34 — 2,214 2,214 0.05 0.13 1.42 2,254
2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)
ATTACHMENT E
1623
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
10 / 95
Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.70 3.12 28.0 29.1 0.05 1.17 19.8 21.0 1.08 10.1 11.2 — 5,454 5,454 0.22 0.05 0.49 5,474 2028 3.50 2.95 24.4 28.0 0.06 0.99 9.37 10.4 0.91 3.69 4.60 — 6,773 6,773 0.27 0.06 0.50 6,798 2029 3.39 2.85 22.8 27.6 0.06 0.92 9.37 10.3 0.84 3.69 4.54 — 6,768 6,768 0.27 0.05 0.45 6,791 2030 17.5 16.9 18.4 55.3 0.08 0.38 10.9 11.3 0.35 2.65 3.00 — 18,102 18,102 0.33 1.08 31.5 18,464 2031 19.4 18.6 23.9 63.2 0.09 0.57 11.1 11.6 0.48 2.68 3.16 — 19,371 19,371 0.37 1.04 27.8 19,719 2032 16.8 16.5 17.3 51.0 0.08 0.28 10.9 11.2 0.27 2.65 2.91 — 17,422 17,422 0.31 1.03 23.9 17,760 2033 16.7 16.3 16.5 49.2 0.08 0.26 10.9 11.2 0.25 2.65 2.89 — 17,109 17,109 0.31 0.98 20.6 17,428 2034 16.5 16.1 16.1 47.8 0.08 0.25 10.9 11.2 0.24 2.65 2.88 — 16,818 16,818 0.28 0.98 17.6 17,134 2035 16.4 16.1 15.7 46.2 0.08 0.24 10.9 11.2 0.22 2.65 2.87 — 16,551 16,551 0.28 0.92 14.9 16,848 2036 16.3 16.0 15.3 44.8 0.08 0.23 10.9 11.2 0.21 2.65 2.86 — 16,311 16,311 0.28 0.92 12.5 16,605 2037 16.2 15.8 14.8 43.9 0.08 0.21 10.9 11.2 0.20 2.65 2.85 — 16,098 16,098 0.28 0.92 10.5 16,391 2038 16.1 15.8 14.5 43.1 0.08 0.21 10.9 11.1 0.20 2.65 2.84 — 15,877 15,877 0.28 0.87 8.70 16,152 2039 16.0 15.4 14.3 42.3 0.08 0.20 10.9 11.1 0.19 2.65 2.84 — 15,710 15,710 0.28 0.87 7.16 15,983 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.69 3.11 28.0 28.9 0.05 1.17 19.8 21.0 1.08 10.1 11.2 — 5,439 5,439 0.22 0.05 0.01 5,459 2028 3.67 3.09 27.5 28.9 0.06 1.14 19.8 20.9 1.05 10.1 11.2 — 6,756 6,756 0.27 0.06 0.01 6,781 2029 3.39 2.85 22.8 27.5 0.06 0.92 9.37 10.3 0.84 3.69 4.54 — 6,751 6,751 0.27 0.06 0.01 6,776 2030 19.4 18.5 25.9 57.6 0.09 0.88 11.1 11.7 0.81 3.69 4.51 — 18,880 18,880 0.44 1.38 0.82 19,302 2031 18.9 18.3 24.8 55.4 0.09 0.57 11.1 11.6 0.48 2.68 3.16 — 18,527 18,527 0.42 1.32 0.72 18,933 2032 18.7 18.2 24.1 53.9 0.09 0.48 11.1 11.5 0.45 2.68 3.13 — 18,223 18,223 0.42 1.04 0.63 18,545 2033 16.5 16.1 17.3 42.1 0.08 0.26 10.9 11.2 0.25 2.65 2.89 — 16,301 16,301 0.33 0.98 0.53 16,600 2034 16.3 16.0 16.9 40.7 0.08 0.25 10.9 11.2 0.24 2.65 2.88 — 16,021 16,021 0.33 0.98 0.46 16,320 2035 16.3 15.9 16.5 39.6 0.08 0.24 10.9 11.2 0.22 2.65 2.87 — 15,763 15,763 0.33 0.92 0.39 16,047 2036 16.2 15.9 15.8 38.6 0.08 0.23 10.9 11.2 0.21 2.65 2.86 — 15,531 15,531 0.31 0.92 0.33 15,814
ATTACHMENT E
1624
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
11 / 95
2037 16.1 15.8 15.5 37.6 0.08 0.21 10.9 11.2 0.20 2.65 2.85 — 15,326 15,326 0.31 0.92 0.27 15,609 2038 16.0 15.4 15.3 36.7 0.08 0.21 10.9 11.1 0.20 2.65 2.84 — 15,113 15,113 0.30 0.87 0.23 15,380 2039 15.9 15.3 15.1 36.1 0.08 0.20 10.9 11.1 0.19 2.65 2.84 — 14,951 14,951 0.30 0.87 0.19 15,218 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 2.42 2.04 18.4 19.0 0.03 0.77 13.0 13.8 0.71 6.65 7.35 — 3,568 3,568 0.14 0.03 0.14 3,581 2028 2.53 2.13 18.0 20.1 0.04 0.73 8.47 9.20 0.67 3.73 4.40 — 4,620 4,620 0.19 0.04 0.15 4,637 2029 2.42 2.04 16.3 19.6 0.04 0.65 6.69 7.35 0.60 2.64 3.24 — 4,825 4,825 0.19 0.04 0.14 4,843 2030 10.4 9.91 14.4 31.8 0.05 0.36 7.59 7.94 0.33 2.05 2.38 — 10,973 10,973 0.24 0.78 7.71 11,219 2031 13.5 13.1 17.5 40.1 0.07 0.41 7.90 8.31 0.34 1.91 2.25 — 13,374 13,374 0.28 0.74 8.57 13,611 2032 12.0 11.7 12.7 31.9 0.06 0.21 7.84 8.04 0.19 1.90 2.09 — 12,059 12,059 0.24 0.74 7.40 12,292 2033 11.8 11.5 12.2 30.7 0.06 0.19 7.81 8.00 0.18 1.89 2.07 — 11,778 11,778 0.24 0.70 6.34 11,998 2034 11.6 11.4 11.7 29.6 0.06 0.18 7.81 7.99 0.17 1.89 2.06 — 11,576 11,576 0.22 0.70 5.42 11,795 2035 11.6 11.4 11.4 28.9 0.06 0.17 7.81 7.98 0.16 1.89 2.05 — 11,390 11,390 0.22 0.66 4.59 11,597 2036 11.6 11.4 11.2 28.1 0.06 0.16 7.83 8.00 0.15 1.90 2.05 — 11,254 11,254 0.22 0.66 3.88 11,461 2037 11.5 11.3 10.9 27.3 0.06 0.15 7.81 7.97 0.14 1.89 2.04 — 11,076 11,076 0.22 0.66 3.23 11,281 2038 11.4 11.2 10.8 26.9 0.06 0.15 7.81 7.96 0.14 1.89 2.03 — 10,922 10,922 0.20 0.62 2.69 11,115 2039 10.4 10.00 9.68 24.1 0.05 0.13 7.15 7.28 0.12 1.73 1.85 — 9,888 9,888 0.18 0.57 2.03 10,064 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.44 0.37 3.35 3.46 0.01 0.14 2.37 2.51 0.13 1.21 1.34 — 591 591 0.02 0.01 0.02 593 2028 0.46 0.39 3.28 3.67 0.01 0.13 1.55 1.68 0.12 0.68 0.80 — 765 765 0.03 0.01 0.02 768 2029 0.44 0.37 2.97 3.58 0.01 0.12 1.22 1.34 0.11 0.48 0.59 — 799 799 0.03 0.01 0.02 802 2030 1.90 1.81 2.62 5.80 0.01 0.07 1.38 1.45 0.06 0.37 0.43 — 1,817 1,817 0.04 0.13 1.28 1,857 2031 2.46 2.39 3.20 7.32 0.01 0.07 1.44 1.52 0.06 0.35 0.41 — 2,214 2,214 0.05 0.12 1.42 2,254 2032 2.18 2.13 2.32 5.82 0.01 0.04 1.43 1.47 0.04 0.35 0.38 — 1,997 1,997 0.04 0.12 1.23 2,035 2033 2.14 2.10 2.23 5.60 0.01 0.03 1.43 1.46 0.03 0.35 0.38 — 1,950 1,950 0.04 0.12 1.05 1,986 2034 2.12 2.08 2.14 5.40 0.01 0.03 1.43 1.46 0.03 0.35 0.38 — 1,917 1,917 0.04 0.12 0.90 1,953 2035 2.12 2.08 2.09 5.27 0.01 0.03 1.43 1.46 0.03 0.35 0.37 — 1,886 1,886 0.04 0.11 0.76 1,920 2036 2.12 2.08 2.04 5.12 0.01 0.03 1.43 1.46 0.03 0.35 0.37 — 1,863 1,863 0.04 0.11 0.64 1,897
ATTACHMENT E
1625
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
12 / 95
2037 2.10 2.05 2.00 4.98 0.01 0.03 1.43 1.45 0.03 0.35 0.37 — 1,834 1,834 0.04 0.11 0.53 1,868 2038 2.08 2.04 1.97 4.91 0.01 0.03 1.43 1.45 0.03 0.35 0.37 — 1,808 1,808 0.03 0.10 0.44 1,840 2039 1.90 1.82 1.77 4.39 0.01 0.02 1.30 1.33 0.02 0.32 0.34 — 1,637 1,637 0.03 0.09 0.34 1,666
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 337 264 131 1,480 3.93 84.0 157 241 80.9 39.9 121 14,741 251,487 266,228 211 8.95 696 274,859 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 319 246 142 1,222 3.78 83.9 157 241 80.9 39.9 121 14,741 237,295 252,036 211 9.61 51.5 260,237 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 227 204 114 860 2.31 21.2 157 178 20.4 39.8 60.3 4,372 220,635 225,006 162 9.27 320 232,146 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 41.5 37.3 20.9 157 0.42 3.87 28.6 32.5 3.73 7.27 11.0 724 36,529 37,252 26.9 1.54 53.0 38,434
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 83.8 76.6 81.7 769 1.86 1.51 157 158 1.42 39.9 41.3 — 189,871 189,871 6.55 8.14 662 193,123 Area 251 187 30.8 704 1.95 81.0 — 81.0 78.0 — 78.0 13,374 26,283 39,657 63.0 0.05 — 41,248
ATTACHMENT E
1626
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
13 / 95
Energy 2.12 1.06 18.1 7.69 0.12 1.46 — 1.46 1.46 — 1.46 — 34,670 34,670 3.93 0.27 — 34,849 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 192 663 855 19.8 0.48 — 1,493 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,175 0.00 1,175 117 0.00 — 4,111 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4
Total 337 264 131 1,480 3.93 84.0 157 241 80.9 39.9 121 14,741 251,487 266,228 211 8.95 696 274,859 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 78.4 71.0 94.5 650 1.72 1.52 157 158 1.42 39.9 41.3 — 176,052 176,052 7.27 8.81 17.2 178,877 Area 238 174 29.5 564 1.94 80.9 — 80.9 78.0 — 78.0 13,374 25,909 39,284 63.0 0.05 — 40,874 Energy 2.12 1.06 18.1 7.69 0.12 1.46 — 1.46 1.46 — 1.46 — 34,670 34,670 3.93 0.27 — 34,849 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 192 663 855 19.8 0.48 — 1,493 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,175 0.00 1,175 117 0.00 — 4,111 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4
Total 319 246 142 1,222 3.78 83.9 157 241 80.9 39.9 121 14,741 237,295 252,036 211 9.61 51.5 260,237 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 78.4 71.1 89.1 657 1.76 1.52 157 158 1.42 39.8 41.3 — 179,297 179,297 6.91 8.51 286 182,291 Area 147 132 7.29 196 0.44 18.2 — 18.2 17.5 — 17.5 3,005 6,005 9,009 14.2 0.01 — 9,367 Energy 2.12 1.06 18.1 7.69 0.12 1.46 — 1.46 1.46 — 1.46 — 34,670 34,670 3.93 0.27 — 34,849 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 192 663 855 19.8 0.48 — 1,493 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 1,175 0.00 1,175 117 0.00 — 4,111 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4
Total 227 204 114 860 2.31 21.2 157 178 20.4 39.8 60.3 4,372 220,635 225,006 162 9.27 320 232,146 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 14.3 13.0 16.3 120 0.32 0.28 28.6 28.9 0.26 7.27 7.53 — 29,685 29,685 1.14 1.41 47.3 30,180 Area 26.8 24.1 1.33 35.7 0.08 3.32 — 3.32 3.20 — 3.20 497 994 1,492 2.34 < 0.005 — 1,551 Energy 0.39 0.19 3.30 1.40 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 — 5,740 5,740 0.65 0.05 — 5,770 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 31.8 110 142 3.27 0.08 — 247
ATTACHMENT E
1627
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
14 / 95
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 195 0.00 195 19.4 0.00 — 681 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 5.69
Total 41.5 37.3 20.9 157 0.42 3.87 28.6 32.5 3.73 7.27 11.0 724 36,529 37,252 26.9 1.54 53.0 38,434
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Site Preparation (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.63 3.05 28.0 28.3 0.05 1.17 — 1.17 1.08 — 1.08 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.63 3.05 28.0 28.3 0.05 1.17 — 1.17 1.08 — 1.08 — 5,298 5,298 0.21 0.04 — 5,316 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1628
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
15 / 95
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.38 2.00 18.3 18.5 0.03 0.77 — 0.77 0.71 — 0.71 — 3,473 3,473 0.14 0.03 — 3,485 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 12.9 12.9 — 6.62 6.62 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.43 0.37 3.35 3.38 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 575 575 0.02 < 0.005 — 577 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.35 2.35 — 1.21 1.21 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 156 156 < 0.005 0.01 0.49 158 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 141 141 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 143
ATTACHMENT E
1629
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
16 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 94.8 94.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 96.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.7 15.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Site Preparation (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.61 3.04 27.5 28.4 0.05 1.14 — 1.14 1.05 — 1.05 — 5,300 5,300 0.21 0.04 — 5,318 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1630
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
17 / 95
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.61 0.51 4.62 4.77 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 892 892 0.04 0.01 — 895 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 3.31 3.31 — 1.70 1.70 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.84 0.87 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 148 148 0.01 < 0.005 — 148 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.60 0.60 — 0.31 0.31 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.9 23.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 24.2
ATTACHMENT E
1631
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
18 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.95 3.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.01 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Grading (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.43 2.88 24.3 27.2 0.06 0.99 — 0.99 0.91 — 0.91 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.43 2.88 24.3 27.2 0.06 0.99 — 0.99 0.91 — 0.91 — 6,598 6,598 0.27 0.05 — 6,621
ATTACHMENT E
1632
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
19 / 95
Dust — — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.88 1.58 13.3 14.9 0.03 0.54 — 0.54 0.50 — 0.50 — 3,615 3,615 0.15 0.03 — 3,628 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 5.04 5.04 — 2.00 2.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.34 0.29 2.43 2.72 0.01 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 599 599 0.02 < 0.005 — 601 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.92 0.92 — 0.37 0.37 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 175 175 < 0.005 0.01 0.50 177 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1633
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
20 / 95
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 158 158 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 160 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 88.8 88.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 90.0 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Grading (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.32 2.79 22.7 26.9 0.06 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 6,596 6,596 0.27 0.05 — 6,619 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1634
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
21 / 95
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
3.32 2.79 22.7 26.9 0.06 0.92— 0.92 0.84— 0.84— 6,596 6,596 0.27 0.05— 6,619 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 9.20 9.20— 3.65 3.65———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
2.37 1.99 16.2 19.2 0.04 0.65— 0.65 0.60— 0.60— 4,712 4,712 0.19 0.04— 4,728 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 6.57 6.57— 2.61 2.61———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.43 0.36 2.96 3.50 0.01 0.12— 0.12 0.11— 0.11— 780 780 0.03 0.01— 783 Dust
From
Material
Movement—
————— 1.20 1.20— 0.48 0.48———————
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1635
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
22 / 95
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 172 172 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 172 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 155 155 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 157 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 115 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 18.8 18.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Grading (2030) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1636
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
23 / 95
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.23 2.72 21.7 26.9 0.06 0.88 — 0.88 0.81 — 0.81 — 6,596 6,596 0.27 0.05 — 6,619 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.48 0.40 3.22 3.99 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 981 981 0.04 0.01 — 984 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.37 1.37 — 0.54 0.54 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.09 0.07 0.59 0.73 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.25 0.25 — 0.10 0.10 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1637
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
24 / 95
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 153 153 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 155 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.85 3.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.91 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Building Construction (2030) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.12 0.94 8.39 12.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1638
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
25 / 95
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.12 0.94 8.39 12.9 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.64 0.53 4.75 7.29 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 1,356 1,356 0.05 0.01 — 1,360 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.87 1.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 225 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.87 2.60 1.42 32.2 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 7,474 7,474 0.12 0.06 17.5 7,512 Vendor 0.32 0.17 7.49 2.61 0.05 0.11 2.01 2.11 0.11 0.55 0.66 — 6,603 6,603 0.09 0.99 10.5 6,911 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.67 2.38 1.98 25.5 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,762 6,762 0.16 0.29 0.45 6,853
ATTACHMENT E
1639
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
26 / 95
