Attachment E - BCS 15183 checklist — City Council and Concurrent Authorities, July 7, 2026 (part 1 of 5)

15183 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

FOR THE

BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
MARCH 2026
Prepared for:

City of Stockton
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT E
15183 CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST

FOR THE

BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
MARCH 2026
Prepared for:

City of Stockton
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT E
Table of Contents
Project Title................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Lead Agency Name and Address .......................................................................................................................... 3 Contact Person and Phone Number .................................................................................................................... 3 Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses .......................................................................................................... 3 Project Description .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Requested Entitlements and Other Approvals .............................................................................................12 Project-Specific Environmental Review..........................................................................................................38 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................................40 I. AESTHETICS .......................................................................................................................................................40 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES...........................................................................................45 III. AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................................................................49 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................................................58 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................................79 VI. ENERGY .............................................................................................................................................................84 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................................. 91 XIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................97 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.......................................................................................110 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................117 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................................................124 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................................125 XIII. NOISE............................................................................................................................................................126 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING .............................................................................................................131 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES .....................................................................................................................................133 XVI. RECREATION.............................................................................................................................................139 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ...............................................................................................................................142 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................149 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..................................................................................................152 XX. WILDFIRE.....................................................................................................................................................157 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................................................................160 References ...............................................................................................................................................................162

ATTACHMENT E
Appendix A: CalEEMod Results.............................................................................................................................164 Appendix B: IPAC Species List...............................................................................................................................166 Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment..................................................................................................168 Appendix D: Environmental Noise Assessment.............................................................................................170 Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 172 Appendix F: Water Supply Assessment.............................................................................................................174 Appendix G: Examination of Bear Creek South Project relative to the General Plan and General Plan EIR ..........................................................................................................................................................................174

ATTACHMENT E

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT TITLE
Bear Creek South

LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Stockton, Community Development Department, Planning Division 345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
(209) 937-8266

CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Nicole D. Moore, LEED-AP – Contract Planner
City of Stockton
345 N. El Dorado Street
Stockton, CA 95202
Phone: (209) 937-8561
Email: [email protected]
PROJECT SPONSORS’ NAMES AND ADDRESSES
Matt Arnaiz
Eight Mile Road Investors, LLC.
4300 East Eight Mile Road, Suite A
Stockton, CA 95212
(209) 931-9740
Steven Klein
Bear Creek Family Limited Partnership
3101 West March Lane, Suite B
Stockton, CA 95219
(209) 403-4018
Jason Cole
Tri Pointe Homes Holdings, Inc.
2700 Camino Ramon, Suite 130
San Ramon, CA 94583
(415) 231-8374

INTRODUCTION
This document provides an analysis of the proposed Bear Creek South Project (proposed Project) with respect to the Project’s consistency with the City of Stockton General Plan, the analysis contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and any site-specific environmental impacts or cumulative impacts that are peculiar to the Project.

As explained in the following pages, the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, for which an EIR was prepared and certified, and there are no site-specific or cumulative

ATTACHMENT E
impacts associated with the proposed Project that have not been fully addressed in a previous environmental document, or that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. The findings presented below demonstrate that no additional environmental analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to approval of the proposed Project.

PROJECTOVERVIEW

PROJECT LOCATION
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. Figures 1 and 2 show the Project’s regional location and vicinity.

PROJECT AND ANNEXATION AREAS DEFINED
The overall Project consists 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 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 PD-1 lists each parcel included in the Project site and Figure 3 illustrates the APNs.

ATTACHMENT E
Table PD-1: Parcels Within the Project Site/Development and Non-Development Areas 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
APN: 120-020-320 23.45 220.09 44%
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
SOURCE: VVH ENGINEERING. 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
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.

The Non-Development Area along the proposed Project site’s entire eastern boundary consists of a UPRR 200-foot setback easement area. One single is located within this UPRR right of way.

The Annexation Area includes right-of-way areas along West Lane and Morada Lane, forming the western and southern borders of the Project site, respectively.

Figure 4 shows aerial imagery of the current existing site use within the Project site.

EXISTING SURROUNDING USES
The overall Development Area is bordered on the north by Bear Creek, on the east by UPRR rightof-way, on the west by West Lane, and on the south by Morada Lane. The Project site is primarily bounded by lands within the City of Stockton (City) to the north, south, west, and east. Uses within the surrounding area include the following:
• North – Bear Creek, and further north of Bear Creek is the approved Tra Vigne Residential Development. Current uses within the Tra Vigne site are agricultural and industrial. • South – Westwood Elementary School, single family residential uses and commercial at the southeast corner of West Lane and Morada Lane.
• West – West Lane, and further west of West Lane is McNair High School and Masasi Park. • East – UPRR and east of the Railroad right-of-way are residential subdivisions that are part of the Cannery Residential Master Plan area.

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). The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan delineates three areas known as the Urban Service Area Boundary (USAB), Sphere of Influence (SOI), and General Plan Planning Area, all of which are larger than the city limit. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on the analysis of potential changes within the SOI (i.e., the “(General Plan) EIR Study Area”). The Envision Stockton 2035 General Plan designated the Project site for Low Density Residential uses. The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan also designates the Project site for Low Density Residential uses.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 5) designates the entire Project site as Low Density Residential (LDR). Below is a general description of the City-designated LDR land use within the Project site:

ATTACHMENT E
Low Density Residential (LDR): This designation allows for single-family residential units, duplexes, triplexes, semi-detached patio homes, town homes, public and quasipublic 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 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.

The Bear Creek South 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:

ATTACHMENT E
• Parks: Approximately 27.7 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 27.2 acres of open spaces are included within the Project site. The open space is utilized for detention (4.9 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 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.
• 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 PD-2 summaries the total unit count and acreage for each proposed land use in the Project site. Figure 7 provides an overall Site Plan of all three ownerships combined.

Table PD-2: Gross Land Use Summary – Overall Project Area

PROPOSED LAND USE APPROXIMATE ACRES NUMBER OF UNITS
Low Density Residential (min. 5,000 sf lots) 301.1 2,241 Parks 27.7 --
Storm Basin 4.9 --
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.

ATTACHMENT E
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 single-family 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.

Parks and Open Space
The Project includes the following park facilities:
• An approximately 4.7-acre “Central” Park adjacent to and surrounding the primary detention basin, which is approximately 4.9 acres in size; • An approximately 4.9-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 “traditional” type park facilities total approximately 27.7 acres.

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.

ATTACHMENT E
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.

Figure 8 shows the pedestrian circulation plan.

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 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 City prepared the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Project, consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 610’s requirements. 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.

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

ATTACHMENT E
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.

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.

LAND USE AND PRE-ZONING
Figure 9 provides a map of the General Plan land use designations and Figure 10 shows the proposed pre-zoning.

As noted previously, under the Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan, the LDR 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.

ATTACHMENT E
The proposed residential density would be approximately 4.45 units per acre (2,241 units on the 503.89-acre Development Area). The proposed Project is consistent with the allowed uses and density for the existing LDR designation for the site. Figure 9 reflects the General Plan land use map after the requested City annexation is approved.

As previously stated, the Project site is currently outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Stockton and, therefore, the City of Stockton Zoning Ordinance does not currently apply to the Project site.

The San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will require the Project site to be pre-zoned by the City of Stockton in conjunction with the proposed annexation. The proposed Project includes a request for pre-zoning of the Development Area and NonDevelopment Area. The pre-zoning request is for an RL (Residential, Low Density) District which is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. Under the City’s RL zoning, the minimum lot size is limited to 5,000 square feet. The pre-zoning would go into effect upon annexation into the City of Stockton. Below is a general description of the proposed RL zoning on the Project site:

RL (Residential, Low Density) District: The RL zoning district is applied to singlefamily residential neighborhoods, low-density residential planned developments, and/or other low-density residential development, and is intended to maintain densities and protect existing neighborhood character. Allowable density shall be up to 8.7 dwelling units per net acre and 6.1 per gross acre.

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 27.7 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.

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS
The City of Stockton will be the Lead Agency for the proposed Project, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15050. Actions that would be required from the City include, but are not limited to the following:
• Approval of City of Stockton Pre-zoning;
• Approval of three Vesting Tentative Maps;

ATTACHMENT E
• Approval of the Development Agreement;
• Approval of Annexation and Authorization to submit Annexation request to San Joaquin LAFCo;
• Approval of future Final Maps;
• Approval of Design Review for new residential;
• Approval of future Improvement Plans;
• Approval of future Grading Plans;
• Approval of future Building Permits;
• Issuance of grading, encroachment, and building permits; and • City review and approval of Project utility plans.

OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (E.G., PERMITS, ETC.) The following agencies may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the proposed Project. Other governmental agencies that may require approval include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP);
• San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) – Issuance of incidental take permit under the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP); • San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; • San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) – Annexation; • San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) – Construction-related permits;
• Union Pacific Railroad – Encroachment Permit for the water line; • Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) encroachment permit.

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
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 RESIDENTIAL
Figure 1. Regional Location
Sources: California State Geoportal. Map date: March 14, 2024.

Project Location

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
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 RESIDENTIAL
Figure 2. Vicinity Map
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: March 14, 2024.

Lowe's
Walmart
Stock Stockton Auto Mall ton Auto Mall
Normandy
Village
Westlane
Plaza
Westlane
Cost Costcoco
Mobile Home P Mobile Home Park ark

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
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
Non-Development Portion of TPH Parcel

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 3. Assessor Parcel Map
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; MAXAR Imagery, 10/24/2023. Map date: March 26, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E

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
Development Area
Non-Development Area

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 4. Aerial Map
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; MAXAR Imagery, 10/24/2023. Map date: March 26, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E

MOSHER CREEK

BEAR CREEK
UP RR
Salvatore Ln
Westmora Ave
Sutherland Dr
La
nsdown
e Dr
Ch
e
rbourg
Way
Righteous Dr
Fox Cree
k Dr
Isley Way
Courtney Way
Waco Way
Journey Dr
Caywood Dr
Dunwood Dr
Parris
h Ln
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
Fogarty Ln
Aerosmith Way
Nicoletta Ln
Valmora Dr
Zaccaria Way
Penelope Dr
Stefano Dr
CrestwoodCir
Millwood Ave
Morada Ln
Ki
rkby Ln
Tuscany Cir
Morada Ln
West Ln
Eight Mile Rd
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Annexation Area
City of Stockton

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 5. Existing General Plan
Sources: City of Stockton GIS; San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: March 14, 2024.

City of Stockton General Plan 2040
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Open Space/Agriculture
Parks and Recreation

MOSHERCREEK

BEAR CREEK
UP RR
La
n
sdown
e Dr
Westmora Ave
Sutherland Dr
C
h
e
rbourg
Way
Fox Creek D
r
Isley Way
Courtney Way
Caywood Dr
P
a
rrish
Ln
Journey Dr
Fleetwood Way
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
Fogarty Ln
Salvatore Ln
Stefano Dr
Zaccaria Way
Penelope Dr
Nicoletta Ln
Valmora Dr
CrestwoodCir
Millwood Ave
Ki
rkby Ln
Morada Ln
Tuscany Cir
Morada Ln
West Ln
Eight Mile Rd
San Joaquin County General Plan 2035
Low Density Residential
High Density Residential
Office Commercial
General Agriculture
Limited Agriculture
CITY

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
AU-20
AU-20
AG-40 AL-5
AI

MOSHER SLOUGH MOSHER CREEK

BEAR CREEK
UP RR
UP RR
Cherbourg
Way
Angelina Ln
Bryant Dr Novara Way
Hudson Dr
Popolo Cir
Inspiration Dr
Genova Ln
Morada Ln
Ta
m O S
han
ter Dr
Westmora Ave
Sutherland Dr
Hendrix Dr
Montana St
West Ln E Frontage Rd
Gotham Dr
Costanti n o
ri C
Petit Ln
Zaccaria Way
Pyrenees Ave
West Ln W Frontage Rd
Allman Dr
Silvana Ln
Tiziano Dr
Penelope Dr
Santana Ln
Glacier Point Dr
Righteous Dr
Fox
Cree
k
D
r
La
nsdowne Dr
Tenaya Ln
Deauville Dr
Buddy Holly Dr
Isley Way
Courtney Way
Led
gewoo
d
Av
e
Sandalwood Dr
Journey Dr
Arden Ln
Bergamo Cir
Lencoe Dr
Gorizia Dr
Caywood Dr
Dunwood Dr
Aerosmith Way
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
Par
rish
Ln
Hillc
rest Ave
Waco Way
Prospector Dr
Sundance Ln
Castle Oaks Dr
Ri
c
c
a
r
d
o
D
r
Fogarty Ln
Fleetwood Way
Salvatore Ln
Snow Creek Cir
Laughlin Ave
Massimo Cir
Likala Dr
Pion
e
er Cir
Brid
a
lveiCir l
Nicoletta Ln
Rutherford Dr
Madonna S
t
Bryant Dr
Valmora Dr
Claridge Ln
Inspiration Dr
Cottonwood Ln
Ornella Ln
Frey Ln
Stefano Dr
Seger Way
Rimini Ln
Cardiff
Pl
Lariat Ln
Eaglepoint Ln
Eureka Dr
Pearson Rd
Millwood Ave
Ringwood Ave
Summerview Dr
Aylesford
Ln
Ki
rkby Ln
Checotah
Cir
Ham Ln
Leach Rd
Golfview Rd
Micke Grove Rd
Wrangler Cir
CrestwoodCir
Fitzpatri
ck Cir
Tuscany Cir
Gary Galli Dr
Nash Dr
Morada Ln
Eight Mile Rd
Holman Rd
West Ln
Glaci
er
Point Dr
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Annexation Area
City of Stockton
San Joaquin County Zoning
AG-40
AI
AL-5
AU-20

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 6. Existing Zoning
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS. Map date: March 13, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Park
Basin
Bear Creek
Residential Lot

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 7. Site Plan
Sources: WH Consulting Engineers/cbg Civil Engineers, 2-20-2024. Map date: November 12, 2024.

Park
±1.4 Ac
Park
±5.5 Ac
Park
±4.9 Ac
Park
±4.9 Ac
Park
±4.0 Ac
Detention
Basin
±4.9 Ac
E. MORADA LANE

ARNAIZ KLEIN TRI POINTE

BEAR CREEK

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

WEST LANE
Park
±3.7Ac
Park
±1.4 Ac
±1.4
Ac
Park ±4.7 Ac

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Wellness Walks - 15' Landscape Corridor with 8' Meandering Sidewalk Multi-Use Pedestrian Pathway
5' Separated Sidewalk
West Lane Improvements - 8' Meandering Walk & 11' Bike Lane E. Morada Improvements - 8' Meandering Walk & 5' Bike Lane Open Space along Bear Creek

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 8. Pedestrian Circulation Plan
Sources: WH Consulting Engineers/cbg Civil Engineers, 2-16-2024. Map date: November 12, 2024.

Park
±5.5 Ac
Park
±4.9 Ac
Park
±4.9 Ac
Park
±7.7 Ac
Park ±4.7 Ac
Detention
Basin
±4.9 Ac
E. MORADA LANE

ARNAIZ KLEIN TRI POINTE

BEAR CREEK

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

WEST LANE

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E

MOSHER CREEK

BEAR CREEK
UP RR
UP RR
Morada Ln
West Ln E Frontage Rd
Westmora Ave
Sutherland Dr
Tam O Shanter Dr
Costantino Cir
Hillcrest Ave
Zaccaria Way Skynyrd Way
West Ln W Frontage Rd
Bono Ln
Cherbourg Wa
y
Tiziano Dr
Penelope Dr
Santana Ln
Glacier
Point Dr
Righteous Dr
Fox
Creek
Dr
Lan
sdowne
Dr
Prospector Dr
Buddy Holly Dr
Isley Way
Courtney Way
Elton Ln
Sandalwood Dr
Journey Dr
Matterhorn Dr
Everly Ln
Cathedral Cir
Caywood Dr
Dunwood Dr
Aerosmith Way
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
Lennon Way
Pa
rrish Ln
Waco Way
Sundance Ln
Riccar
d
o
D
r
Gary Galli Dr
Fogarty Ln
Fleetwood Way
Salvatore Ln
Pion
e
e
r
Cir
Br
di al
veil
Cir Nash Dr
Nicoletta Ln
Madonna St
Valmora Dr
Claridge Ln
Inspiration Dr
Granite Ct
Nash Dr Marley Ct
Stones Ln
Ham Ln
Stanley Dr
Leach Rd
Ornella Ln
Golfview Rd
Frey Ln
Stefano Dr
Seger Way
Cardiff
Pl
Lariat Ln
Eaglepoint Ln
Ledgewood Ave
Millwood Ave
Ringwood Ave
Aylesford
Ln
Kirkby Ln
Wrangler Cir
Cres woo
t
dCir
Tuscany Cir
Morada Ln
West Ln
Glaci
er
Point Dr
Eight Mile Rd
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Annexation Area
Stockton City Boundary (after Annexation)
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Open Space/Agriculture
Parks and Recreation

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 9. Proposed General Plan Map
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; MAXAR Imagery, 10/24/2023. Map date: March 19, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
UP RR
UP RR
Ledgewood Ave
Morada Ln
Westmora Ave
Sutherland Dr
Hillcrest Av
e
West Ln E Frontage Rd
Costantino Cir
Zaccaria Way Skynyrd Way
Mt Maclure Dr
Tam O Shanter Dr
West Ln W Frontage Rd
Bono Ln
Cherbourg Wa
y
Tiziano Dr
Penelope Dr
Santana Ln
Glacier
Point
Dr
Righteous Dr
Fox Creek
Dr
Lansdowne Dr
Buddy Holly Dr
Isley Way
Courtney Way
Elton Ln
Sandalwood Dr
Likala Dr
Journey Dr
Arden Ln
Matterhorn Dr
Everly Ln
Cathedral Cir
Caywood Dr
Dunwood Dr
Aerosmith Way
Cortona Ln
Priscilla Ln
Lennon Way
Pa
rrish Ln
Waco Way
Prospector Dr
Sundance Ln
Riccar
d
o
D
r
Fogarty Ln
Fleetwood Way
Salvatore Ln
Pion
e
e
r
Cir
Br
di al
veil
Cir Nash Dr
Nicoletta Ln
Madonna St
Valmora Dr
Claridge Ln
Inspiration Dr
Granite Ct
Nash Dr Marley Ct
Stones Ln
Stanley Dr
Eureka Dr
Ornella Ln
Frey Ln
Stefano Dr
Seger Way
Cardiff
Pl
Lariat Ln
Eaglepoint Ln Millwood Ave
Ringwood Ave
Aylesford
Ln
Kirkby Ln
Wrangler Cir
Cres woo
t
dCir
Tuscany Cir
Morada Ln
West Ln
Glaci
er
Point Dr
Eight Mile Rd
CG
CG
CN
IG
IL
OS
OS
OS
RL OS
PF
PF
PF
PF
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RL
RM
RM
RMP
RH
RL

MOSHER CREEK

BEAR CREEK
0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Annexation Area
Stockton City Boundary (after Annexation)
City of Stockton Zoning
RL - Low Density Residential
RM/P - Medium Density Residential
RH - High Density Residential
CG - General Commercial
CN - Neighborhood Commercial
IG - General Industrial
IL - Limited Industrial
OS - Open Space
PF - Public Facility

CITY OF STOCKTON - BEAR CREEK SOUTH RESIDENTIAL
Figure 10. Proposed Zoning
Sources: San Joaquin County GIS; City of Stockton. Map date: March 19, 2024.