Vendor 0.30 0.16 8.00 2.69 0.05 0.11 2.01 2.11 0.11 0.55 0.66 — 6,610 6,610 0.09 0.99 0.27 6,907 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.52 1.35 0.95 14.7 0.00 0.00 4.21 4.21 0.00 0.99 0.99 — 3,919 3,919 0.08 0.16 4.26 3,975 Vendor 0.18 0.09 4.42 1.50 0.03 0.06 1.14 1.20 0.06 0.31 0.37 — 3,736 3,736 0.05 0.56 2.56 3,907 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.25 0.17 2.69 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 649 649 0.01 0.03 0.71 658 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.81 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 619 619 0.01 0.09 0.42 647 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Building Construction (2031) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.10 0.92 8.12 12.8 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.10 0.92 8.12 12.8 0.02 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
ATTACHMENT E
1640
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
27 / 95
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.78 0.66 5.80 9.18 0.02 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.12 1.06 1.67 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.71 2.44 1.38 30.3 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 7,342 7,342 0.10 0.06 15.4 7,377 Vendor 0.32 0.17 7.24 2.54 0.05 0.11 2.01 2.11 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 6,396 6,396 0.09 0.94 9.06 6,686 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.30 2.24 1.71 23.9 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,643 6,643 0.14 0.29 0.40 6,733 Vendor 0.30 0.16 7.71 2.57 0.05 0.11 2.01 2.11 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 6,402 6,402 0.09 0.94 0.24 6,684 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.66 1.62 1.18 17.5 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.31 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,862 4,862 0.08 0.04 4.74 4,882 Vendor 0.22 0.12 5.37 1.80 0.04 0.08 1.43 1.51 0.04 0.40 0.43 — 4,570 4,570 0.06 0.67 2.80 4,774
ATTACHMENT E
1641
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
28 / 95
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.30 0.22 3.19 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 805 805 0.01 0.01 0.79 808 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.98 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.28 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 757 757 0.01 0.11 0.46 790 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.15. Building Construction (2032) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.07 0.90 7.87 12.8 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.21 — 0.21 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.07 0.90 7.87 12.8 0.02 0.22 — 0.22 0.21 — 0.21 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.77 0.64 5.64 9.16 0.02 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,717 1,717 0.07 0.01 — 1,723
ATTACHMENT E
1642
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
29 / 95
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.12 1.03 1.67 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.34 2.30 1.36 28.8 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 7,249 7,249 0.10 0.06 13.4 7,282 Vendor 0.32 0.17 6.99 2.48 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 6,193 6,193 0.09 0.94 7.77 6,482 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.20 2.15 1.69 22.7 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,560 6,560 0.14 0.06 0.35 6,581 Vendor 0.30 0.15 7.41 2.57 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 6,199 6,199 0.09 0.94 0.20 6,481 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.57 1.54 1.00 16.6 0.00 0.00 5.33 5.33 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,815 4,815 0.08 0.04 4.16 4,834 Vendor 0.23 0.12 5.20 1.81 0.04 0.04 1.44 1.48 0.04 0.40 0.44 — 4,437 4,437 0.06 0.67 2.41 4,642 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.29 0.28 0.18 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 797 797 0.01 0.01 0.69 800 Vendor 0.04 0.02 0.95 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 735 735 0.01 0.11 0.40 768 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1643
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
30 / 95
3.17. Building Construction (2033) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.05 0.88 7.67 12.8 0.02 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.05 0.88 7.67 12.8 0.02 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.75 0.63 5.48 9.13 0.02 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.14 0.11 1.00 1.67 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284
ATTACHMENT E
1644
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
31 / 95
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.24 2.20 1.11 27.4 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 7,150 7,150 0.10 0.06 11.7 7,181 Vendor 0.27 0.17 6.74 2.43 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,999 5,999 0.09 0.89 6.53 6,271 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.11 2.05 1.44 21.4 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,470 6,470 0.12 0.06 0.30 6,491 Vendor 0.24 0.15 7.16 2.51 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 6,006 6,006 0.09 0.89 0.17 6,272 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.49 1.46 0.98 15.8 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.31 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,736 4,736 0.08 0.04 3.61 4,754 Vendor 0.18 0.11 5.01 1.76 0.04 0.04 1.43 1.47 0.04 0.40 0.43 — 4,287 4,287 0.06 0.63 2.01 4,479 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.27 0.18 2.89 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 784 784 0.01 0.01 0.60 787 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.91 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 710 710 0.01 0.10 0.33 742 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.19. Building Construction (2034) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1645
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
32 / 95
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
1.03 0.86 7.52 12.8 0.02 0.19— 0.19 0.18— 0.18— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
1.03 0.86 7.52 12.8 0.02 0.19— 0.19 0.18— 0.18— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.74 0.62 5.37 9.12 0.02 0.14— 0.14 0.13— 0.13— 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01— 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.98 1.66 < 0.005 0.03— 0.03 0.02— 0.02— 283 283 0.01 < 0.005— 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
ATTACHMENT E
1646
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
33 / 95
Worker 2.11 2.07 1.09 26.3 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 7,060 7,060 0.08 0.06 10.1 7,090 Vendor 0.27 0.17 6.49 2.37 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,815 5,815 0.09 0.89 5.48 6,087 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.01 1.97 1.42 20.3 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,390 6,390 0.12 0.06 0.26 6,411 Vendor 0.24 0.15 6.97 2.45 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,822 5,822 0.09 0.89 0.14 6,088 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.41 1.38 0.80 14.9 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.31 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,677 4,677 0.07 0.04 3.11 4,695 Vendor 0.18 0.11 4.84 1.72 0.04 0.04 1.43 1.47 0.04 0.40 0.43 — 4,156 4,156 0.06 0.63 1.69 4,348 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.25 0.15 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 774 774 0.01 0.01 0.51 777 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.88 0.31 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 688 688 0.01 0.10 0.28 720 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.21. Building Construction (2035) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.01 0.85 7.34 12.7 0.02 0.18 — 0.18 0.17 — 0.17 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405
ATTACHMENT E
1647
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
34 / 95
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
1.01 0.85 7.34 12.7 0.02 0.18— 0.18 0.17— 0.17— 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02— 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.72 0.61 5.24 9.06 0.02 0.13— 0.13 0.12— 0.12— 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01— 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual——————————————————
Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.96 1.65 < 0.005 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02— 283 283 0.01 < 0.005— 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite——————————————————
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Worker 2.07 2.05 1.09 25.1 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74— 6,981 6,981 0.08 0.06 8.63 7,009 Vendor 0.27 0.17 6.31 2.32 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61— 5,644 5,644 0.09 0.83 4.54 5,899 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
ATTACHMENT E
1648
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
35 / 95
Worker 1.97 1.93 1.40 19.5 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,318 6,318 0.12 0.06 0.22 6,339 Vendor 0.24 0.15 6.73 2.40 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,651 5,651 0.09 0.83 0.12 5,901 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.41 1.37 0.80 14.4 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.31 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,625 4,625 0.07 0.04 2.66 4,641 Vendor 0.18 0.11 4.70 1.68 0.04 0.04 1.43 1.47 0.04 0.40 0.43 — 4,033 4,033 0.06 0.59 1.40 4,214 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.25 0.15 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 766 766 0.01 0.01 0.44 768 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.86 0.31 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 668 668 0.01 0.10 0.23 698 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.23. Building Construction (2036) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.99 0.83 7.12 12.6 0.02 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1649
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
36 / 95
Off-Roa 0.99 0.83 7.12 12.6 0.02 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.71 0.60 5.10 9.03 0.02 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 1,717 1,717 0.07 0.01 — 1,723 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.93 1.65 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 284 284 0.01 < 0.005 — 285 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 2.01 1.97 1.07 24.0 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,909 6,909 0.08 0.06 7.34 6,936 Vendor 0.26 0.16 6.17 2.32 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,489 5,489 0.09 0.83 3.73 5,743 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.93 1.89 1.15 18.8 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,253 6,253 0.10 0.06 0.19 6,274 Vendor 0.24 0.15 6.59 2.39 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,496 5,496 0.09 0.83 0.10 5,747 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1650
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
37 / 95
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Worker 1.38 1.36 0.79 13.8 0.00 0.00 5.33 5.33 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,590 4,590 0.07 0.04 2.27 4,606 Vendor 0.18 0.11 4.58 1.69 0.04 0.04 1.44 1.48 0.04 0.40 0.44 — 3,934 3,934 0.06 0.60 1.15 4,114 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.25 0.14 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 760 760 0.01 0.01 0.38 763 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.84 0.31 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 651 651 0.01 0.10 0.19 681 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.25. Building Construction (2037) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.98 0.82 6.99 12.5 0.02 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.98 0.82 6.99 12.5 0.02 0.16 — 0.16 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1651
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
38 / 95
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.70 0.58 4.99 8.93 0.02 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.91 1.63 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.91 1.87 0.84 23.4 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,847 6,847 0.08 0.06 6.21 6,872 Vendor 0.26 0.16 6.04 2.27 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,352 5,352 0.09 0.83 3.01 5,605 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.85 1.81 1.13 18.0 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,197 6,197 0.10 0.06 0.16 6,217 Vendor 0.24 0.15 6.41 2.34 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,359 5,359 0.09 0.83 0.08 5,609 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.31 1.28 0.78 13.3 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.31 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,536 4,536 0.07 0.04 1.92 4,552 Vendor 0.18 0.11 4.48 1.64 0.04 0.04 1.43 1.47 0.04 0.40 0.43 — 3,825 3,825 0.06 0.59 0.93 4,004 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1652
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
39 / 95
Worker 0.24 0.23 0.14 2.42 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 751 751 0.01 0.01 0.32 754 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.82 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 633 633 0.01 0.10 0.15 663 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.27. Building Construction (2038) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.97 0.81 6.89 12.5 0.02 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.97 0.81 6.89 12.5 0.02 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.69 0.58 4.92 8.90 0.02 0.11 — 0.11 0.10 — 0.10 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1653
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
40 / 95
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.13 0.11 0.90 1.62 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.85 1.81 0.82 22.8 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,766 6,766 0.08 0.06 5.25 6,790 Vendor 0.26 0.16 5.91 2.27 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,228 5,228 0.09 0.78 2.41 5,465 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.76 1.48 1.13 17.4 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,123 6,123 0.10 0.06 0.14 6,143 Vendor 0.24 0.15 6.28 2.34 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,235 5,235 0.08 0.78 0.06 5,469 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.25 1.23 0.78 13.0 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.31 0.00 1.25 1.25 — 4,482 4,482 0.06 0.04 1.62 4,497 Vendor 0.18 0.11 4.38 1.64 0.04 0.04 1.43 1.47 0.04 0.40 0.43 — 3,736 3,736 0.06 0.56 0.74 3,905 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.22 0.14 2.37 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 742 742 0.01 0.01 0.27 745 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.80 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.27 0.01 0.07 0.08 — 619 619 0.01 0.09 0.12 646 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.29. Building Construction (2039) - Unmitigated
ATTACHMENT E
1654
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
41 / 95
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.96 0.80 6.78 12.4 0.02 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.96 0.80 6.78 12.4 0.02 0.15 — 0.15 0.13 — 0.13 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.63 0.53 4.43 8.11 0.02 0.10 — 0.10 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,567 1,567 0.06 0.01 — 1,572 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.10 0.81 1.48 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 259 259 0.01 < 0.005 — 260 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1655
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
42 / 95
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.76 1.48 0.82 22.2 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,718 6,718 0.08 0.06 4.38 6,742 Vendor 0.26 0.16 5.78 2.21 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,118 5,118 0.08 0.78 1.90 5,354 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.72 1.45 1.11 17.0 0.00 0.00 7.44 7.44 0.00 1.74 1.74 — 6,080 6,080 0.10 0.06 0.11 6,100 Vendor 0.24 0.15 6.21 2.29 0.05 0.05 2.01 2.06 0.05 0.55 0.61 — 5,125 5,125 0.08 0.78 0.05 5,359 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.11 0.93 0.70 11.5 0.00 0.00 4.86 4.86 0.00 1.14 1.14 — 4,073 4,073 0.05 0.04 1.24 4,087 Vendor 0.17 0.10 3.93 1.47 0.03 0.03 1.31 1.35 0.03 0.36 0.40 — 3,347 3,347 0.05 0.51 0.54 3,501 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.20 0.17 0.13 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.89 0.00 0.21 0.21 — 674 674 0.01 0.01 0.21 677 Vendor 0.03 0.02 0.72 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.25 0.01 0.07 0.07 — 554 554 0.01 0.08 0.09 580 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.31. Paving (2030) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1656