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT One previous environmental analysis has been prepared and certified which is applicable to the proposed Project.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Stockton General Plan (Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements, 2018), for which an EIR was certified on December 4, 2018 (SCH#2017052062). 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.

Appendix G includes a memo that examines the Bear Creek South Project relative to the General Plan and General Plan EIR. The memo is intended to provide a more formal examination of the City of Stockton’s General Plan EIR for purposes of tiering of a “subsequent activity” under the General Plan, and application of the Section 15183 (as well as 15152, 15162, and 15168(c)) to the Project. The analysis is intended to provide substantial evidence to support a decision that the Project does in fact meet the requirement for a Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines 15183 statutory exemption. As discussed, a full examination of the Project in the Initial Study, combined with the examination of the Project within the context of the General Plan supporting documents, the adopted General Plan, the certified General Plan EIR, adopted Sphere of Influence, and adopted Municipal Service Review as summarized in Appendix G, confirms the opinion that the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

The cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the Stockton General Plan, including the Project site, were fully addressed in the General Plan EIR.

CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 EXEMPTIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified. As noted above, the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the Stockton General Plan, for which an EIR was certified. The provisions contained in Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines are presented below.
15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not

ATTACHMENT E
require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. (b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent, (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. (d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or (C) A general plan of a local agency, and
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
(e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and
(2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have

ATTACHMENT E
been previously adopted by the City or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire City or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a City or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision-making body of the City or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the City or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section. (g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. (i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. (1) “Community plan” is defined as a part of the general plan of a City or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and contains specific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel. (2) For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed Project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project

ATTACHMENT E
complies with the density-related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.
(j) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then this section may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The attached Environmental Checklist includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or sitespecific environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. The Environmental Checklist identifies the applicable City of Stockton development standards and policies that would apply to the proposed Project during both the construction and operational phases, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar or site-specific environmental impacts would occur.

CONCLUSION
The entire Project site was assumed for Low Density Residential development under the Stockton General Plan. 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.

The Stockton General Plan 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
The full buildout projection includes the following (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 3-22):
• 119,700 new dwelling units, including:
o 43,800 new single-family units
o 75,900 new multi-family units

ATTACHMENT E
• 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, 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. 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.

As described above, the proposed Project is consistent with the Stockton General Plan (Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update and Utility Master Plan Supplements, 2018), for which an EIR was certified on December 4, 2018 (SCH#2017052062). Cumulative impacts associated with development and buildout of the Project site, as proposed, were fully addressed in the Stockton General Plan EIR (SCH# 2017052062). Since the proposed Project is consistent with the land use designation and development intensity assumed under the General Plan, and the General Plan EIR evaluated the impacts of developing low density residential uses as compared to the baseline condition with vacant land, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new cumulative environmental impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR.

The analysis in the attached CEQA Environmental Checklist demonstrates that there are no sitespecific or peculiar impacts associated with the Project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied to the Project. The Project Requirements identified in the attached environmental analysis include requirements that must be implemented by the proposed Project to ensure that any site-specific impacts or construction-related impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made a condition of Project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified.

ATTACHMENT E

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS
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) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with the
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
X
Project Impacts:

The development of a 2,241 single-family lot residential subdivision would change the existing visual nature / character of the Project site from agricultural uses to a residential neighborhood.

The Project site is not designated as a scenic vista or scenic highway. The development of the Project site would create new sources of light and glare that is typical of a residential development. The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation. There is nothing peculiar about the site that presents impacts greater than was anticipated under the General Plan. For instance, the Project site is not topographically elevated from the surrounding lands and is not highly visible from areas beyond the immediate vicinity of the Project site. A few trees are in the central portion of the site. There are no prominent features on the Project site, such as rock outcroppings or historic buildings, or other visually distinctive features that contribute to the scenic quality of the Project site.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

Implementation of the proposed Project would introduce new residential uses to the Project site compared to existing agricultural uses, and would be consistent with the surrounding uses anticipated for the Project site by the 2040 General Plan and analyzed in Chapter 4.1 of the 2040 General Plan EIR (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, pages 4.1-6 through 4.1-10). The overall Development Area is bordered on the north by Bear Creek, on the east by UPRR right-ofway, on the west by West Lane, and on the south by Morada Lane. The Project site is primarily

ATTACHMENT E
bounded by lands within the City of Stockton (City) to the north, south, west, and east. Uses within the surrounding area include the following:
• North – Bear Creek, and further north of Bear Creek is the approved Tra Vigne Residential Development. Current uses within the Tra Vigne site are agricultural and industrial. • South – Westwood Elementary School, single family residential uses and commercial at the southeast corner of West Lane and Morada Lane.
• West – West Lane, and further west of West Lane is McNair High School and Masasi Park. • East – UPRR and east of the Railroad right-of-way are residential subdivisions that are part of the Cannery Residential Master Plan area.

Within the City, lands to the east and north are designated LDR by the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. Lands to the south are designated Commercial, LDR, and Medium Density Residential.

Lands to the west are designated Parks and Recreation, and Institutional.

As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified in 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 visual and aesthetic impacts 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 compared to the agricultural/vacant conditions of the Project site. The General Plan did not identify any mitigation measures, but did include policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to visual character of the City. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
• Policy LU-5.3 directs the City to define discrete and clear city edges that preserve agriculture, open space, and scenic views, and is implemented by Actions LU-5.3.A and LU-5.3.B, which direct the use of landscaping and other attractive edging instead of soundwalls and similar utilitarian edges of development at interfaces with rural landscapes, and to develop a plan for a greenbelt or community separator around the city.

This policy and these actions will protect scenic views from soundwalls and other unattractive edges of development and from future development through a greenbelt. • Policy LU-1.3 and its three supporting actions work to improve the visual quality of the urban environment at key gateways and along travel corridors by creating a gateway district program to coordinate the design of public and private investment in a cohesive and attractive way; improving maintenance, code enforcement, screening, and landscaping of viewsheds along major transportation routes; and requiring the incorporation of scenic views into the design of the built environment. • Policy LU-3.1 and its six supporting actions ensure that the external features of new development are compatible with surrounding buildings, spaces, and cultural and historic resources, thus protecting the degradation of a neighborhood’s visual quality from new, conflicting development design. The supporting actions focus on historic

ATTACHMENT E
resource preservation and reuse as well as the maintenance and upkeep of the Citywide Design Guidelines.
• Policies LU-3.2 and LU-3.3 also help to protect the visual quality and character of existing neighborhoods by retaining narrower roadways to preserve street trees and mature landscaping, maintaining and expanding public parks and open space areas, and periodically reviewing the City’s Development Impact Fee requirements to reflect the City’s priorities for parks, community centers, and libraries. • Policy LU-5.1 and its three supporting actions integrate nature into the city and thus improve the visual quality of the urban landscape. These actions direct the City to require new and redevelopment to provide open spaces that create gateways and social focal points; protect riparian areas; and require native landscaping, which helps to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): As discussed in Chapter 4.1 of the General Plan EIR, the existing General Plan does not designate official scenic vistas. The proposed Project is not located along or near a scenic vista. The proposed Project has land uses that are consistent with the General Plan land use designations, and compatible with the surrounding land use designations. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, with the Project, this impact will remain less than significant, as concluded in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): As discussed in Chapter 4.1 of the General Plan EIR, no adopted State scenic highways are in Stockton. Only one highway section in San Joaquin County is listed as a Designated Scenic Highway by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Mapping System; the segment of Interstate 580 (I-580) from Interstate 5 to Interstate 205. This route traverses the edge of the Coast Range to the west and Central Valley to the east.

The City of Stockton, including the Project site, is not visible from this roadway segment, which is located approximately 20 miles southwest of the Project site. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-8). The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. Therefore, this impact is considered to remain less than significant, as concluded in the General Plan EIR.

Response c): CEQA Guidelines Section 15387 defines an urbanized area as a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile. The Project site is within the unincorporated area of San Joaquin County, adjacent to the City of Stockton’s northern city limits, which is defined as an urbanized area.

Chapter 4.1 of the General Plan EIR notes that future development consistent with the General Plan would be subject to the City’s design review process in accordance with Chapter 16.120 of the Stockton Municipal Code, which has established a set of required findings to ensure quality

ATTACHMENT E
design. The proposed Project is subject to the design review process and requires the City to decide that the Project is visually compatible with surrounding development. The proposed residential uses are in an area that the General Plan envisions to be developed with residential uses. Additionally, the surrounding area currently contains numerous residential uses like those proposed, and the proposed uses are scaled to be visually compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed Project would be zoned for low density residential use that is consistent with the General Plan land use designation.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic (pages 4.1-8 and 4,1-9). The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR because the proposed residential uses comprise low density residential uses as proposed under the General Plan. 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 unit count for the Project site analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. After the implementation of City standards and requirements, the Project impacts related to visual quality or character would remain less than significant, as concluded in the General Plan EIR.

Response d): During the day, sunlight reflecting from structures and vehicles is a primary source of glare, while nighttime light and glare can be divided into both stationary and mobile sources.

Some types of stationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, interior lighting, decorative landscape lighting, and street lights. The principal mobile source of nighttime light and glare is vehicle headlamp illumination.

The General Plan EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-10) notes that there is a significant amount of ambient lighting that comes from existing development, including roadways. The developed and inhabited land uses in the City of Stockton are the main source of daytime and nighttime light and glare. They are typified by single and multi-family residences, commercial structures, industrial areas, and street lights. These areas and their associated human activities (inclusive of vehicular traffic) characterize the existing light and glare environment present during daytime and nighttime hours in the developed portions of the city. Because the Project site is adjacent to developed portions of the City of Stockton, ambient light in this area is more pronounced than in areas farther away from the developed areas.

The surrounding area has existing sources of light and glare created by streetlights, car headlights, and interior and exterior lighting from buildings, including adjacent residential like the Project. The proposed Project would create these similar sources of light and glare. Chapter

4.1 of the General Plan EIR notes that exterior lighting is allowed under the General Plan, but is required to comply with City standards for outdoor lighting (Municipal Code Sections 16.32.070 and 16.36.060(B)). These standards require exterior lighting to be energy efficient, stationary, shielded and directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. These City standards would apply to the Project as well.

ATTACHMENT E
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-10). The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR because the Project would result in the development of 2,241 single-family residential units consistent with the level of development proposed in the General Plan for the Project site. No additional analysis is required. Thus, the implementation of City standards and requirements would ensure that any impacts related to light and glare remain less than significant, as concluded in the General Plan EIR.

ATTACHMENT E
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST 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) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526)?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Project Impacts:

The development of a 2,241 single-family lot residential subdivision would change the existing character of the Project site from predominately agricultural fields to a residential neighborhood.

The Project site contains areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Statewide Importance and is zoned for Agriculture Urban Reserve by San Joaquin County. Most of the Project site is currently vacant and disturbed land and is generally located in an area of the city that includes developed areas, residential and some undeveloped lands. The City’s General Plan designates the Project site Low Density Residential and the proposed Project includes a request for a pre-zone to RL (Residential, Low Density) District that supports residential development at densities and configurations, compatible with the areas that surround the Project site. The General Plan designates the Project site for urban land uses and the General Plan EIR already identified the Project site as an area for potential farmland conversion. (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-10-4.2-12; Figure 4.2-4.) As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not create new impacts over and above those identified in the General Plan EIR, nor significantly change previously identified impacts.

The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

Implementation of the proposed Project would introduce new residential uses to the Project site compared to the existing agriculture and vacant uses of the Project site, and would be consistent

ATTACHMENT E
with the surrounding uses anticipated for the Project site by the 2040 General Plan and analyzed in Chapter 4.2 of the 2040 General Plan EIR (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, pages 4.2- 10 through 4.2-15). 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 evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Although the General Plan contains a strategy to protect agricultural lands beyond the city edges from conversion to non-agricultural use, the General Plan EIR identified the conversion of farmlands of concern under CEQA to nonagricultural uses as a significant impact. The General Plan EIR notes that because these parcels are located near existing urbanized areas, they may not be viable for agricultural operations due to conflicts with nearby urbanized areas. As discussed under Impact AG-1 of the General Plan EIR, no additional mitigation is available, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City of Stockton adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations on February 28th, 2022 stating that the EIR for the General Plan concludes that General Plan impacts on agricultural land conversion, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation impacts are significant and that feasible mitigation measures are not available that would conclusively reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. As the General Plan EIR already identified the Project site as an area for potential farmland conversion, (see General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-10-

4.2-12; Figure 4.2-4); the Project would not result in the loss of more agricultural land than that contemplated in the General Plan EIR.

Thus, these impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 4.2 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously 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 agricultural resources of the City. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
• Action LU-1.3.C directs the City to require the incorporation of scenic views, including open space features like waterways, wetlands, natural landscapes, and parks, into design of the built environment, ensuring that forested areas would be maintained in new development.
• Policy LU-5.1 directs the City to integrate nature into the city and maintain Stockton’s urban forest. Supporting actions require projects to provide open space; protect, preserve, and improve riparian corridors; and require that landscape plans incorporate native plants. This policy and these actions support preservation and protection of forested open space and riparian areas.
• Policy LU-5.2: Protect natural resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat, scenic areas, open space areas, agricultural lands, parks, and other cultural/historic resources from encroachment or destruction by incompatible development. • Policy LU-5.3: Define discrete and clear city edges that preserve agriculture, open space, and scenic views.
• Action LU-5.3.B: Coordinate with San Joaquin County to develop a plan for a greenbelt or community separator around the city.

ATTACHMENT E
• Action LU-5.3.C: Maintain the City’s agricultural conservation program that requires either dedication of an agricultural conservation easement at a 1:1 ratio or payment of an in-lieu agricultural mitigation fee for the conversion of prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the State of Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program.
• Action LU-6.2.B: Do not approve future annexations or City utility connections unless they are consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan and do not adversely impact the City’s fiscal viability, environmental resources, infrastructure and services, and quality of life.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The General Plan designates approximately 16,160 acres of agricultural land for development to non-agricultural/urban uses, including the Project site, including the Project site. (See General Plan EIR, pp. 4.2-10-4.2-12; Figure 4.2-4). The General Plan EIR found that buildout of the General Plan would have a potentially significant impact on conversion of Important Farmland. However, the General Plan EIR concluded that the residual significance would remain significant and unavoidable (City of Stockton, 2022).

The proposed Project is subject to the requirements of the Stockton Agricultural Lands Mitigation Program which will involve a contribution of conservation easement-protected land or payment of in-lieu fees to the Mitigation Program as compensation for the agricultural land conversion impacts of the Project. The City of Stockton adopted the Agricultural Land Mitigation Program in 2007. The Program applies to projects that would convert agricultural lands, as defined by the most-recent Important Farmland Maps published by the California Department of Conservation.

Projects may provide “agricultural mitigation land” on a 1:1 basis for each acre of land converted, including administrative costs of approximately $1,000 per acre, or pay the established Agricultural Land Mitigation Fee of $12,822 (San Joaquin Council of Governments [SJCOG] San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan [SJMSCP] Habitat Fees, 2020) per acre. The Agricultural Land Mitigation Program provides that agricultural mitigation lands will be dedicated to a qualifying management entity such as the Central Valley Farmland Trust. The fees would be collected by the City, held in a dedicated account, and then expended by the City to acquire agricultural mitigation land or pay for the monitoring and administrative costs of the program. The fees may also be transferred to a qualifying entity for the same purpose.

The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR because conversion of the entire Project site from agricultural to Low Density Residential uses was assumed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. As such, with implementation of City standards and requirements, that implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the severity of the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

Response b): The San Joaquin County Zoning Ordinance zones the Project site Agriculture Urban Reserve. As part of the annexation request, the proposed Project includes a request for to prezone the Project site to RL (Residential, Low Density) District. The General Plan EIR already

ATTACHMENT E
identified the Project site as an area for potential farmland conversion, (see General Plan EIR, pp.

4.2-10-4.2-12; Figure 4.2-4.) The General Plan EIR noted that because these parcels are located near existing urbanized areas, they may not be viable for agricultural operations due to conflicts with nearby urbanized areas. As discussed under Impact AG-1 of the General Plan EIR, no additional mitigation is available, and the General Plan EIR concluded that the impact relative to his topic resulted in a significant and unavoidable impact. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR because conversion of the entire Project site from agricultural to Low Density Residential uses was assumed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the severity of the impacts identified in the General Plan EIR related to this environmental topic.

Responses c) and d): The Project site is not forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526). As discussed in the General Plan EIR, the Stockton Municipal Code does not identify a zoning district for forest or timberland (see General Plan EIR, pp. 4.2-14-4.2-15, and thus the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland and would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There are no forest resources on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, 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 e): The General Plan EIR noted that the General Plan land use map was generally developed to arrange new designations to place compatible uses adjacent to existing uses See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-15). Nevertheless, the General Plan would allow development that could result in potentially incompatible urban uses next to farms or ranches, creating circumstances that impair the productivity and profitability of agricultural operation, and could eventually lead farmers to take their land out of production. Further, the General plan EIR already identified the Project site as an area for potential farmland conversion. (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-10-4.2-12; Figure 4.2-4.) As described in the discussion for Threshold AG-1 of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions that aim to protect agricultural lands outside of the city from conversion to nonagricultural use, including from incompatible uses. Furthermore, as discussed in Section

4.2.1.1 of the General Plan EIR, the Stockton Municipal Code (SMC § 16.36.040) contains a “Right-to-Farm Ordinance,” under which the City notifies property buyers to accept inconveniences or discomforts resulting from nearby agricultural activities, thereby protecting agricultural operations from nuisance complaints. With implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, as well as the City’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance, the General Plan EIR concluded that the impact relative to this topic would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in new or more severe impacts than what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. No additional analysis is required.

ATTACHMENT E
III. AIR 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) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
Project Impacts:

The Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). This agency is responsible for monitoring air pollution levels and ensuring compliance with federal and state air quality regulations within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters within its borders.

The Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation on the Project site and is consistent with the growth assumptions of applicable air quality plans. There is nothing peculiar about the site that presents impacts greater than was anticipated under the General Plan as the General Plan land use designation on the Project site contemplated a total of up to 3,073 single-family residences and the Project includes 2,241 single-family lot residential units. As discussed below, compliance with General Plan Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3, the General Plan goals and policies, and applicable City Code and compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations would reduce Project impacts related to air quality to a less than significant level.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated air quality impacts associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included implementation of air quality plans, cumulative considerable net increase of pollutants, exposure of sensitive receptors, and other emissions resulting from implementation of the General Plan (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.3-24 through 4.3-44). The General Plan EIR concluded that development anticipated by the General Plan 2040 would result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions which represent a substantial increase in emissions compared to existing conditions and emissions above the significance thresholds and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. With application of State and SJVAPCD rules and regulations, implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, and Mitigation Measures

ATTACHMENT E
AQ-1 through AQ-6, construction and operation-related criteria air pollutants would be reduced to the greatest extent possible.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 of the General Plan EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to further reduce long-term criteria air pollutant emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 of the General Plan EIR requires a construction-related air quality evaluation to be prepared for development projects subject to CEQA, and requires specific construction-related emission reduction measures be implemented. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 of the General Plan EIR requires an operational air quality evaluation to be prepared for development projects subject to CEQA, and requires specific operational emission reduction measures be implemented, as feasible.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4a of the General Plan EIR requires implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3. Mitigation Measure AQ-4b of the General Plan EIR requires development projects to assess their projects to the SJVAPCD’s Rule 9510 Applicability Thresholds. Applicants for development projects that exceed this ambient air quality screening threshold are required to prepare or have prepared an ambient air quality analysis, consistent with the SJVAPCD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), to assess whether the subject development project would cause or contribute to a violation of any California Ambient Air Quality Standard or National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 of the General Plan EIR requires applicants for industrial or warehousing land uses in addition to commercial land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel to contact the SJVAPCD or the City of Stockton in conjunction with the SJVAPCD to determine the appropriate level of health risk assessment (HRA) required. If preparation of an HRA is required, all HRAs shall be submitted to the City of Stockton and the SJVAPCD for evaluation. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 requires odor management plans for facilities that have the potential to emit nuisance odors.

Of these General Plan mitigation measures, Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3 apply to the proposed Project.

Additionally, review of development projects by SJVAPCD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) in addition to General Plan policies and actions would ensure that health risks are minimized. But the General Plan EIR concluded that the air quality impacts resulting from the General Plan build-out would remain significant and unavoidable.

This is also consistent with the GP EIR’s description of what was analyzed quantitatively in the EIR, which is defined as all land within the SOI (i.e. the EIR Study Area). The Bear Creek South project is within the SOI and it represents approximately 5% of the total units anticipated to be built in the Horizon Project Year 2040. Additionally, as further confirmation that the Bear Creek South project was modeled within the General Plan EIR, City staff confirmed with Placeworks (i.e. the consultants who developed the GP EIR) that these model inputs were carried out through all the modeling (per. Communication Nicole Moore March 14, 2025).

ATTACHMENT E
It should also be noted that the General Plan EIR included the proposed Project in its analysis.

Specifically, the development projections (i.e. 40,900 units) were used. It can be confirmed that in Appendix B from the General Plan EIR, the model inputs are consistent with the development projections (see page 682 of the Draft EIR). For air quality modeling, for example, as stated on page 6 of Appendix B from the General Plan EIR, and as also described in Table 4.3-7 of the General Plan EIR:
• Transportation emissions were modeled based on on-road VMT provided by Fehr & Peers and modeled using EMFAC2014-PL. EMFAC2014-PL provided the future year emissions rates, based on location and year;
• Energy emissions were based on energy use data provided by the PG&E. Emissions forecasts were estimated based on changes in population (residential energy), employment (nonresidential energy). These emissions were based on a three‐year average (2014‐2016) of energy data as provided by PG&E. • Area source (Landscaping, Lighting, and Commercial Equipment) emissions were estimated using the OFFROAD2007 model to calculate emission rates for commercial equipment. Emissions forecasts were estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City of Stockton as a percentage of San Joaquin County.
• Area source (Consumer Product) emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, following a methodology utilized to calculate VOC emissions from use of household consumer cleaning products. Emissions forecasts account for the correct number of residential units in the SOI by 2040 (40,900 new units) (see page 187 of the Appendix). • Other (Construction and Agricultural Equipment) emissions were estimated utilized the OFFROAD2007 model to agricultural equipment rates for construction and agricultural equipment. Agricultural equipment emissions are based on the proportion of farmland within the City of Stockton compared to San Joaquin County; emissions forecasts for agricultural equipment are based on the decrease in agricultural land, based on forecasted rate of change for the County of San Joaquin for years from 2000 to 2014).

Construction emissions estimated based on housing permit data for San Joaquin County and City of Stockton from the US Census.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): The proposed Project would be both a direct and indirect source of air pollution. Direct sources of pollution include area, energy, and water and waste sources, due to development of the on-site buildings and associated infrastructure. Indirect sources of pollution would be due to the generation of trips of from vehicles traveling to and from the Project site.

Operational: CalEEModTM (v.2022.1) was used to model operational emissions of the proposed Project. Table Air-1 shows proposed Project emissions as provided by CalEEMod. Both state and Air District rules and regulations were accounted for, where possible.1 Further details are 1 That is, State requirements related to the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were accounted for by the modeling, for Project operation. Specifically, consistent with the latest (2022) version of the

ATTACHMENT E
provided in Appendix A. The SJVAPCD provides a list of applicable air quality emissions thresholds.

Table AIR-1: Operational Project Generated Emissions (tons per year) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
Threshold 100 10 10 27 15 15
Emissions 133 19.4 32.8 0.34 29.1 7.78
Exceeds
Threshold? Y Y Y N Y N
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
The SJVAPCD has established their thresholds of significance by which the Project emissions are compared against to determine the level of significance. The SJVAPCD has established operations related emissions thresholds of significance as follows: 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide (CO, 10 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 10 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), 27 tons per year of sulfur oxides (SOx), 15 tons per year particulate matter of 10 microns or less in size (PM10), and 15 tons per year particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in size (PM2.5).

As shown in Table AIR-1 above, operational emissions would exceed the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance for CO, NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. The General Plan EIR identified General Plan Policies and Actions along with Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 to reduce the long-term emissions from the General Plan build out. Of these General Plan mitigation measures, Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3 apply to the proposed Project. However, as previously described, the General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of air quality associated with the future development of the proposed land uses- Year 2040 as contemplated by the General Plan, (see General Plan EIR, Table 4.3-7, and Appendix B), and already found these impacts to be significant and unavoidable. The proposed Project would not add any new or different development than contemplated by the General Plan 2040. The exceedance of the project-level threshold was anticipated in the General Plan EIR for projects that develop consistent with the General Plan. As noted previously, 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 assumed in the General Plan. Because trip generation is based on the number of residential units, the corresponding number of vehicle trips that could result from the Project site under the existing General Plan designation is higher than the number of vehicle trips that could result from the proposed Project.

Construction: Emissions from construction activities represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, the Project was assumed to require energy efficient appliances for single-family housing; produce 30% of electricity for the single-family housing on-site via rooftop solar PV; and utilize water efficient landscaping.

ATTACHMENT E
to air quality. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions from demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings.

CalEEModTM (v.2022.1) was used to estimate construction emissions for the proposed Project.

Table AIR-2, below, provides the construction criteria pollutant emissions associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Further details are provided in Appendix A.

Table AIR-2: Maximum Construction Project Generated Emissions (tons per year) POLLUTANT CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5
THRESHOLD 100 10 10 27 15 15
EMISSIONS 6.95 3.35 2.23 0.01 1.39 0.60

EXCEEDS
THRESHOLD? N N N N N N
SOURCES: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1)
As shown in Table AIR-2, Project maximum construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Nevertheless, regardless of emission quantities, the SJVAPCD requires construction related control measures in accordance with their rules and regulations.

Implementation of these control measures (provided in further detail below) would further reduce proposed Project construction related emissions to the extent possible.

The first step is to prepare a Dust Control Plan that meets all the applicable requirements of APCD Rule 8021. All construction activities are required to implement dust control measures, as required by APCD Rules 8011-8081, to limit Visible Dust Emissions to 20% opacity or less. Dust control measures include application of water or chemical dust suppressants to unpaved roads and graded areas, covering or stabilization of transported bulk materials, prevention of carryout or trackout of soil materials to public roads, limiting the area subject to soil disturbance, construction of wind barriers, access restrictions to inactive sites as required by the applicable rules. The following dust control practices are identified in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the GAMAQI (2002):
a. All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
b. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. c. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall control fugitive dust emissions by application of water or by presoaking.
d. When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
e. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions. Use of blower devices is expressly

ATTACHMENT E
forbidden.
f. Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions utilizing sufficient water or chemical stabilizer/suppressant. g. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, and other local regulations and requirements, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions.

Conclusion
The proposed Project would comply with pre-existing requisite federal, State, SJVAPCD, other local regulations and requirements, and mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR, as well as implement the control measures provided by the SJVAPCD for construction-related PM10 emissions. Some criteria pollutant emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD’s criteria pollutant emissions thresholds (for CO, NOX, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5), and such exceedance of the projectlevel thresholds 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.2 The amount of 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 Air quality 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 air quality emissions as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Response c): A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or 2 The air emissions modeling within the General Plan EIR Included the SOI areas, which includes the Project site.