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
43 / 95
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.77 0.64 6.28 9.90 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 1.27 1.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.05 0.04 0.38 0.60 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 91.6 91.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 92.0 Paving 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.07 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 116
ATTACHMENT E
1657
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
44 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.12 7.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.18 1.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.33. Paving (2031) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.75 0.63 6.13 9.88 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 1.27 1.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1658
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
45 / 95
Off-Roa 0.75 0.63 6.13 9.88 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 d
Equipm
ent
Paving 1.27 1.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.53 0.45 4.38 7.06 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 — 1,079 1,079 0.04 0.01 — 1,083 Paving 0.91 0.91 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.10 0.08 0.80 1.29 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 179 179 0.01 < 0.005 — 179 Paving 0.17 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 124 124 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.26 125 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 112 112 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 114
ATTACHMENT E
1659
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
46 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 82.3 82.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 82.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.6 13.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.35. Paving (2032) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.72 0.61 6.00 9.86 0.01 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,516 Paving 1.27 1.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1660
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
47 / 95
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.7 d
Paving 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.89 4.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.91 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 111 111 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 111 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.24 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1661
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
48 / 95
3.37. Architectural Coating (2030) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.78 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.78 1.11 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.44 0.63 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 75.5 75.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 75.8
ATTACHMENT E
1662
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
49 / 95
Architect
Coatings
7.09 7.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 12.5 12.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.5 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.29 1.29 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.57 0.52 0.28 6.45 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,495 1,495 0.02 0.01 3.49 1,502 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.53 0.48 0.40 5.10 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,352 1,352 0.03 0.06 0.09 1,371 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.27 0.19 2.95 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 784 784 0.02 0.03 0.85 795 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1663
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
50 / 95
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 130 130 < 0.005 0.01 0.14 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.39. Architectural Coating (2031) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.78 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.12 0.10 0.78 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1664
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
51 / 95
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07 0.55 0.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.95 8.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.63 1.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.54 0.49 0.28 6.06 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,468 1,468 0.02 0.01 3.08 1,475 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.46 0.45 0.34 4.77 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,329 1,329 0.03 0.06 0.08 1,347 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1665
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
52 / 95
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.33 0.32 0.24 3.50 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 972 972 0.02 0.01 0.95 976 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 161 161 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 162 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.41. Architectural Coating (2032) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.77 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1666
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
53 / 95
Off-Roa 0.11 0.09 0.77 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 d
Equipm
Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07 0.55 0.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 95.6 95.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.9 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.98 8.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.64 1.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.47 0.46 0.27 5.77 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,450 1,450 0.02 0.01 2.69 1,456
ATTACHMENT E
1667
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
54 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.44 0.43 0.34 4.54 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,312 1,312 0.03 0.01 0.07 1,316 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.31 0.20 3.32 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 963 963 0.02 0.01 0.83 967 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 159 159 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 160 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.43. Architectural Coating (2033) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
ATTACHMENT E
1668
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
55 / 95
Architect 12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
s
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.07 0.55 0.79 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.95 8.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8
ATTACHMENT E
1669
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
56 / 95
Architect 1.63 1.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.45 0.44 0.22 5.48 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,430 1,430 0.02 0.01 2.34 1,436 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.41 0.29 4.28 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,294 1,294 0.02 0.01 0.06 1,298 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.30 0.29 0.20 3.17 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 947 947 0.02 0.01 0.72 951 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 157 157 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 157 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.45. Architectural Coating (2034) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e
ATTACHMENT E
1670
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
57 / 95
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.06 0.54 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.95 8.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1671
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
58 / 95
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.63 1.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.42 0.41 0.22 5.25 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,412 1,412 0.02 0.01 2.01 1,418 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.40 0.39 0.28 4.06 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,278 1,278 0.02 0.01 0.05 1,282 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.28 0.16 2.99 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 935 935 0.01 0.01 0.62 939 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 155 155 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 155
ATTACHMENT E
1672
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
59 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.47. Architectural Coating (2035) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.76 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1673
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
60 / 95
Off-Roa
Equipment
0.08 0.06 0.54 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.95 8.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.63 1.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.41 0.41 0.22 5.02 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,396 1,396 0.02 0.01 1.73 1,402 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.39 0.39 0.28 3.90 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,264 1,264 0.02 0.01 0.04 1,268 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.27 0.16 2.89 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 925 925 0.01 0.01 0.53 928
ATTACHMENT E
1674
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
61 / 95
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 153 153 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 154 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.49. Architectural Coating (2036) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.75 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.75 1.10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134
ATTACHMENT E
1675
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
62 / 95
Architect 12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Coating
s
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.06 0.54 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.6 95.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 96.0 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.98 8.98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.9 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.64 1.64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.40 0.39 0.21 4.80 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,382 1,382 0.02 0.01 1.47 1,387 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1676
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
63 / 95
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.39 0.38 0.23 3.75 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,251 1,251 0.02 0.01 0.04 1,255 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.28 0.27 0.16 2.76 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 918 918 0.01 0.01 0.45 921 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 152 152 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 153 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.51. Architectural Coating (2037) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.75 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1677
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
64 / 95
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.75 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.06 0.53 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.95 8.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.63 1.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1678
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
65 / 95
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.38 0.37 0.17 4.67 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,369 1,369 0.02 0.01 1.24 1,374 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37 0.36 0.23 3.61 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,239 1,239 0.02 0.01 0.03 1,243 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.26 0.16 2.66 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 907 907 0.01 0.01 0.38 910 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 150 150 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 151 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.53. Architectural Coating (2038) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1679
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
66 / 95
Off-Roa 0.11 0.09 0.75 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 d
Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.75 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.08 0.06 0.53 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.95 8.95 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8
ATTACHMENT E
1680
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
67 / 95
Architect
Coatings
1.63 1.63 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.37 0.36 0.16 4.55 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,353 1,353 0.02 0.01 1.05 1,358 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.30 0.23 3.47 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,225 1,225 0.02 0.01 0.03 1,229 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.25 0.16 2.60 0.00 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.00 0.25 0.25 — 896 896 0.01 0.01 0.32 899 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 148 148 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 149 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.55. Architectural Coating (2039) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1681
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
68 / 95
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.74 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.74 1.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coating
s
12.5 12.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.07 0.06 0.49 0.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 87.3 87.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 87.6 Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.19 8.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1682
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
69 / 95
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.09 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 14.4 14.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.5 Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.49 1.49 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.35 0.30 0.16 4.43 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,344 1,344 0.02 0.01 0.88 1,348 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.34 0.29 0.22 3.39 0.00 0.00 1.49 1.49 0.00 0.35 0.35 — 1,216 1,216 0.02 0.01 0.02 1,220 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.19 0.14 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.97 0.00 0.23 0.23 — 815 815 0.01 0.01 0.25 817 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 135 135 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 135 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1683
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
70 / 95
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Mobile source emissions results are presented in Sections 2.6. No further detailed breakdown of emissions is available.