ATTACHMENT E
contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air. However, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there is no concentration that does not present some risk. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards.

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources. In addition, the U.S. EPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.

The 2007 U.S. EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 145 percent, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050. California maintains stricter standards for clean fuels and emissions compared to the national standards, therefore it is expected that MSAT trends in California will decrease consistent with or more than the U.S. EPA's national projections.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (CARB, 2005) to provide information to local planners and decision-makers about land use compatibility issues associated with emissions from industrial, commercial and mobile sources of air pollution. The CARB Handbook indicates that mobile sources continue to be the largest overall contributors to the State’s air pollution problems, representing the greatest air pollution health risk to most Californians. The most serious pollutants on a statewide basis include diesel exhaust particulate matter (diesel PM), benzene, and 1,3-butadiene, all of which are emitted by motor vehicles. These mobile source air toxics are largely associated with freeways and high traffic roads. Non-mobile source air toxics are largely associated with industrial and commercial uses. Table Air-3 provides the California Air Resources Board minimum separation recommendations on siting sensitive land uses.

Table Air-3: CARB Minimum Separation Recommendations on Siting Sensitive Land Uses

SOURCE CATEGORY ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Freeways and
High-Traffic Roads
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day.

ATTACHMENT E

SOURCE CATEGORY ADVISORY RECOMMENDATIONS
Distribution
Centers
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other new sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

Rail Yards
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a major service and maintenance rail yard.
• Within one mile of a rail yard, consider possible siting limitations and mitigation approaches.

Ports
• Avoid siting of new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of ports in the most heavily impacted zones. Consult local air districts or the CARB on the status of pending analyses of health risks.

Refineries
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses immediately downwind of petroleum refineries.

Consult with local air districts and other local agencies to determine an appropriate separation.

Chrome Platers • Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a chrome plater.

Dry Cleaners
Using Perchloroethylene
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation.

For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet. For operations with 3 or more machines, consult with the local air district.
• Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with perc dry cleaning operations.

Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gas station (defined as a facility with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.

SOURCES: AIR QUALITY AND LAND USE HANDBOOK: A COMMUNITY HEALTH PERSPECTIVE” (CARB 2005) As discussed in the Stockton General Plan EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, Impact AQ-5, pp. 4.3- 40 through 4.3-43), implementation of the proposed General Plan would not have the potential to substantially increase CO hotspots at intersections in the vicinity of the EIR Study Area.

Similarly, impacts related to permitted stationary sources of TACs are considered less than significant. However, health risk impacts from non-permitted sources associated with development of industrial and commercial land uses are considered significant. The proposed Project consists of the development of 2,241 single-family residences and does not include any land uses that would generate notable sources of TACs. Since the proposed Project would not generate a significant risk of public exposure to TACs and would not result in change from land use and density designation proposed for the Project site in the General Plan, it would not result in substantially greater impact than that evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and the proposed Project would continue to have a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, as concluded in the General Plan EIR.

Response d): Operation of the proposed Project would not generate notable odors. The land uses included in the proposed Project are compatible with the surrounding existing and proposed land uses. People in the immediate vicinity of construction activities may be subject to temporary odors typically associated with construction activities (diesel exhaust, hot asphalt, etc.).

ATTACHMENT E
However, any odors generated by construction activities would be minor and would be short and temporary in duration.

Impacts related to operational odors as a result of General Plan buildout were determined to be potentially significant, while impacts related to construction-related odors were determined to be less than significant (See General Plan Draft EIR, Impact AQ-6, pp. 4.3-43 and 4.3-44).

Mitigation Measure AQ-6 would ensure that sources identified by SJVAPCD are mitigated through adherence to an odor control plan and comply with SJVAPCD Rule 4102.

Examples of facilities that are known producers of operational odors include: Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chemical Manufacturing, Sanitary Landfill, Fiberglass Manufacturing, Transfer Station, Painting/Coating Operations (e.g. auto body shops), Composting Facility, Food Processing Facility, Petroleum Refinery, Feed Lot/Dairy, Asphalt Batch Plant, and Rendering Plant. If a project would locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other further analysis may be warranted; however, if a project would not locate receptors and known odor sources in proximity to each other, then further analysis is not warranted. The Project does not propose to locate the proposed residences (i.e., sensitive receptors) near these types of stationary sources, and thus, the Project would not be exposed to odors in the vicinity.

Surrounding land uses generally include vacant agricultural land proposed for development of residential uses, an elementary school, commercial uses, residential uses, and UPRR right-of-way.

Should any of the future residential or park uses generate odors during construction, the odors would be contained within the building envelope and proper ventilation would be provided. The Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to odors as compared with the General Plan EIR.

ATTACHMENT E
IV. BIOLOGICAL 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) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of 2,241 single-family residences and would modify existing habitats through the removal of plant cover on the Project site. There is limited potential for impacts to special status animal or plant species to occur due to the lack of habitat, the existing agricultural uses, and the existing developed lands surrounding the Project site. The following discussion summarizes the pre-field investigation, field survey, and special-status species which may occur in the Project area.

It is noted that the Project is subject to the SJMSCP which will require obtaining coverage for the Project. This would mean that the SJCOG, under authorization from the USFWS and CNDDB would review the Project and issue incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.

ATTACHMENT E
Pre-Field Investigation
Prior to the field investigation, numerous maps, databases, and reports were reviewed including:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Quadrangle
• USGS National Hydrography Data Set
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps • National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey • California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) maps • CNDDB
• CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
• USFWS IPac
• USFWS Official List
Field Survey
The Project site was subject to a field survey by De Novo Principal Biologist Steve McMurtry on April 18, and again on May 9, 2022. The site reconnaissance surveys served several purposes.

First, they served as reconnaissance of the site to establish the existing conditions of the site and to verify information gathered in the pre-field investigation. This included identification of the habitat types, hydrologic features, topography, soil characteristics, and vegetation. The field investigations followed the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2009). Habitat was recorded.

Visibility during each survey was excellent.

Special-Status Species
The following discussion is based on a background search of special-status species that are documented in the CNDDB, the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the USFWS records of listed endangered and threatened species from the IPAC database. The background search was regional in scope and focused on the documented occurrences within the 9- quadrangle (approximately 10 miles) region for the Project site. Table BIO-1 provides a list of special-status plants and Table BIO-2 provides a list of special-status animals. Figure 3.4-2 presents the documented occurrences within a one-mile radius of the Project site.

Table BIO-1: Special-Status Plant Species Which May Occur in Project Area

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA
/
CNPS/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
Alkali milkvetch
Astragalus
tener var.
tener
--/--
/1B.2/Yes
Eastern San Francisco Bay
region, the Delta, and
western San Joaquin Valley
south to the lower Salinas and
San Benito valleys
Grassy alkaline flats and vernally
moist meadows at elevations below
500 ft. March-June.

Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA
/
CNPS/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
Big tarplant
Blepharizoni
a plumosa
--/--
/1B.1/No
San Francisco Bay area with
occurrences in Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Joaquin,
Stanislaus, and Solano
Counties
Valley and foothill grassland; 30-505
m. July-Oct.

Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Bolander's
waterhemlock
Cicuta
maculata
var.
bolanderi
--/--
/2B.1/No
Marin, Solano, Contra Costa,
Sacramento, and San Joaquin
Counties
Marshes and swamps. In fresh or
brackish water. 0-20 m. July-Sept.

Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.
bristly sedge
Carex
comosa
--/--
/2B.1/Yes
Scattered occurrences
throughout California; Oregon
and Washington
Coastal prairie, marshes and
swamps at lake margins, valley and
foothill grassland; below 625 m
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Delta
mudwort
Limosella
australis
--/--/2B.1/
Yes
Found in Contra Costa
County, Sacramento County,
San Joaquin County, and
Solano County.

Riparian scrub, marshes and
swamps. Usually on mud banks of
the Delta in marshy or scrubby
riparian associations; often with
Lilaeopsis masonii. 0-5 m. May-Aug.

Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Delta tule
pea
Lathyrus
jepsonii var.
jepsonii
--/--
/1B.2/Yes
Found mainly in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta and has been
documented in Contra Costa,
Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Solano, Napa, and Alameda
Counties
Marshes and swamps. In freshwater
and brackish marshes. Often found
with Typha, Aster lentus, Rosa
californica, Juncus spp., Scirpus, etc.

Usually on marsh and slough edges.
0-5 m. May-Jul(Aug-Sep)
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Heartscale
Atriplex
cordulata
var.
cordulata
--/--
/1B.2/Yes
Central Valley and interior
valleys of the Coast Range
from Butte to Kern counties.

Saline or alkaline sandy soils in
grassland or saltbush scrub. MarchOctober
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.
legenere
Legenere
limosa
--/--
/1B.1/Yes
Central Valley or primarily
located in the lower
Sacramento Valley, also from
north Coast Ranges, San
Joaquin Valley, and the Santa
Cruz Mountains
Deep, seasonally wet habitats such
as vernal pools, ditches, marsh
edges, and riverbanks; below 150
m. April-June
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Mason's
lilaeopsis
Lilaeopsis
masonii
--
/R/1B.1/Y
es
Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta and nearby shores of
San Francisco Bay
Marshes and swamps, riparian
scrub. Tidal zones, in muddy or silty
soil formed through river deposition
or river bank erosion. In brackish or
freshwater. 0-10 m. Apr-Nov.

Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Palmatebracted
bird's-beak
Chloropyron
palmatum
E/E/1B.1/
Yes
Scattered locations in Fresno
and Madera counties in the
San Joaquin Valley, San
Joaquin, Yolo, and Colusa
counties in the Sacramento
Valley, and the Livermore
Valley area of Alameda
County
Saline-alkaline soils in seasonallyflooded lowland plains and basins at elevations of less than 500 feet.

May-October
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED./CA
/
CNPS/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION HABITAT AND BLOOMING PERIOD

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
Recurved
larkspur
Delphinium
recurvatum
--/--
/1B.2/Yes
Central Valley from Colusa to
Kern Counties
Alkaline soils in saltbush scrub,
cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland; 3-750 m. MarchMay.

Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Saline clover
Trifolium
hydrophilum
--/--
/1B.2/No
Eastern and Northern San
Francisco Bay region, the
Delta, western San Joaquin
Valley, southern San Jose
Marshes and swamps, Valley and
foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline),
and Vernal pools. April-June
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

San Joaquin
spearscale
Extriplex
joaquinana
--/--
/1B.2/Yes
Delta region, central valley
and central coast
Alkaline. Chenopod scrub, Meadows
and seeps, Playas, Valley and
foothill grassland. April-October
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Sanford's
arrowhead
Sagittaria
sanfordii
--/--
/1B.2/Yes
Butte, Del Norte, El Dorado,
Fresno, Merced, Mariposa,
Marin, Napa, Orange, Placer,
Sacramento, San Bernardino,
Shasta, San Joaquin, Solano,
Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, and
Yuba Counties
Marshes and swamps. In standing
or slow-moving freshwater ponds,
marshes, and ditches. 0-605 m.

May-Oct(Nov)
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.
sideflowering
skullcap
Scutellaria
lateriflora
--/--
/2B.2/Yes
Northern San Joaquin Valley,
east of the Sierra Nevada,
Inyo and San Joaquin
Counties; New Mexico,
Oregon, and elsewhere
Mesic meadows, marshes and
swamps; below 500 m
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.
succulent
owl's-clover
Castilleja
campestris
var.
succulenta
T/E/1B.2/
Yes
Solano, Stanislaus, Merced,
Madera, and Fresno Counties
Vernal pools. Moist places, often in
acidic soils. 20-705 m. April-May.

Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Suisun
Marsh aster
Symphyotric
hum lentum
--/--
/1B.2/Yes
Contra Costa, Napa,
Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Solano, and Yolo Counties
Marshes and swamps (brackish and
freshwater). Most often seen along
sloughs with Phragmites, Scirpus,
blackberry, Typha, etc. 0-15 m.
(Apr)May-Nov
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Watershield
Brasenia
schreberi
--/--
/2B.3/No
Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado,
Fresno, Kern, Lake, Lassen,
Mendocino, Merced, Nevada,
Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta,
Sierra, Siskiyou, San Joaquin,
Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama,
Trinity, Tulare, and Tuolumne
Counties
Freshwater marshes and swamps.

Aquatic known from water bodies
both natural and artificial in
California. 1-2180 m. Jun-Sep
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

Woolly rosemallow
Hibiscus
lasiocarpos
var.
occidentalis
--/--
/1B.2/No
Central Valley of California, as
well as populations in eastern
North America
All along the waterways of the
Delta. June-September
Not Present. Not
observed during
field survey. No
appropriate habitat.

SOURCES: CNDDB, 2024; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2024.

NOTES: CNPS = CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY; SJMSCP = SAN JOAQUIN MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN FEDERAL: E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT; T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

ATTACHMENT E
STATE: E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:
1B = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE. 2 = RARE, THREATENED, OR ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA, BUT MORE COMMON ELSEWHERE. .1 = SERIOUSLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (OVER 80% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED-HIGH DEGREE AND IMMEDIACY OF THREAT). .2 = FAIRLY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (20-80% OCCURRENCES THREATENED). .3 = NOT VERY ENDANGERED IN CALIFORNIA (<20% OF OCCURRENCES THREATENED).

Table BIO-2: Special-Status Animal Species Which May Occur in Project Area

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION

INVERTEBRATES
American bumble
bee
Bombus
pensylvanicus
--/--/No Southern Arizona, New
Mexico, and California
Long-tongued; forages on a
wide variety of flowers
including vetches (Vicia),
clovers (Trifolium), thistles
(Cirsium), sunflowers
(Helianthus), etc. Nests
above ground under long
grass or underground.

Queens overwinter in rotten
wood or underground.

Not Present.

Appropriate
habitat is not
present.

Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
--/C/No Central California south
to Baja California del
Norte, Mexico, and
includes coastal areas
east to the edges of the
deserts and the Central
Valley
Open grassland and scrub Not Present.

Appropriate
habitat is not
present.
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
T/--/Yes Stream side habitats
below 3,000 feet
throughout the Central
Valley
Riparian and oak savanna
habitats with elderberry
shrubs; elderberries are the
host plant.

Not Present.

Appropriate
habitat is not
present.

California linderiella
Linderiella
occidentalis
--/--/No Ranges from near
Redding in the north to as
far south as Fresno
County, mainly to the
east of the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers
Natural, and artificial,
seasonally ponded habitat
types including: vernal
pools, swales, ephemeral
drainages, stock ponds,
reservoirs, ditches, backhoe
pits, and ruts caused by
vehicular activities
Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

Midvalley fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
mesovallensis
--/--/Yes Have been found in
Sacramento, Solano, Yolo,
Contra Costa, San
Joaquin, Madera, Merced
and Fresno counties. The
increase of known
locations lends additional
support to the idea that
the range and distribution
of midvalley fairy shrimp
is greater than the
distribution of known
occurrences.

Shallow ephemeral pools,
vernal swales, and various
artificial ephemeral wetland
habitats.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
T/--/Yes Central Valley, central
and south Coast Ranges
from Tehama County to
Santa Barbara County.

Isolated populations also
in Riverside County
Common in vernal pools;
they are also found in
sandstone rock outcrop
pools.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
E/--/Yes Shasta County south to
Merced County
Vernal pools and ephemeral
stock ponds.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.
western ridged
mussel
Gonidea angulata
--/--/No Extirpated throughout
their original range in
California, particularly in
southern California and
the Central Valley. They
have also been extirpated
from many sites in the
Snake and Columbia
watersheds.

Primarily creeks and rivers
and less often lakes.

Originally in most of state,
now extirpated from Central
and Southern California.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

AMPHIBIANS
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense (A.
tigrinum c.)
T/SSC/Yes Central Valley, including
Sierra Nevada foothills,
up to approximately
1,000 feet, and coastal
region from Butte County
south to northeastern
San Luis Obispo County.

Small ponds, lakes, or vernal
pools in grass-lands and oak
woodlands for larvae;
rodent burrows, rock
crevices, or fallen logs for
cover for adults and for
summer dormancy.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.
foothill yellowlegged frog - south
Sierra DPS
Rana boylii pop. 5
PE/E/Yes Occurs in the Klamath,
Cascade, north Coast,
south Coast, Transverse,
and Sierra Nevada Ranges
up to approximately
6,000 feet
Creeks or rivers in
woodland, forest, mixed
chaparral, and wet meadow
habitats with rock and
gravel substrate and low
overhanging vegetation
along the edge. Usually
found near riffles with rocks
and sunny banks nearby.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.
western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
--/SSCC/Yes Found along the coast
and coastal mountain
ranges of California from
Marin County to San
Diego County and in the
Sierra Nevada from
Tehama County to Fresno
County
Permanent and semipermanent aquatic habitats,
such as creeks and coldwater ponds, with emergent
and submergent vegetation.

May estivate in rodent
burrows or cracks during dry
periods.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

BIRDS
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
BCC/SSC/Yes Lowlands throughout
California, including the
Central Valley,
northeastern plateau,
southeastern deserts, and
coastal areas. Rare along
south coast
Level, open, dry, heavily
grazed or low stature
grassland or desert
vegetation with available
burrows
Potentially Present.

Nesting and
foraging habitat is
present on the
Project site. No
nests were located
on the Project site.

California black rail --/T(FP)/Yes Permanent resident in the San Francisco Bay and
east-ward through the
Tidal salt marshes
associated with heavy
growth of pickleweed; also
Known to occur in
the region. No
appropriate

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
Delta into Sacramento
and San Joaquin
Counties; small
populations in Marin,
Santa Cruz, San Luis
Obispo, Orange,
Riverside, and Imperial
Counties
occurs in brackish marshes
or freshwater marshes at
low elevations
nesting habitat.

Limited foraging
habitat associated
with the irrigation
ditches. Low
possibility for
presence.

Least Bell's vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
E/E/No Central Valley of
California and other lowelevation river valleys.

Dense brush, mesquite,
willow-cottonwood forest,
streamside thickets, and
scrub oak.

Known to occur in
the region. No
appropriate
nesting habitat.

Limited foraging
habitat associated
with the irrigation
ditches. Low
possibility for
presence.

Song sparrow
(Modesto
Population)
Melospiza melodia
BCC/SSC/Yes Restricted to California,
where it is locally
numerous in the
Sacramento Valley,
Sacramento–San Joaquin
River Delta, and northern
San Joaquin Valley. Exact
boundaries of range
uncertain.

Found in emergent
freshwater marshes
dominated by tules (Scirpus
spp.) and cattails (Typha
spp.) as well as riparian
willow (Salix spp.) thickets.