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 11,726 11,726 1.90 0.23 — 11,842 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,726 11,726 1.90 0.23 — 11,842 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 11,726 11,726 1.90 0.23 — 11,842 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1684
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
71 / 95
Other — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 11,726 11,726 1.90 0.23 — 11,842 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,941 1,941 0.31 0.04 — 1,961
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,941 1,941 0.31 0.04 — 1,961
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
2.12 1.06 18.1 7.69 0.12 1.46 — 1.46 1.46 — 1.46 — 22,944 22,944 2.03 0.04 — 23,007 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 2.12 1.06 18.1 7.69 0.12 1.46 — 1.46 1.46 — 1.46 — 22,944 22,944 2.03 0.04 — 23,007 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1685
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
72 / 95
Single
Family
Housing
2.12 1.06 18.1 7.69 0.12 1.46 — 1.46 1.46 — 1.46 — 22,944 22,944 2.03 0.04 — 23,007 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 2.12 1.06 18.1 7.69 0.12 1.46 — 1.46 1.46 — 1.46 — 22,944 22,944 2.03 0.04 — 23,007 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.39 0.19 3.30 1.40 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 — 3,799 3,799 0.34 0.01 — 3,809 City
Park
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.39 0.19 3.30 1.40 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.27 — 0.27 — 3,799 3,799 0.34 0.01 — 3,809
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 126 62.4 29.5 564 1.94 80.9 — 80.9 78.0 — 78.0 13,374 25,909 39,284 63.0 0.05 — 40,874 Consum
er
Product
s
103 103 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1686
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
73 / 95
Architect 8.70 8.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
13.1 12.4 1.35 140 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.05 — 0.05 — 373 373 0.02 < 0.005 — 375 Total 251 187 30.8 704 1.95 81.0 — 81.0 78.0 — 78.0 13,374 26,283 39,657 63.0 0.05 — 41,248 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 126 62.4 29.5 564 1.94 80.9 — 80.9 78.0 — 78.0 13,374 25,909 39,284 63.0 0.05 — 40,874 Consum
er
Product
s
103 103 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
8.70 8.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 238 174 29.5 564 1.94 80.9 — 80.9 78.0 — 78.0 13,374 25,909 39,284 63.0 0.05 — 40,874 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 5.17 2.56 1.21 23.1 0.08 3.32 — 3.32 3.20 — 3.20 497 964 1,461 2.34 < 0.005 — 1,520 Consum
er
Product
s
18.8 18.8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
1.59 1.59 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
1.18 1.11 0.12 12.6 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 30.5 30.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.6 Total 26.8 24.1 1.33 35.7 0.08 3.32 — 3.32 3.20 — 3.20 497 994 1,492 2.34 < 0.005 — 1,551
ATTACHMENT E
1687
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
74 / 95
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 192 663 855 19.8 0.48 — 1,493
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 192 663 855 19.8 0.48 — 1,493 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 192 663 855 19.8 0.48 — 1,493
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 192 663 855 19.8 0.48 — 1,493 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.8 110 142 3.27 0.08 — 247
ATTACHMENT E
1688
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
75 / 95
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 31.8 110 142 3.27 0.08 — 247
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,173 0.00 1,173 117 0.00 — 4,103 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.24 0.00 2.24 0.22 0.00 — 7.85
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,175 0.00 1,175 117 0.00 — 4,111 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 1,173 0.00 1,173 117 0.00 — 4,103 City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.24 0.00 2.24 0.22 0.00 — 7.85
ATTACHMENT E
1689
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
76 / 95
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1,175 0.00 1,175 117 0.00 — 4,111 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 194 0.00 194 19.4 0.00 — 679
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.37 0.00 0.37 0.04 0.00 — 1.30
Other
Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 195 0.00 195 19.4 0.00 — 681
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1690
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
77 / 95
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4
Family
Housing
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 34.4 34.4
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 5.69
City
Park
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5.69 5.69
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1691
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
78 / 95
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1692
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
79 / 95
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1693
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
80 / 95
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1694
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
81 / 95
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/31/2027 3/26/2028 5.00 300 — Grading Grading 3/27/2028 3/17/2030 5.00 515 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/18/2030 11/30/2039 5.00 2,533 — Paving Paving 12/1/2030 1/10/2032 5.00 290 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/18/2030 11/30/2039 5.00 2,533 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
ATTACHMENT E
1695
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
82 / 95
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
ATTACHMENT E
1696
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
83 / 95
Building Construction Worker 886 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 263 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 177 11.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 9.10 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 9,717,874 3,239,291 0.00 0.00 367,995
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
ATTACHMENT E
1697
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
84 / 95
Phase Name Material Imported (Ton of Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Debris)
Material Exported (Ton of
Debris)
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 450 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 1,545 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 168
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Single Family Housing 27.1 0%
City Park 0.00 0%
City Park 0.00 0%
Other Asphalt Surfaces 141 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2028 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2029 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2030 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2031 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2032 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2033 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2034 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2035 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2036 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
ATTACHMENT E
1698
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
85 / 95
2037 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2038 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2039 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 17,633 17,633 17,633 6,436,045 220,064 220,064 220,064 80,323,360
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 1231
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 1231
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 123
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 123
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
ATTACHMENT E
1699
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
86 / 95
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
9717873.75 3,239,291 0.00 0.00 367,995
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 20,981,771 204 0.0330 0.0040 71,590,552 City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
City Park 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 100,098,160 494,503,878
City Park 0.00 0.00
City Park 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT E
1700
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
87 / 95
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 2,176 —
City Park 2.24 —
City Park 1.92 —
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
ATTACHMENT E
1701
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
88 / 95
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
ATTACHMENT E
1702
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
89 / 95
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 24.1 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.50 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
ATTACHMENT E
1703
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
90 / 95
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
ATTACHMENT E
1704
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
91 / 95
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 47.0
AQ-PM 50.1
AQ-DPM 33.9
Drinking Water 99.8
Lead Risk Housing 28.5
Pesticides 87.0
Toxic Releases 21.8
Traffic 31.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 4.12
Groundwater 52.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 54.6
Impaired Water Bodies 66.7
Solid Waste 75.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 50.8
Cardio-vascular 77.7
Low Birth Weights 86.8
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 68.8
Housing 12.0
Linguistic 61.9
Poverty 52.5
Unemployment 40.6
ATTACHMENT E
1705
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
92 / 95
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 58.77069165
Employed 40.16424997
Median HI 63.15924548
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 36.40446555
High school enrollment 20.46708585
Preschool enrollment 39.62530476
Transportation —
Auto Access 84.51174131
Active commuting 29.75747466
Social —
2-parent households 95.8937508
Voting 58.07776209
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 93.60964969
Park access 27.678686
Retail density 8.700115488
Supermarket access 17.15642243
Tree canopy 58.29590658
Housing —
Homeownership 88.78480688
Housing habitability 96.44552804
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 77.08199666 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 96.70216861
ATTACHMENT E
1706
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
93 / 95
Uncrowded housing 52.3675093
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 47.32452201
Arthritis 82.7
Asthma ER Admissions 57.7
High Blood Pressure 39.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 82.6
Asthma 76.7
Coronary Heart Disease 87.2
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 81.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 55.5
Life Expectancy at Birth 57.0
Cognitively Disabled 28.0
Physically Disabled 26.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 42.9
Mental Health Not Good 61.1
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 74.1
Pedestrian Injuries 84.5
Physical Health Not Good 65.0
Stroke 75.8
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 89.9
Current Smoker 51.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 32.7
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
ATTACHMENT E
1707
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
94 / 95
Children 50.1
Elderly 24.7
English Speaking 36.6
Foreign-born 63.8
Outdoor Workers 62.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 76.9
Traffic Density 44.9
Traffic Access 0.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 50.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 35.4
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 72.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 56.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
ATTACHMENT E
1708
Stockton Bear Creek South Detailed Report, 8/8/2024
95 / 95
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Land uses as provided in Project Description.
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule simplified for the purposes of modeling. Assumes full buildout by 2040.
ATTACHMENT E
1709
Appendix B: IPAC Species List
ATTACHMENT E
1710
This page left intentionally blank.
ATTACHMENT E
1711
07/29/2024 16:01:13 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6713
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2024-0122625
Project Name: Bear Creek South
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
ATTACHMENT E
1712
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf
Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit | What We Do | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov).
The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds.
In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservationmigratory-birds.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
ATTACHMENT E
1713
▪
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
Federal Building
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
(916) 414-6600
ATTACHMENT E
1714
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code: 2024-0122625
Project Name: Bear Creek South
Project Type: Residential Construction
Project Description: The Bear Creek South Project site (proposed Project site) is in the northern portion of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area, within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County. The Project site is adjacent to the City of Stockton’s northern city limits, within the City of Stockton (City) Sphere of Influence (SOI) (as defined in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan), and within the City of Stockton Urban Services Boundary.
The Project site is immediately northeast of the intersection of West Lane and Morada Lane. The Project site is bounded on the north by Bear Creek, on the west by West Lane, which is an existing regional arterial, on the south by Morada Lane, and on the east by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way.
The proposed Project consists of 2,491 single-family residential units dispersed throughout multiple neighborhoods, linked by a system of parks and open spaces. Minimum lot sizes will be 5,000 square feet (sf).
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@38.0452691,-121.28620443471237,14z Counties: San Joaquin County, California
ATTACHMENT E
1715
1. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 10 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
1 ATTACHMENT E
1716
MAMMALS
NAME STATUS
Riparian Brush Rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani riparius
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6189
Endangered
REPTILES
NAME STATUS
Giant Garter Snake Thamnophis gigas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482
Threatened
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed
Threatened
AMPHIBIANS
NAME STATUS
California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense
Population: U.S.A. (Central CA DPS)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076
Threatened
Western Spadefoot Spea hammondii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5425
Proposed
Threatened
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7850
Threatened
CRUSTACEANS
NAME STATUS
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498
Threatened
Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi Endangered
ATTACHMENT E
1717
NAME STATUS
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2246
FLOWERING PLANTS
NAME STATUS
Fleshy Owl's-clover Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8095
Threatened
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
ATTACHMENT E
1718
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency: Stockton city
Name: Elise Laws
Address: 1020 Suncast Lane
Address Line 2: #106
City: El Dorado Hills
State: CA
Zip: 95762
Email [email protected]
Phone: 9162350116
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
Lead Agency: Stockton city
ATTACHMENT E
1719
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment
ATTACHMENT E
1720
This page left intentionally blank.
ATTACHMENT E
1721
CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
FOR THE BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by
Melinda A. Peak
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405
Prepared for
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
September 2024 (revised December 2025)
(Job #21-094)
ATTACHMENT E
1722
INTRODUCTION
Project Location
The Bear Creek South Residential Project site (proposed Project site) is in the northern portion of the City of Stockton Metropolitan Area, within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County.
The Project site is adjacent to the City of Stockton’s northern city limits, within the City of Stockton (City) Sphere of Influence (SOI) (as defined in the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan), and within the City of Stockton Urban Services Boundary.
The Project site is immediately northeast of the intersection of West Lane and Morada Lane. The Project site is bounded on the north by Bear Creek, on the west side by West Lane, which is an existing regional arterial, on the south by Morada Lane, and on the east by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right of way. Figures 1 and 2 show the Project’s regional location and vicinity.
Project and Annexation Areas Defined
The overall Project is comprised of three proposed vesting Tentative Maps. The Project applicants processing the individual vesting Tentative Maps are referred to as Arnaiz, Klein and Tri Pointe Homes (TPH) throughout this Project Description. Collectively, the Project is referred to as the Bear Creek South Residential Project.
The following terms are used throughout this Project Description to describe the boundaries within the Project site:
• Development Area or Project Site – includes a total area of 503.89 acres, that is intended for the development of up to 2,241 residential units, five parks, a lineal open space area along Bear Creek and public infrastructure.
• Non-Development Area – includes six parcels (or a portion of) totaling 26.29 acres consisting of City of Stockton rights-of-way, a UPRR easement area (via Congressional Grant), and two Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District easement areas. • Annexation Area – includes the whole of the Project, including the Development and Non-Development Areas (totaling 530.18 acres).
Table 1 lists each parcel included in the Project site and Figure 3 illustrates the APNs.
ATTACHMENT E
1723
TABLE 1: PARCELSWITHIN THE PROJECT SITE/DEVELOPMENT ANDNON-DEVELOPMENTAREAS Area (AC) Total Area (AC) Land (%)
Development Area
Arnaiz - Development Area
APN: 120-020-270 111.57 111.57 22%
Klein - Development Area
APN: 120-030-060 53.07 220.09 44%
APN: 120-020-320 23.45
APN: 120-020-310 70.94
Tri Pointe Homes Holdings - Development Area
Portion of APN: 120-020-300 101.29
172.23 34%
APN: 120-030-100 70.94
Total 503.89 100%
Non-Development Area
City of Stockton (Road Right-of-Way)
APN: 120-030-070 0.24
APN: 120-030-090 3.97 6.06 23%
APN: 120-020-260 1.85
Union Pacific Railroad (Congressional Grant Area)
APN: 122-010-050 0.37
Portion of APN: 120-020-300 11.75 19.62 75%
APN: 124-010-010, -030, -070 7.26
Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District
APN: 124-020-110 0.09
0.61 2%
APN: 124-020-120 0.52
Total 26.29 100%
Total Project Area 530.18 acres
SOURCES: VVHENGINEERING.MAP DATE:JULY 8, 2024.
Site Topography
The Project site is relatively flat and ranges in elevation from approximately 24 feet above sea level in the southwest corner, rising to 32 feet above sea level in the northeast corner of the Project site.
Existing Site Uses
The Development Area is predominantly comprised of agricultural uses and related facilities such as associated agricultural equipment and irrigation ditches. Additionally, six dirt/gravel roadways bisect the Development Area, including three dirt roadways extending south to north from Morada Lane, and three other dirt roadways trending west to east, including one along the base of the Bear Creek levee.
ATTACHMENT E
1724
Irrigation canals, operated by the Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID), run along the northeast and central portions of the Development Area, and are referred to as the Peters Castle Lateral and are used for delivery of irrigation water to District customers.
The portion of the WID’s Peters Castle Lateral located within the Development Area is currently an open ditch canal approximately 7,130 feet in length that begins at the west boundary of the UPRR right of way, proceeds westerly until it meets the Bear Creek levee, and then turns southerly to Morada Lane where it transitions into an underground pipe.
Figure 4 shows aerial imagery of the current existing site use within the Project site.
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
The Project site is currently located within San Joaquin County. The Project site is outside Stockton city limits, but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI).
General Plan Land Use Designations
Below is a general description of the City-designated LDR land use within the Project site:
Low Density Residential (LDR): This designation allows for single-family residential units, duplexes, triplexes, semi-detached patio homes, town homes, public and quasi-public uses, second units, and other similar and compatible uses. The maximum density is 6.1 units per acre based on gross acreage and 8.7 units per acre based on net acreage.
Surrounding General Plan Designations
The entire Project site is surrounded by the City of Stockton. Within the City, lands to the east and north are designated LDR. Lands to the south are designated Commercial, LDR, and Medium Density Residential. Lands to the west are designated Parks and Recreation, and Institutional.
Project Description
Project Objectives
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), a clear statement of objectives and the underlying purpose of the proposed Project shall be discussed. The principal objective of the proposed Project is the approval and subsequent implementation of the Bear Creek South Residential Project (the proposed Project). The quantifiable objectives of the proposed Project include the development of the approximately 503.89-acres Development Area for residential and park uses, as well as the annexation of the 530.18-acre Annexation Area, as described below.
ATTACHMENT E
1725
OAKLEY
RIO VISTA
LATHROP
GALT
RIPON
MANTECA
TRACY
STOCKTON
LODI
OAKDALE
MODESTO
CERES
TURLOCK
PATTERSON
A L A M E D A
C O U N T Y
A M A D O R
C O U N T Y
C A L A V E R A S
C O U N T Y
C O N T R A
C O S T A
C O U N T Y
S A C R A M E N T O
C O U N T Y
S A N J O A Q U I N C O U N T Y
S O L A N O
C O U N T Y
S T A N I S L A U S
C O U N T Y
4 108
12 160
160
26 120
132
4 165
220
99 99
99 99
88 88
12 219
33 104
26 120
132
84 205
5 5
5 580
0 2½ 5
Miles
Legend
Project Location
County Area
Incorporated Area
CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH
Figure 1. Regional Location
Sources: California State Geoportal. Map date: March 14, 2024.
Project Location
ATTACHMENT E
1726
Matt
Equinoa
Park
Valverde Park
Cortez
Park
Parma
Sister
City Park
Masisi Park
Dentention
Basin Soccer
Complex
Parklane
Elementary
Sutherland
Elementary
Aspire River
Oaks Charter
Aspire
Benjamin
Holt Middle
George
Lincoln
Mosher
Ronald E.
McNair High
Clairmont
Elementary
Westwood
Elementary
Ansel Adams
MOSHER SLOUGH
PIXLEY SLOU GH
MOSHER CREEK
BEAR CREEK
UP RR
UP RR
UP RR
Blue Grass Dr
Wakeman
Dr
Ch
erbou
rg
Way
Westmora Ave
Sutherland Dr
We s t
nL E Frontage Rd
Inspiration Dr
Barbaresco Cir
Moreland St
Sonata Cir
Zaccaria Way
Ve
r
n
a
ccia
L
n
Genova Ln
Silvana Ln
Tiziano Dr
Penelope Dr
Glacier
Po
int
Dr
Bu
rgund
y
Dr
Lan Ark
Dr
Righteous Dr
Fox
Cree
k Dr
Prado Way
Lost Meadow Ln
Lansdowne
Dr
Tenaya Ln
Kenny Dr Milan Dr
Novara Way
San Marco
Dr
Terraco
r v o Cir
Ledgewood Av
e
Sandalwood Dr
Bryant Dr
Knickerbocker Dr
Gotham Dr
Wakeman Dr
Lencoe Dr
Hudson Dr
Townshend Cir
Pyrenees Ave
Caywood Dr
Bordeaux Ave
Aerosmith Way
Bergamo Cir
Erie Dr
Strickland Dr
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
New Yor
k Dr
Chambord Dr Neubou
rg
D
r
Haney Ln
Perino
D
r
Parrish L
n
Bernay Dr
Iris Ave
Waco Way
Fordham Dr
Prospector Dr
Sundance Ln
Angelina
Ln
Knickerbocker Dr
Po p olo
Cir
Salvatore Ln
S
now Cre e k Cir
Tivoli Dr
Kirsten Dr
Diana Marie Dr
Zeppelin Ln
Castle Oaks Dr
Rann
ock
Dr
Likala Dr
Montana St
Pioneer Cir
Jagger Ln
Brid
alveil
Cir
Almondwood Ln
Bedlow Dr
Rutherford Dr
Waller Rd
Bryant Dr
Valmora Dr
Claridge Ln
Enview Ct
Clinton Dr
Inspiration Dr
Palazzo Dr
Cottonwood Ln
Mcvie Dr
Frey Ln
Stefano Dr
Cardiff Pl
Lariat Ln
Eureka Dr
Astor Dr
Dijon St
Millwood Ave
Aylesford
nL
Ki
rkby Ln
Girardi Way
Du Pont Dr
Wrangler Cir
Crestwood Cir
Jill Cir
Leach Rd
Fitzpatrick Cir
Marlette Rd
Pearson Rd
Ham Ln
Golfview Rd
Micke Grove Rd
Massimo Cir
Gary Galli Dr
Tam O
Sha
n
t
er Dr
Lo
r
r
a
ine
Ave
Nash Dr
Morada Ln Holman Rd
Eight Mile Rd
West Ln
Hammer Ln
Pfc Jesse Mizener St Maranatha Dr
Lower Sacramento Rd
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Legend
Annexation Area
City of Stockton
Unincorporated
San Joaquin County
Park
Public School
City of Stockton
Fire Station 13
CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH
Figure 2. Vicinity Map
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: March 14, 2024.
Lowe's
WWalmart almart
StStockton Auto Mall ockton Auto Mall
Normandy
Village
Westlane
Plaza
Westlane
Plaza
Cos Costco tco
Mobile Home P Mobile Home Park ark
ATTACHMENT E
1727
120-030-09
124-010-07
124-010-03
120-030-10
124-010-01
120-030-07
120-030-06
120-020-32
120-020-27
120-020-31
120-020-30
122-010-05
120-020-11 120-020-12
120-020-26
MOSHER CREEK
BEAR CREEK
Journey Dr
Nicoletta Ln
Salvatore Ln
Sutherland Dr Parrish Ln Caywood Dr
Isley Way
Colonna Ln
Saffron Way
C
he
rbourg Way
Fox
Creek Dr
Lansd
o
w
ne Dr
Fogarty Ln
Courtney Way
Mccartney Way Everly Ln
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
Wonder Way
Joel
Ct
Kiss Ln
Stones Ln
Valmora Dr
Sabbath Ln
Sofia Way Clapton Ln
Morada Ln
Stanley Dr
Zaccaria Way
Penelope Dr
Stefano Dr
Kirkby Ln
Tuscany Cir
Morada Ln
West Ln
UP RR
UP RR 0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Annexation Area
Development Areas
ARNAIZ Development Area
Klein Development Area
TPH Development Area
Non-Development Areas
City of Stockton Right-of-Way
Union Pacific Railroad
Sacramento-San Joaquin
Drainage District
CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH
Figure 3. Assessor Parcel Map
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; MAXAR Imagery, 10/24/2023. Map date: March 13, 2024.
ATTACHMENT E
1728
MOSHER CREEK
BEAR CREEK
UP RR
UP RR
Fleetwood Way
Sutherland Dr
Cherbou
rg
Wa
y
Westmora Ave
Fox Cre
e
k Dr
Penelope Dr
Aerosmith Way
Righteous Dr
Buddy Holly Dr Bridalveil Cir
Salvatore Ln
Colonna Ln
West Ln W Frontage Rd
La
n
sdowne
D
r
Isley Way
Courtney Way
Elton Ln
Journey Dr
Everly Ln
Caywood Dr
Dunwood Dr
Ra
ve
nna Way
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
West Ln E Frontage Rd
Lennon Way
Parrish
L
n
Ri
c
ca
rd
o
D
r
Fogarty Ln
Joel
Ct
Mccartney Way
Nash Dr
Nicoletta Ln
Valmora Dr
Claridge Ln
Sab
b
a
th Ln
Sofia Way
Sheffield Ct
Carlisle Ct
Clapton Ln
Nash Dr Marley Ct
Stones Ln
Eaglepoint Ln
Zaccaria Way
Stanley Dr
Stefano Dr
Millwood Ave
Morada Ln
CrestwoodCir
Ki
rkby Ln
Tuscany Cir
Morada Ln
Glac
ei r
Point Dr
West Ln
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Annexation Area
WaterLines
CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH
Figure 4. Aerial Map
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; MAXAR Imagery, 10/24/2023. Map date: March 13, 2024.
ATTACHMENT E
1729
The Bear Creek South Residential Project identifies the following Project objectives as part of the stated purpose:
• Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing needs in Stockton.
• Provide infrastructure, public facilities, and park space that meets City standards, in a centralized setting that is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections and increases recreational opportunities for existing and future residents of the City. • Incorporate Woodbridge Irrigation District facilities into the Project design, that maintains their purpose while avoiding any conflicts with future residents. • Establish a logical phasing plan among the three landowners to ensure that each phase of development would include necessary public improvements that are required to meet City standards, both onsite and offsite.
• Annex the Annexation Area and eliminate the unincorporated island that was created with the annexation of the Tra Vigne Project to the north.
Project Description
The proposed Project consists of 2,241 single-family residential units dispersed throughout multiple neighborhoods, linked by a system of parks and open spaces. Minimum lot sizes will be 5,000 square feet (sf).
Additionally, the Project includes the following components:
• Parks: Approximately 26.1 acres of parks, five in total, are proposed around a centrally located park/basin, which provides each neighborhood an opportunity to access these spaces through a network of enhanced walkways, also referred to as wellness walks (see bullet below for more detail regarding wellness walks). The parks are themed with differing types of uses and amenities within each park to encourage park users to use the wellness walks to explore the opportunities and activities within each park. • Open Space Areas: Approximately 28.9 acres of open spaces are included within the Project site. The open space is utilized for detention (6.6 acres) and a linear buffer area along Bear Creek (22.3 acres). The basin will include an enhanced walkway around the perimeter of the basin and a liner multi-use trail will be provided along the Bear Creek corridor. Wellness walks will connect the parks to each other and the linear open space area along Bear Creek.
• Wellness Walks: The Project site has designated streets with enhanced walkways (i.e., wide sidewalks and landscaped areas) that will encourage pedestrians to walk to parks and open space features.
ATTACHMENT E
1730
• Project Entries: Enhanced Project entries would be provided along the Project site access points along West Lane and E. Morada Lane. These are visual opportunities for making a statement and creating a sense of place.
• Perimeter Improvements: The Project includes buildout of the West Lane and Morada Lane rights-of-way to includes bike lanes, additional travel lanes, perimeter landscaping, and signalized intersections.
Table 2 summaries the total unit count and acreage for each proposed land use in the Project site.
Residential Development
The proposed Project includes three vesting tentative maps that would subdivide the Development Area consistent with the proposed land uses. The Development Area would have 2,241 singlefamily residential units dispersed throughout multiple neighborhoods, linked by a system of parks and open spaces. Minimum lot sizes will be 5,000 sf.
The Project would be developed in three major phases as represented by the three individual vesting tentative maps. Sub-phases within each vesting tentative map will be identified later in the engineering process. The general pattern of phases will be north to south from Morada Lane, and west to east from West Lane.
Necessary improvements per vesting tentative map have been identified to anticipate needed improvements to accommodate any one of the vesting tentative maps going forward as the first phase.
TABLE 2:GROSS LANDUSE SUMMARY –OVERALL PROJECT AREA
PROPOSED LAND USE APPROXIMATE ACRES NUMBER OFUNITS
Low Density Residential (min. 5,000 sf lots) 301.1 2,241 Parks 26.1 --
Storm Basin 6.6 --
Bear Creek Open Space 22.3 --
Project Streets 140.8 --
WID Future Easement (Parcel 1) 3.8 --
Morada Lane (Parcel 2) 0.4 --
Morada Lane (Parcel 3) 0.8 --
Morada Lane (Parcel A) 0.6 --
Morada Lane (Parcel B) 0.6 --
West Lane (Parcel B) 0.2 --
West Lane (Parcel C) 0.6 --
SOURCE: VVH CONSULTING ENGINEERS, 2024.
Parks and Open Space
The Project includes the following park facilities:
ATTACHMENT E
1731
• An approximately 3.2-acre “Central” Park adjacent to and surrounding the primary detention basin, which is approximately 5.1 acres in size; • An approximately 4.8-acre “Northwest” Park;
• An approximately 7.7-acre “Northeast” Park;
• An approximately 4.9-acre “Southeast” Park; and
• An approximately 5.5-acre “Southwest” Park.
The park facilities total approximately 26.1 acres, with an additional 5.1 acres of detention basin.
In addition to the Parks, there will be a series of streets with an enhanced right of way to accommodate a pedestrian “wellness walk.” This “wellness walk” will tie different areas to the internal parks and encourage movement throughout the Project site.
Further, Bear Creek will be bordered by a frontage road with an open space area containing a 20- foot width from the toe of slope, adjacent to a 19-foot landscaped area with a 12-foot wide multi use path. The total open space area along Bear Creek is approximately 22.3 acres.
Circulation
The proposed street network will connect into the greater Stockton community at five access points, including three along Morada Lane and two along West Lane. These connection points will be made up of a combination of minor arterial roads, with and without a median, and collector roads. The street network within Project site is intended to contribute to the aesthetics of the community, with residents experiencing varied street scenes and street designs.
As noted previously, the Project will include full frontage improvements along West Lane and Morada Lane. Included in these improvements will be full signalized intersections at the northern entry point along West Lane and at the central entrance along Morada Lane.
Utilities and Planned Infrastructure Improvements
The construction of on-site infrastructure improvements would be required to accommodate build out of the Development Area, as described below.
Potable Water System
Water supply will be provided by the City of Stockton, which includes surface and ground water supplies. Water distribution will be by an underground distribution system designed and constructed per the City of Stockton standards and specifications.
The Project requires extension of offsite potable water conveyance infrastructure to the Project site to comply with the City’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update; however, this is not required for the initial phases of the Project because existing City water mains are in West Lane and Morada Lane.
Improvements to the potable water system would be constructed in accordance with the City’s 2021 Water Master Plan Update adopted February 23, 2021. Improvements identified in the Water Master Plan Update include: (1) a 16-inch diameter potable water transmission pipeline connection to existing potable water in West Lane, (2) a 16-inch diameter potable water transmission pipeline connection to existing potable water in Morada Lane, and (3) an 18-inch diameter potable water
ATTACHMENT E
1732
transmission pipeline connection to the existing Cannery Park project located east of the existing UPRR. The 18-inch diameter pipeline would cross under the UPRR tracks to connect to the existing stub-out constructed by the Cannery Park project. Service line connections are not allowed by the City of Stockton on water lines 16-inches diameter or larger. The Project will construct a potable water distribution system with pipe sizes ranging from six inches to 12 inches. Stubs from the transmission pipelines will be constructed as required by the City to connect to the Project potable water distribution system. The Project may also construct a parallel distribution pipeline for connection of fire hydrants along Project frontage roads if required by the City, with interconnection to the transmission pipeline as required.
Wastewater System
The Project is located within existing City of Stockton Collection System Service Area 10 and is identified as a major development in the City’s 2022 Wastewater Master Plan Update (adopted October 18, 2022). The Project would construct wastewater infrastructure in accordance with the 2022 Wastewater Master Plan Update, which shows a 21-inch diameter future gravity sewer connection from the Project to existing City of Stockton gravity sewer locate in Morada Lane.
Effluent from all tributary areas would be collected and conveyed through gravity sewer pipelines.
All sewer collection and conveyance infrastructure would be sized and constructed according to adopted City of Stockton sewer hydrologic and hydraulic design criteria, design standards, and specifications.
Stormwater System
The Project storm drainage infrastructure would consist of an engineered network of inlets, storm drainage pipes, maintenance holes, storm water quality treatment systems/devices, a detention basin, a basin discharge pump station, and a pressure force main for conveying discharge from the detention basin to an existing outfall at Bear Creek. All drainage collection and conveyance infrastructure would be sized and constructed according to adopted City of Stockton storm drainage hydrologic and hydraulic design criteria, design standards, and specifications. Onsite stormwater runoff would be directed into an underground pipe system which would collect the runoff and direct it to the central storm drainage basin. Stormwater from this basin would be discharged via a new pump station and force main into Bear Creek through an existing 24-inch diameter outfall structure located on the south side of Bear Creek, just east of the West Lane overcrossing. The basin drawdown rate would meet City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (COSMUD) standards to discharge the 100-year, 24-hour design storm volume over a period of 48 hours and would be less than predeveloped runoff rates from the Project area.
The proposed Project would incorporate site design measures, landscape features, and approved engineered treatment facilities(bioretention facilities or COSMUD-approved equivalent) for water quality treatment that minimizes imperviousness, retains or detains stormwater, slows runoff rates, and reduces pollutants in post-development runoff consistent with the City of Stockton NPDES SWMP and the City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Stormwater Quality Control Criteria Plan
ATTACHMENT E
1733
Regulated Public Utilities
Electrical, gas, phone, cable, and related internet services would be extended to all portions of the Project site from existing facilities located along West Lane and Morada Lane, or other utility systems in the Project vicinity. Utility improvements would be installed in conjunction with planned street improvements.
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps
The proposed Project includes three Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps for the Development Area. The tentative maps would result in the subdivision of 503.89 acres into 2,241 single-family residential units, five parks, and a storm basin facility. Total parkland is 26.1 acres. In addition, there will be a series of streets with an enhanced right of ways to accommodate a pedestrian “wellness walk” connecting the parks and a lineal open space area paralleling the south edge of Bear Creek.
ANNEXATION
The proposed Project includes a request for annexation of 15 APNs, totaling 530.18 acres, into the City of Stockton. This includes the proposed 503.89-acre Development Area (including future right-of-way and existing roadway right-of-way along West Lane and Morada Lane) and 26.29- acre Non-Development Area.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following study has been prepared to meet the needs of a CEQA review. The project research included a records search, check of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands files, and a field survey of the Development Area.
Melinda A. Peak, senior historian/archeologist with Peak & Associates, Inc. served as principal investigator for the study, with archeologist Michael Lawson completing the field survey (resumes, Appendix 1).
REGULATORY CONTEXT
State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA Section 15064.5 requires that lead agencies determine whether projects may have a significant effect on archaeological and historical resources. Public Resources Code Section 21098.1 further cites: A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENT E
1734
An “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (Public Resources Code section 5020.1).
Advice on procedures to identify such resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effectsis given in several agency publications such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), CEQA and Archaeological Resources, 1994. The technical advice series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations, and societies be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of the antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Codes Sections 5097.94 et al).
The California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Properties listed, or formally designated as eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
For the purposes of CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. When a project will impact a site, it needs to be determined whether the site is an historical resource. The criteria are set forth in Section 15064.5(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and are defined as any resource that does any of the following:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition, the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) (4) states:
The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey
ATTACHMENT E
1735
(meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures.
California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5(e)
This law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. The section establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission as the entity responsible to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains.
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts. AB 52 defines a “California Native American Tribe” as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.
Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code states that “tribal cultural resources” are: (1) sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the national or state register of historical resources, or listed in a local register of historic resources; or (2) resources that the lead agency determines, in its discretion, are tribal cultural resource.
AB 52 requires formal consultation with California Native American Tribes prior to determining the level of environmental document if a tribe has requested to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects. AB 52 also requires that consultation address project alternatives, mitigation measures, for significant effects, if requested by the California Native American Tribe, and that consultation be considered concluded when either the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, or the agency concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Under AB 52, such measures shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and adopted mitigation monitoring program if determined to avoid or lessen a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource.
ATTACHMENT E
1736
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
The Central Valley region was among the first in the state to attract intensive fieldwork, and research has continued to the present day. This has resulted in a substantial accumulation of data.
In the early decades of the 1900s, E.J. Dawson explored numerous sites near Stockton and Lodi, later collaborating with W.E. Schenck (Schenck and Dawson 1929). By 1933, the focus of work was directed to the Cosumnes locality, where survey and excavation studies were conducted by the Sacramento Junior College (Lillard and Purves 1936).
Excavation data from the stratified Windmiller site (CA-Sac-107), suggested two temporally distinct cultural traditions. Later work at other mounds by Sacramento Junior College and the University of California, Berkeley, enabled the investigators to identify a third cultural tradition, intermediate between the previously postulated Early and Late Horizons.
The three-horizon sequence, based on discrete changes in ornamental artifacts and mortuary practices, as well as on observed differences in soils within sites (Lillard, Heizer and Fenenga 1939), was later refined by Beardsley (1954). An expanded definition of artifacts diagnostic of each time period was developed, and its application extended to parts of the central California coast. Traits held in common allow the application of this system within certain limits of time and space to other areas of prehistoric central California.
The Windmiller Culture (Early Horizon) is characterized by ventrally-extended burials (some dorsal extensions are known), with westerly orientation of heads; a high percentage of burials with grave goods; frequent presence of red ocher in graves; large projectile points, of which 60 percent are of materials other than obsidian; rectangular Haliotis beads; Olivella shell beads (types A1a and L); rare use of bone; some use of baked clay objects; and well-fashioned charmstones, usually perforated.
The Cosumnes Culture (Middle Horizon) displays considerable changes from the preceding cultural expression. The burial mode is predominately flexed, with variable cardinal orientation and some cremations present. There are a lower percentage of burials with grave goods, and ocher staining is common in graves. Olivella beads of types C1, F and G predominate, and there is abundant use of green Haliotis sp. rather than red Haliotis sp. Other characteristic artifacts include perforated and canid teeth; asymmetrical and "fishtail" charmstones, usually unperforated; cobble mortars and evidence of wooden mortars; extensive use of bone for tools and ornaments; large projectile points, with considerable use of rock other than obsidian; and use of baked clay.
Hotchkiss Culture (Late Horizon) -- The burial pattern retains the use of the flexed mode, and there is wide spread evidence of cremation, lesser use of red ocher, heavy use of baked clay, Olivella beads of Types E and M, extensive use of Haliotis ornaments of many elaborate shapes and forms, shaped mortars and cylindrical pestles, bird-bone tubes with elaborate geometric designs, clam shell disc beads, small projectile points indicative of the introduction of the bow and arrow, flanged
ATTACHMENT E
1737
tubular pipes of steatite and schist, and use of magnesite (Moratto 1984:181-183). The characteristics noted are not all-inclusive, but cover the more important traits.
Schulz (1981), in an extensive examination of the central California evidence for the use of acorns, used the terms Early, Middle and Late Complexes, but the traits attributed to them remain generally the same. While it is not altogether clear, Schulz seemingly uses the term “Complex” to refer to the particular archeological entities (above called “Horizons”) as defined in this region. Ragir’s (1972) cultures are the same as Schulz's complexes.
Bennyhoff and Hughes (1984) have presented alternative dating schemes for the Central California Archeological Sequence. The primary emphasis is a more elaborate division of the horizons to reflect what is seen as cultural/temporal changes within the three horizons and a compression of the temporal span.
There have been other chronologies proposed, including Fredrickson (1973), and since it is correlated with Bennyhoff's (1977) work, it does merit discussion. The particular archeological cultural entities Fredrickson has defined, based upon the work of Bennyhoff, are patterns, phases and aspects. Bennyhoff's (1977) work in the Plains Miwok area is the best definition of the Cosumnes District, which likely conforms to Fredrickson's pattern. Fredrickson also proposed periods of time associated heavily with economic modes, which provides a temporal term for comparing contemporary cultural entities. It corresponds with Willey and Phillips’ (1958) earlier “tradition”, although it is tied more specifically to the archeological record in California.
Ethnography
The project area lies within the northern portion of the ethnographic territory of the Yokuts people.
The Yokuts were members of the Penutian language family which held all of the Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Area, and the Pacific Coast from Marin County to near Point Sur. The Yokuts differed from other ethnographic groups in California as they had true tribal divisions with group names (Kroeber 1925; Latta 1949). Each tribe spoke a particular dialect, common to its members, but similar enough to other Yokuts that they were mutually intelligible (Kroeber 1925).
The Yokuts held portions of the San Joaquin Valley from the Tehachapi in the south to Stockton in the north. On the north they were bordered by the Plains Miwok, and on the west by the Saclan or Bay Miwok and Costonoan peoples. Although neighbors were often from distinct language families, differences between the people appear to have been more influenced by environmental factors as opposed to linguistic affinities. Thus, the Plains Miwok were more similar to the nearby Yokuts than to foothill members of their own language group. Similarities in cultural inventory co-varied with distance from other groups and proximity to culturally diverse people. The material culture of the southern San Joaquin Yokuts was therefore more closely related to that of their nonYokuts neighbors than to that of Delta members of their own language group.
Trade was well developed, with mutually beneficial interchange of needed or desired goods.
Obsidian, rare in the San Joaquin Valley, was obtained by trade with Paiute and Shoshoni groups
ATTACHMENT E
1738
on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, where numerous sources of this material are located, and to some extent from the Napa Valley to the north. Shell beads, obtained by the Yokuts from coastal people, and acorns, rare in the Great Basin, were among many items exported to the east by Yokuts traders (Davis 1961).
Economic subsistence was based on the acorn, with substantial dependency on gathering and processing of wild seeds and other vegetable foods. The rivers, streams, and sloughs that formed a maze within the valley provided abundant food resources such as fish, shellfish, and turtles.
Game, wild fowl, and small mammals were trapped and hunted to provide protein augmentation of the diet. In general, the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley provided a lush environment of varied food resources, with the estimated large population centers reflecting this abundance (Cook 1955; Baumhoff 1963).
Settlements were oriented along the water ways, with their village sites normally placed adjacent to these features for their nearby water and food resources. House structures varied in size and shape (Latta 1949; Kroeber 1925), with most constructed from the readily available tules found in the extensive marshes of the low-lying valley areas. The housepit depressions for the structures ranged in diameter from 3 meters to 18 meters (Wallace 1978:470).
Historical Background
The agricultural value of the San Joaquin Valley was recognized early in time, with much of the region used for dry land grain farming. The early completion of railroads through the region helped provide a ready means of shipping farm projects. The 1870 San Joaquin County map shows the Western Pacific railroad line west of the Project site. By 1883, the rail line had been acquired by the Central Pacific and by 1905, the Southern Pacific.
The land of the overall Development Area has been used for agricultural purposes, with many different owners over time. It is only now, with increasing urbanization in the region, in part spurred on by the expansion of population growth and increased real estate cost in the Bay Area, that development has also spread to the Stockton area, resulting in conversion of agricultural properties to residential uses.
The earliest map available for the Project area is the 1865 General Land Office plat for Township 2 North Range 6 East. Little detail is shown, but the distinctive curve in a slough in section 2 (partial) and section 3 suggests that Bear Creek is in its original channel.
The acreage includes all land in Section 2 that lies south of Bear Creek with owners C. M.
Hohenshell and J.U. Castle in 1895. Owners in the northern portion of Section 14 include J.U.
Castle, J. Little, C.M. Hohenshell and J.A. Cramer. Hohenshell’s house was located just south of the project area and is illustrated in the 1879 San Joaquin County history. A section of the Project area is included in the illustration.
ATTACHMENT E
1739
It appears that increasing canal construction in the region led to a switch circa 1890-1900 to crops that required irrigation were planted rather than the dry grain farming of previous landowners.
RESEARCH
Five resources have been reported in the Project area. One of the sites listed as in the project area is the bridge over Bear Creek on the railroad line, but technically outside the project area---P-39-00363.
Another site record has been prepared for the levees along Bear Creek (P-39-004875), also outside the Project area.
P-39-004642 is an irrigation system with ten features, primarily floodgates, weirs, and culverts. One feature is dated 1946.
P-039-004641 (CA-SJO-315/H) has many artifacts representing the prehistoric, protohistoric and historic periods, with surface artifacts covering some 12,000 square meters. This site appears to be the former location of a historic period residence.
P-39-000005 (CA-SJO-253) contains bone and chipped stone, and the recorder thought the site might be a small village site. The metate is thought to be pulled out of a deeply buried cultural sediment.
The site recorder emphasized that the site boundaries could not be determined due to dense crops, and the site is highly disturbed.
Six other resources have been found and recorded in the 0.25-mile buffer search radius for the project.
There are six reports within the Project area, and sixteen other studies in the 0.25-mile search radius. Covering the Development Area are studies by Napton in 1990 (SJ-805); Hinshaw in 1993 (SJ-2016); Busby in 1996 (SJ-6507); Jurich, Martinez and Smith (SJ-6541); and ESA in 2007 (SJ06843). Full citations for the reports are included in the Report List in Appendix 2.
PROJECT SOILS
The Project area contains a mix of two soil types: about 90 per cent Jacktone clay and 10 per cent Stockton clay. The Stockton clay is located along Bear Creek and to the south on the west end of the project.
The Jacktone clay extends from ground level to 20-40 inches as a dark clay, ending on a duripan.
Below the duripan it is a stratified sandy loam to clay loam, cemented at about 60 inches.
Composed of mixed alluvium. This deposit dates to the Early to Middle Holocene, and is rated “high” for buried site potential (Meyers and Rosenthal 2004, Appendix D).
ATTACHMENT E
1740
The Stockton clay, is 0 – 40 inches clay, with from 40 – 60 inches clay loam. This deposit is also cemented at about 60 inches. It is composed of mixed alluvium dating to the Middle to Late Holocene and is rated “very high” for buried site potential (Meyers and Rosenthal 2004: Appendix D).
In conclusion, the Project Area may be likely to contain prehistoric period resources, especially in the zone below a depth of 5 feet.
FIELD ASSESSMENT
The Development Area of 503.89 acres was surveyed by Michael Lawson on April 1, 2, 15 and 16, 2022. The area is connecting square agricultural fields currently tilled and planted, bordered by West Lane on the west, the UPRR on the east, Morada Lane on the south, and a natural drainage, Bear Creek, lies to the north of the overall Project Site.
The entire Development Area is flat and level. Dirt roadways running between fields are elevated to 6” to 12”. The various fields are in different stages of agricultural production from recent planting to 6” tall. A large Woodbridge Irrigation District runs north to south through the center of the Project Area, with smaller ditches in the fields, appearing to have been re-routed depending upon the crop grown on the property over the many seasons of agricultural use.
The soil throughout fields is similar. The color is medium brown, silty loam in nature with light stone component mostly consisting of small pebbles of granitic components (quartzite, mica, and feldspar. Other noted stone types include meta-volcanic and unidentified crypto-crystalline silicates. Soil within the likely previous building area is darker and with more loam component.
Stains consistent in appearance with industrial oil are common in this area.
View of the ground was excellent due to recent tilling and other weed abatement, rodent excavation, as well as vehicular travel, and recent ditch clearing. The only areas where ground view was impinged upon was along ditches and roadways.
Lawson conducted the survey on four sunny days, working from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. with appropriate breaks. Figure 5 indicates the portions of the property surveyed by date.
The northeast portion with divided fields of newly planted alfalfa was surveyed on April 1. The following day, the adjacent divided fields to the south of newly planted alfalfa were covered. On April 15, the southern portion of the divided fields of newly planted alfalfa was surveyed. The following day, the survey was completed by inspection of the survey area to the northwest including a maturing field of alfalfa that reduced visibility to a degree (Figure 5).
ATTACHMENT E
1741
ATTACHMENT E
1742
Due to reported resources nearby, and knowledge of those sites reported from older survey efforts win the Project Area, the reported site areas were covered by narrow transects no greater than 3 meters, hoping to find evidence of reported artifacts or any cultural use. Dirt access roads and drainage ditches received additional inspection.
Soil visibility was very good at the time of the survey due to recent plowing and newly sprouted alfalfa. Slightly less coverage occurred in the northwest portion because of the maturing plants.
Due to known pre-contact and historical sites in the general area, parallel transects of no more than 3 to 5 meters were used, with the plow rows used for measurement. Closer overlapping inspection occurred within the excavated ditches and areas disturbed by burrowing animals, as well as fence lines and the area where buildings may have been.
He found prehistoric period artifacts in three locations during the survey, one near the north end of the project area and several in roughly the same area as the recorded location of P-39-00005. A few scattered historic period items were found, consisting of fragments of milk glass, aqua glass with bubbles, amber glass, porcelain, and brick fragments in the location of P-39-004641, along with several prehistoric flakes.
The failure to re-locate the recorded sites as described in the site records may be due to crop rotation, error in the original site recordation or plowing within the development area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Historic Period Resources
The historic evidence at P-004641 needs to be evaluated under the criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources for itsinformation potential. It is possible that the plowing over the last 175 years may have destroyed intact features and deposits. This site appears to be the remains of a farm or ranch, and may be the Hohenshell residence. There could also be a prehistoric period deposit with artifacts located in this area. A monitor shall be retained for all excavation work in the vicinity of P004641. If an intact feature or historic period artifacts be located, work shall be halted and equipment moved 100 feet away. A determination should be made at this point, the appropriate actions for preservation, protection, or other action such as data recovery excavations. Historic period deposits may be located elsewhere on the property, and would be subject to the same actions.
Prehistoric Period and Tribal Cultural Resources
During the field survey of the Project site, prehistoric period artifacts and prehistoric flakes were found in three locations in roughly the same area as the recorded location of P-39-00005 and P-39-004641.
The field survey, however, failed to re-locate the recorded sites in the site records, which may be due to crop rotation, error in the original site recordation, or plowing within the development area. The proposed Project is in a region where cultural resources have been recorded in the past and there
ATTACHMENT E
1743
remains a potential that some undocumented archaeological resources that may meet the Tribal Cultural Resource definition could be unearthed or otherwise discovered during ground-disturbing and construction activities. Thus, the City is treating these prerecorded period resources as Tribal Cultural Resources under PRC section 21074.
The recommendations below provided for prehistoric period resources will also avoid any significant impacts on tribal cultural resources under the CEQA AB 52 requirements.
There is always a possibility that prehistoric period sites may exist in the project area, and be obscured by vegetation, siltation, or historic activities, leaving no surface evidence, even with testing. If artifacts, exotic rock, shell, or bone are uncovered during the construction, work should stop in that area immediately and a qualified archeologist should be contacted to examine and evaluate the deposit. A determination should be made at this point, the appropriate actions for preservation, protection, or other action such as data recovery excavations. The Native American monitor needs to be involved in the decision-making. Subsurface testing extending to a depth of more than 60” to locate the location and extent of the buried sites. These resources may provide information of early man in this region. A program for testing should be developed. Non-invasive testing such as ground penetrating radar or a magnetometer survey are not advised. There are not likely to be intact burials orsubsurface features due to the long-term plowing over the last 175 years, deep ripping, development of orchards as well as other agricultural featuressuch as ditches cut through the landscape, disturbing the soils. Non-invasive methods result in the need to open anomaly locations to determine what is there, turning those methods into roughly the same as excavated trenches.
We recommend that the property owners consider pre-development testing of the property to prevent impact to the buried resources present, if present. Some of our predecessors who conducted surveys on the property included similar recommendations: testing of the property. If testing did occur and findings are made, particularly of human remains, a major archeological data recovery effort will be required. Testing would include backhoe trenching, test units, and/or other standard practices of excavating in areas identified by a qualified archeologist, including the use of hand tools, if necessary and feasible, and should involve theNorthernValleyYokuts groupwho is knowledgeable about local resources.
Subsurface testing should be conducted extending to a depth of more than 60” to locate the location and extent of the buried sites. These resources may provide information on early man in this region.
Additionally, prior to the beginning of construction work, the developer shall contact an appropriate Northern Valley Yokuts Tribal representative to train construction workers on appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, requirements for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment, other applicable regulations, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. If artifacts, exotic rock, shell, or bone are uncovered during the construction, work in that area shall stop immediately and a qualified archeologist and the Northern Valley Yokuts Tribal representative shall be contacted to examine and evaluate the deposit.
If the examination and evaluation reveals significant resources, a treatment plan in accordance with appropriate standards, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of
ATTACHMENT E
1744
Archaeological Sites would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and a Tribal monitor if the development cannot avoid an archaeological or paleontological deposit prior to construction.
Discovery of Human Remains
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the San Joaquin County Coroner has determined that the remains are not subject to any provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. The County Coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
If the San Joaquin County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the County Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
After notification, the NAHC will follow the procedures outlined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. that include notifications of the most likely descendants (MLDs), and recommendations for the treatment of the remains. The MLDs will have 48 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendations (PRC Section 5097.98).
ATTACHMENT E
1745
REFERENCES
Baumhoff, Martin A.
1963 Ecological Determinants of Aboriginal California Populations. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 49(2):155-236.
Berkeley.
Beardsley, Richard K.
1954 Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archeology (parts 1 and 11). University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24, 25. Berkeley.
Bennyhoff, James A.
1977 Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 5. University of California, Davis.
Bennyhoff, James A. and Robert F. Heizer
1958 Cross-Dating Great Basin Sites by Californian Shell Beads. University of California Archaeological Survey Report, 42:60-92. Berkeley.
Cook, Sherburne F.
1955 The Aboriginal Populations of the San Joaquin Valley, California. University of California Anthropological Records 16(2). Berkeley.
Davis, James T.
1961 Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California.
University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 54:1-71. Berkeley.
Fredrickson, David A.
1973 Early Cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Gudde, Erwin
1969 California Place Names. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hoover, Mildred, Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch and William N. Abeloe 1990 Historic Spots in California (Fourth Edition), revised by Douglas E. Kyle.
Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Kroeber, Alfred L.
1953 Handbook of the California Indians. California Book Company, Ltd., Berkeley.
Latta, F. F.
1949 Handbook of the Yokuts Indians. Bear State Books, Oildale, California.
ATTACHMENT E
1746
Lillard, Jeremiah B., Robert F. Heizer and Franklin Fenenga 1939 An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.
Lillard, Jeremiah B. and William K. Purves
1936 The Archeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1.
Sacramento.
Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Ragir, Sonia
1972 The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. University of California Research Contributions 15. Berkeley.
Rosenthal, Jeffery S., and Jack Meyer
2004 Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 10 Rural Conventional Highways, Volume III: Geoarchaeological Study Landscape Evolution and the Archaeological Record of Central California. Ms. on file, Central California Information Center, California State University, Stanislaus San Joaquin County
1901
1919 San Joaquin County Plats. Reprinted in India.
Schulz, Peter D.
1981 Osteoarchaeology and Subsistence Change in Prehistoric Central California.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Schenck, W. Egbert and Elmer Dawson
1929 Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289-413. Berkeley.
Smith, Wallace
1960 Garden of the Sun. Privately printed.
Thompson and West
1879 History of San Joaquin County, California, with Illustrations. Reprinted in 1968 by Howell-North Books, Berkeley.
ATTACHMENT E
1747
Wallace, William J.
1978 Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 462-470.
Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips
1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
ATTACHMENT E
1748
APPENDIX 1
Resumes
ATTACHMENT E
1749
PEAK & ASSOCIATES,INC.
RESUME
MELINDA A. PEAK January 2024
Senior Historian/Archeologist
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20 #329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 939-2405
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Peak has served as the principal investigator on a wide range of prehistoric and historic excavations throughout California. She has directed laboratory analyses of archeological materials, including the historic period. She has also conducted a wide variety of cultural resource assessments in California, including documentary research, field survey, Native American coordination and consultation, and report preparation.
In addition, Ms. Peak has developed a second field of expertise in applied history, specializing in sitespecific research for historic period resources. She is a registered professional historian and has completed many historical research projects for a wide variety of site types.
Through her education and experience, Ms. Peak meets the Secretary of Interior Standards for historian, architectural historian, prehistoric archeologist, and historic archeologist.
EDUCATION
M.A. - History - California State University, Sacramento, 1989 Thesis: The Bellevue Mine: A Historical Resources Management Site Study in Plumas and Sierra Counties, California
B.A. - Anthropology - University of California, Berkeley
PROJECTS
In recent months, Ms. Peak has completed several determinations of eligibility and effect documents in coordination with the Corps of Engineers for projects requiring federal permits, assessing the eligibility of many sites for the National Register of Historic Places.
She has also completed historical research projects on a wide variety of topics for any projects including the development of navigation and landings on the Napa River, wineries, farmhouses dating to the 1860s, bridges, an early roadhouse, Folsom Dam, and a section of an electric railway line.
In recent years, Ms. Peak has prepared a number of cultural resource overviews and predictive models for blocks of land proposed for future development for general and specific plans. She has been able to direct several surveys of these areas, allowing the model to be tested.
ATTACHMENT E
1750
She served as principal investigator for the multi-phase Twelve Bridges Golf Club project in Placer County. She served as liaison with the various agencies, helped prepare the historic properties treatment plan, managed the various phases of test and data recovery excavations, and completed the final report on the analysis of the test phase excavations of several prehistoric sites. She is currently involved as the principal investigator for the Teichert Quarry project adjacent to Twelve Bridges in the City of Rocklin, coordinating contacts with Native Americans, the Corps of Engineers, and the Office of Historic Preservation.
Ms. Peak has served as project manager for several major survey and excavation projects in recent years, including the many surveys and site definition excavations for the 172-mile-long Pacific Pipeline proposed for construction in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties. She also completed an archival study in the City of Los Angeles for the project. She also served as principal investigator for a major coaxial cable removal project for AT&T.
Additionally, she completed several small surveys, served as a construction monitor at several urban sites, and conducted emergency recovery excavations for sites found during monitoring. She has directed the excavations ofseveral historic complexesin Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties.
Ms. Peak is the author of a chapter and two sections of a published history (1999) of Sacramento County, Sacramento: Gold Rush Legacy, Metropolitan Legacy. She served as the consultant for a children’s book on California, published by Capstone Press in 2003 in the Land of Liberty series.
ATTACHMENT E
1751
PEAK & ASSOCIATES,INC.
RESUME
MICHAEL LAWSON January 2024
Archeological Field Director
3941 Park Drive, Suite 20-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95672
(916) 939-2405
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mr. Lawson has compiled an excellent record of undertaking excavation and survey projects for both the public and private sectors over the past thirty years. He has conducted numerous surveys throughout northern and central California and Hawaii, as well as serving as an archeological technician, site monitor, crew chief and field director for a number of excavation projects.
Mr. Lawson is qualified by the Bureau of Land Management as a field director for archeological surveys and excavations. In 2022, he led teams as the field director on several field surveys in the Sierras for the proposed undergrounding of PG&E transmission lines, dealing with both historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Lawson works for several firms based in the Sacramento Area and Bay Area.
EDUCATION
B.A. - Anthropology - California State University, Sacramento Special Course: Comparative Osteology. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Forensic Anthropology Center. January 2018.
The special course included: intensive lab and outdoor study with human example from outdoor research facility, including typical and non-metric examples, compared with fifty non-human species commonly confused with human remains. Work at the outdoor research facility “The Body Farm” study included survey, photography, collection, and identification of faunal and human bone fragments, with a Power Point presentation discussing finds.
EXPERIENCE
• Extensive monitoring of open space, streets and project development areas for prehistoric period and historic period resources. Areas monitored include Sutter Street in Folsom; Mud Creek Archeological District in Chico; Camp Roberts, San Luis Obispo County; Avila Beach, San Luis Obispo County; Edgewood Golf Course, South Lake Tahoe; Davis Water Project, Davis; Star Bend levee section, Sutter County; Feather River levees, Sutter County; Bodega Bay, Sonoma County; San Jose BART line extension, Santa Clara County; and numerous sites for PG&E in San Francisco.
ATTACHMENT E
1752
• Over thirty years of experience working in cultural resource management, volunteer, and academic settings in California historic, proto-historic, and prehistoric archaeology. • Expertise in pedestrian survey, excavation, feature (including burial) exposure, laboratory techniques, research. Field positions include field director, assistant field director, crew chief and lead technician.
ATTACHMENT E
1753
APPENDIX 2
Record Search
ATTACHMENT E
1754
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA INFORMATION CENTER
California Historical Resources Information System
Department of Anthropology – California State University, Stanislaus One University Circle, Turlock, California 95382
(209) 667-3307
Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus & Tuolumne Counties Date: 4/11/2022 Records Search File No.: 12149L
Access Agreement: #137
Project: Bear Creek South
Robert Gerry
Peak & Associates, Inc.
3941 Park Drive, Suite 30-329
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
916-939-2405 [email protected]
Dear Mr. Gerry:
The Central California Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Lodi South 7.5’ quadrangle in San Joaquin County. The following reflects the results of the records search for the project study area and radius:
As per data currently available at the CCaIC, the locations of resources/reports are provided in the following format: ☒ custom GIS maps ☐ GIS Data/shape files ☐ hand-drawn maps Summary Data:
Resources within the project area: 5: P-39-000005, 363, 4641, 4642, 4875 Resources within the 1/4-mile radius: 6: P-39-000003, 4, 4491, 4693, 5250 1 Informal Resource: Lithic scatter 5607-1 (refers to
Report SJ-05607)
Reports within the project area: 6: SJ-00805, 2016, 3128, 6507, 6541, 6843 Reports within the 1/4-mile radius: 16: SJ-00791, 829, 847, 2824, 3129, 3130, 3995, 4996, 5165, 5488, 5607, 6132, 6345, 6851, 8066, 8302
Resource Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (list): ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Database Printout (details): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Digital Database Records: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Resource Record Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed Report Copies: ☒ enclosed ☐ not requested ☐ nothing listed
ATTACHMENT E
1755
OHP Historic Properties Directory: New Excel File: Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) Dated 11/17/2021
Not all resources listed in the BERD are mapped in GIS, nor do we have records on file for; if you identify additional resources in the BERD that you need copies of, contact the IC. ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility: ☐ enclosed ☐ not requested ☒ nothing listed CA Inventory of Historic Resources (1976): ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Survey: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Ethnographic Information: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Literature: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Historical Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Local Inventories: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed GLO and/or Rancho Plat Maps: ☐ enclosed ☒ not requested ☐ nothing listed Shipwreck Inventory: ☒ not available at CCIC; please go to http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp Soil Survey Maps: ☒ not available at CCIC; please go to http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.
The provision of CHRIS Data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.
Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.
Thank you for using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS).
ATTACHMENT E
1756
Note: Billing will be transmitted separately via email by our Financial Services office *($344.55), payable within 60 days of receipt of the invoice.
If you wish to include payment by Credit Card, you must wait to receive the official invoice from Financial Services so that you can reference the CMP # (Invoice Number), and then contact the link below:
https://commerce.cashnet.com/ANTHROPOLOGY
Sincerely,
E. A. Greathouse E. A. Greathouse, Coordinator
Central California Information Center
California Historical Resources Information System
* Invoice Request sent to: [email protected], CSU Stanislaus Financial Services
ATTACHMENT E
1757
Insert topo figure
ATTACHMENT E
1758
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SJ-00791 NADB-R - 1361613 1989 Napton, L. K. Cultural Resource Investigation of the Preliminary Alternative Alignments for the
Eight Mile Road Specific Plan, San Joaquin
County, California.
CSDU Stanislaus, Institute
for Archaeological
Research; for Omni-Means
39-000226
SJ-00805 NADB-R - 1361624 1990 Napton, L. K. Cultural Resource Investigation of the Kaufman Broad EIR, 398.5 Acres in North
Stockton, San Joaquin County, California.
L. K. Napton
SJ-00829 NADB-R - 1364356 1966 Riddell, F. A. and William H. Olsen
An Archaeological Survey of Mosher Creek,
San Joaquin County, California.
Francis A. Riddell and
William H. Olsen; for CA
State Parks and Recreation
Dept.
39-000244, 39-000267, 39-000268
SJ-00847 NADB-R - 1361666 1988 Werner, R. H. Cultural Resource Investigation Morada Lane Development Project, Stockton, California.
ASI, for Jones and Stokes
Associates
SJ-02016 NADB-R - 1360522 1993 Hinshaw, J. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of Three Possible High School Site Locations
(Approx. 240 Acres) North of Stockton, San
Joaquin County, California.
The Planning Center 39-000003, 39-000004, 39-000005
SJ-02824 NADB-R - 1362195 1996 Busby, C., S. Guedon, Cultural Resources Assessment, San Basin Research 39-000002, 39-000004, 39-000075, and M. Tannam Joaquin Area Flood Control Restoration Plan, Associates, Inc. 39-000155, 39-000162, 39-000211, San Joaquin County, California (Oct. 1995) 39-000226, 39-000229, 39-000231, [2824a] (and) Cultural Resources 39-000234, 39-000241, 39-000244, Assessment Addendum San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Restoration Plan (Draft, Jan.
1996) [2824b].
39-000271, 39-002516
SJ-03128 NADB-R - 1363282 1996 Busby, C. I. Letter to Ms. Cathy McAfee of EIP Associates, Regarding Cultural Resources
Inventory in Compliance with Mitigation
Measure 4.5-1(a), Middle Bear Creek and
Two Detention Basins, San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Restoration Plan.
Basin Research Associates 39-000226
SJ-03129 NADB-R - 1363283 1996 Busby, C. I. Letter to Ms. Cathy McAfee, EIP Associates, RE: Cultural Resources Inventory - In
Compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1(a),
Lower Bear Creek and Mosher Slough, San
Joaquin Area Flood Control Restoration Plan.
Basin Research
Associates; for EIP
39-000244
SJ-03130 NADB-R - 1363286 1997 Busby, C. I., S. Guedon, and M. Tannam
Cultural Resources Assessment, Addendum
for Supplementary EIR, San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Restoration Plan, San Joaquin
County, California, Revised Draft.
Basin Research
Associates; for EIP
39-000212, 39-000244, 39-000363
ATTACHMENT E
1759
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SJ-03995 NADB-R - 1366235 2000 Nelson, W. J. Cultural Resource Survey for the Level (3) Far Western 39-000002, 39-000354, 50-000001, Communications Long Haul Fiber Optics
Project; Segment WS04: Sacramento to
Bakersfield
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.; for Parsons,
Brinckerhoff Network
Services
50-000439
SJ-04996 NADB-R - 1364883 2003 Jensen, P. and S. Jensen Archaeological Inventory Survey, Cannery Park Multi-Use Development Project, c. 448
Acres Adjacent to Eightmile Road and State
Route 99, San Joaquin County, California.
Jensen & Associates
SJ-05165 NADB-R - 1365045 2003 Jensen, P. Archaeological Inventory Survey: Proposed Lodi Unified School District's High School
Project, c. 75-Acres Along Bear Creek Near
Stockton, San Joaquin County, California.
Jensen & Associates 39-000003, 39-000004
SJ-05488 NADB-R - 1365372 2004 Jensen, Peter Archaeological Inventory Survey, Alpine Jensen & Associates 39-000098, 39-004489, 39-004490, Packing Annexation and Specific Plan
Project, c. 1,100 Acres Along Eightmile Road,
San Joaquin County, California.
39-004491
SJ-05607 NADB-R - 1365491 2004 Jensen, P. Archaeological Inventory Survey, Proposed Bear Creek East Development Project, c. 315
Acres Along Eightmile Road, San Joaquin
County, California.
Jensen & Associates 39-005250
SJ-06132 NADB-R - 1366151 2006 Marvin, J. and T. Brejla Historical Resources Survey and Constraints Analysis for the Bear Creek West
Development Project Area, Lower
Sacramento Road, West Lane, and Eight
Mile Road, San Joaquin County, California
LSA Associates 39-004489, 39-004490
SJ-06345 NADB-R - 1366576 2006 SWCA Environmental
Consultants
Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring
and Findings for the QWest Network
Construction Project, State of California.
SWCA Project No. 10715-180.
SWCA Environmental
Consultants, for Qwest
Communications
39-000002, 39-000354
SJ-06507 NADB-R - 1366739 2007 URS Corporation Cultural Resources Report for Geotechnical Evaluations of the San Joaquin Area Flood
Control Agency Project Levees
URS Corporation; for DWR 39-000220, 39-004639, 39-004640 SJ-06541 NADB-R - 1366774 2008 Jurich, D., J. Martinez, A Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of PBS&J 39-000005, 39-004641, 39-004642, and S. Smith Approximately 510 Acres For The Bear Creek South, Environmental Impact Report, San
Joaquin County, California
39-004643
SJ-06843 NADB-R - 1367119 2007 ESA Stockton Delta Water Supply Project Cultural Resources Inventory Report.
ESA; for the City of Stockton
ATTACHMENT E
1760
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources SJ-06851 NADB-R - 1367106;
Other - Ron MCNair
HS; SAC-446B
2008 Billat, L. New Tower ("NT") Submission Packet FCC
Form 620 Project Name: Ron McNair HS,
Project Number: SAC-446B
Earth Touch, Inc.
SJ-08066 2003 Werner, R., and R. P. Archaeological Investigations, McNair High ASI for Lodi Unified School 39-000003, 39-000004, 39-004491, Hampson School Campus, Ca. 75 Acres North
Stockton, San Joaquin County, California
District 39-004640
SJ-08302 2005 Jensen, S. Letter to: The Matthews Company; RE:
Status Report upon Completion of
Delineation/Evaluation of Areas 1 and 2, and
Initiation of Monitoring of Structure Demolition
at Area 2.
Genesis Society 39-005250
SJ-08302A 2005 Jensen, S. Letter to The Matthews Company RE: Bear Creek East, Completion of Burial Recovery.
Genesis Society
SJ-08302B 2006 Jensen, S. Letter to The Matthews Company RE: Status Report upon Continuation of Monitoring of
Ground Disturbing Activities at Area 2.
Genesis Society
SJ-08302C 2005 Jensen, S. Letter to The Matthews Company RE: Status Report for Monitoring of Structure Demolition
and Shovel Test Pit Work in Vicinity of
Potential Prehistoric Site.
Genesis Society
SJ-08302D 2011 Unknown 8. Cultural Resources (120384/STO11R233) Unknown; Cultural Resources Element of an
EIR
ATTACHMENT E
1761
Appendix D: Environmental Noise Assessment
ATTACHMENT E
1762
This page left intentionally blank.
ATTACHMENT E
1763
Environmental Noise Assessment
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, California
March 27, 2025
Project #240309
Prepared for:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Prepared by:
Saxelby Acoustics LLC
Luke Saxelby, INCE Bd. Cert.
Principal Consultant
Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE)
ATTACHMENT E
1764
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com
Page i
\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE ........................................................................................................ 1 EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS ........................................................................... 6 EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS ........................................................................................................................ 6 EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................................... 6 FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS ..................................................... 7 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 7 EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NOISE ON PROJECT SITE ............................................ 10 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 12 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................. 12 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 13 FEDERAL ................................................................................................................................................ 13 STATE .................................................................................................................................................... 13 LOCAL .................................................................................................................................................... 13 CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION ........................................................................................................ 17 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................................... 19 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................................................. 19 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 20 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 28 List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Plan.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Noise Measurement Sites and Receptor Locations ....................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Future Transportation Noise Levels on Project Site .................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Recommended Sound Wall Locations ......................................................................................... 23 Figure 5: Interior Noise Control Measures ................................................................................................. 25
ATTACHMENT E
1765
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com
Page ii
\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\240309 Bear Creek South\Word\240309 Bear Creek South Noise 3-27-25.docx List of Tables
Table 1: Typical Noise Levels ......................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data ......................................................... 7 Table 3: Existing Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases .............................. 8 Table 4: EPAP Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases .................................. 9 Table 5: Cumulative Traffic Noise Level and Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases ...................... 10 Table 6: Construction Equipment Noise ..................................................................................................... 12 Table 7: Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment .................................................................. 12 Table 8: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure .............................................................. 14 Table 9: Transportation-Related Noise Standards (Outdoor/Indoor) ........................................................ 16 Table 10: Land Use-Related Noise Standards ............................................................................................. 16 Table 11: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings .............................................................................. 18 Table 12: Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure ................................................................................. 20 Table 13: Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors ........................................................................ 21 Appendices
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Appendix B: Field Noise Measurement Data
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculations
Appendix D: Interior Noise Reduction Calculations
ATTACHMENT E
1766
Bear Creek South
City of Stockton, CA
Job #240309
March 27, 2025 www.SaxNoise.com