They also nest in riparian
forests of Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) with a
sufficient understory of
blackberry (Rubus spp.),
along vegetated irrigation
canals and levees, and in
recently planted Valley Oak
restoration sites.

Known to occur in
the region. No
appropriate
nesting habitat.

Limited foraging
habitat associated
with the irrigation
ditches.

Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
BCC/T/Yes Lower Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valleys, the
Klamath Basin, and Butte
Valley. Highest nesting
densities occur near Davis
and Woodland, Yolo
County
Nests in oaks or
cottonwoods in or near
riparian habitats. Forages in
grasslands, irrigated
pastures, and grain fields
Known to occur in
the region.

Potential nesting
and foraging
habitat present
within Project area.

Observed foraging
over the Project
site.

Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
BCC/C
(SSC)/Yes
Permanent resident in
the Central Valley from
Butte County to Kern
County. Breeds at
scattered coastal
locations from Marin
County south to San
Diego County; and at
scattered locations in
Lake, Sonoma, and Solano
Counties. Rare nester in
Siskiyou, Modoc, and
Nests in dense colonies in
emergent marsh vegetation,
such as tules and cattails, or
upland sites with
blackberries, nettles,
thistles, and grainfields.

Habitat must be large
enough to support 50 pairs.

Probably requires water at
or near the nesting colony
Known to occur in
the region. No
appropriate
nesting habitat.

Limited foraging
habitat associated
with the irrigation
ditches. Low
possibility for
presence.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
Lassen Counties
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
--/FP/Yes Gulf Coast in Texas and
Mexico and in the valley
and coastal regions of
central and southern
California
Grasslands, marshes, row
crops and alfalfa, where
they hover while foraging
for rodents and insects.

Potentially Present.

Nesting and
foraging habitat is
present on the
Project site. No
nests were located
on the Project site.
yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
--/SSC/Yes Coast range in Del Norte
county, east to Modoc
plateau, south along
coast range to Santa
Barbara and Ventura
counties and along
western slope of Sierra
Nevada south to Kern
county
Riparian plant associations
in close proximity to water.

Also nests in montane
shrubbery in open conifer
forests in Cascades and
Sierra Nevada. Frequently
found nesting and foraging
in willow shrubs and
thickets, and in other
riparian plants including
cottonwoods, sycamores,
ash, and alders.

Known to occur in
the region. No
appropriate
nesting habitat.

Limited foraging
habitat associated
with the irrigation
ditches. Low
possibility for
presence.

FISH
Delta smelt
Hypomesus
transpacificus
T/T/Yes Primarily in the
Sacramento–San Joaquin
Estuary but has been
found as far upstream as
the mouth of the
American River on the
Sacramento River and
Mossdale on the San
Joaquin River; range
extends downstream to
San Pablo Bay.

Occurs in estuary habitat in
the Delta where fresh and
brackish water mix in the
salinity range of 2–7 parts
per thousand.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.
green sturgeon -
southern DPS
Acipenser
medirostris pop. 1
T/--/Yes Spawns in the
Sacramento, Feather and
Yuba Rivers. Presence in
upper Stanislaus and San
Joaquin Rivers may
indicate spawning.

Spawning site fidelity. Nonspawning adults occupy
marine/estuarine waters.

Delta Estuary is important
for rearing juveniles.

Spawning occurs primarily in
cool (11-15 C) sections of
mainstem rivers in deep
pools (8-9 meters) with
substrate containing small
to medium sized sand,
gravel, cobble, or boulder.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

Longfin smelt
Spirinchus
thaleichthys
--/SSC/Yes Occurs in estuaries along
the California coast.

Adults concentrated in
Suisun, San Pablo, and
North San Francisco Bays.

Prior to spawning, these fish
aggregate in deepwater
habitats available in the
northern Delta, including,
primarily, the channel
habitats of Suisun Bay and
the Sacramento River.

Spawning occurs in fresh
water on the San Joaquin
River below Medford Island
Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
and on the Sacramento
River below Rio Vista.

Sacramento splittail
Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus
--/SSC/Yes Sacramento splittail are
found only in California's
Central Valley. Currently
largely confined to: (1)
the Delta, (2) Suisun Bay,
(3) Suisun Marsh, (4)
Napa River, (5) Petaluma
River, and (6) other parts
of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Estuary.

Adults require flooded
vegetation for spawning and
rearing, and are often found
in areas subject to flooding.

Spawning occurs on
submerged vegetation in
temporarily flooded upland
and riparian habitat.

Spawning occurs in the
lower reaches of rivers,
bypasses used for flood
management, dead-end
sloughs and in larger sloughs
such as Montezuma Slough.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

Steelhead - Central
Valley DPS
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
11 T/--/No From Russian River, south
to Soquel Creek and to,
but not including, Pajaro
River. Also San Francisco
and San Pablo Bay basins.

Aquatic, flowing waters.

Populations in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin
rivers and their tributaries.

Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

MAMMALS
Riparian brush
rabbit
Sylvilagus bachmani
riparius
E/E/Yes Limited to San Joaquin
County at Caswell State
Park near the confluence
of the Stanislaus and San
Joaquin Rivers and
Paradise Cut area on
Union Pacific right-of-way
lands
Native valley riparian
habitats with large clumps
of dense shrubs, lowgrowing vines, and some tall
shrubs and trees
Not Present. No
appropriate
habitat.

REPTILES
Giant garter snake
Thamnophis couchi
gigas
T/T/Yes Central Valley from the
vicinity of Burrel in Fresno
County north to near
Chico in Butte County;
has been extirpated from
areas south of Fresno
Sloughs, canals, low gradient
streams and freshwater
marsh habitats where there
is a prey base of small fish
and amphibians; they are
also found in irrigation
ditches and rice fields;
requires grassy banks and
emergent vegetation for
basking and areas of high
ground protected from
flooding during winter.

Aquatic habitat is
present in the
irrigation ditches
within the Project
site. The upland
areas on the
Project site are not
expected to serve
as habitat given
that they are
regularly disturbed
in association with
the agricultural
operations.
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
--/SSC/Yes Occurs from the Oregon
border of Del Norte and
Siskiyou Counties south
along the coast to San
Francisco Bay, inland
through the Sacramento
Valley, and on the
western slope of Sierra
Nevada
Occupies ponds, marshes,
rivers, streams, and
irrigation canals with muddy
or rocky bottoms and with
watercress, cattails, water
lilies, or other aquatic
vegetation in woodlands,
grasslands, and open forests
Potentially Present.

Appropriate
habitat is present
within the
irrigation ditches.

The upland areas
on the Project site
are not expected
to serve as habitat

ATTACHMENT E

SPECIES
STATUS
(FED/CA/

SJMSCP)

GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

PRESENCE

DETERMINATION
given that they are
regularly disturbed
in association with
the agricultural
operations.

SOURCES: CNDDB, 2024; DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP, 2024.

NOTE: SJMSCP = SAN JOAQUIN MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN STATUS EXPLANATIONS:

FEDERAL
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

PE = PROPOSED ENDANGERED UNDER THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

BCC = BIRD OF CONSERVATION CONCERN.

STATE
E = ENDANGERED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

T = THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

C = CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR LISTING UNDER THE STATE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT.

FP = FULLY PROTECTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE.

SSC = SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN CALIFORNIA.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to the biological resources of the City of Stockton because of the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included development impacts to special-status species, species of concern, non-listed species, biological communities, and migratory wildlife corridors (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.4-22 through 4.4-28). General Plan includes policies and actions that encourage the protection and conservation of biological resources and require compliance with rules and regulations protecting biological resources.

As the General Plan Land Use Plan identified the Project site for Low Density residential development, the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan’s adopted vision and land uses designated on the Project site, and would not result in any new or substantially 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 4.4 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 EIR did not identify any mitigation measures, but the General Plan included policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts to biological resources. The following are General Plan policies presented in the General Plan EIR relative to this environmental topic:
• Actions LU-5.1.A through LU-5.1.C require projects to provide open space; direct the City to protect, preserve, and improve riparian corridors; and require native and droughttolerant plants in landscape plans. These actions will minimize conversion of habitat by requiring open space in new development and preservation of riparian corridors, and they will ensure that plants used in landscaping provide habitat for native plants and animals, including special status species.

ATTACHMENT E
• Actions LU-5.2.A through LU-5.2.C direct the City to continue to comply with the terms of the SJMSCP; require biological assessments for projects on or within 100 feet of sites that have the potential to contain special-status species or critical or sensitive habitats, and if sensitive biological resources are present, require the project to avoid or mitigate impacts; and require new development to implement best practices to protect biological resources including incidental take minimization measures and other federal and State requirements and recommendations, that are consistent with the SJMSCP. These actions will ensure that the City continues to protect critical habitat areas through the SJMSCP.

When considering development applications, these actions will ensure that any special status species or critical or sensitive habitats are identified for project-specific avoidance or mitigation, and they ensure that construction activity for such development protects sensitive resources throughout the construction period. • Action LU-5.3.C maintains an agricultural conservation program by which the City will mitigate the loss of agricultural lands, some of which provide habitat to special status species.
• Action LU-5.2.B would require baseline assessments to be prepared by a qualified biologist for any project on or within 100 feet of a site with the potential to contain special status species or critical or sensitive habitats, and if such species or habitat are found, to avoid or mitigate potential impacts.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Response a): The Project site is primarily leveled agricultural fields farmed in row crops that are biologically unremarkable. Due to a lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that special-status plants occur on the Project site. No special-status wildlife species were observed on the Project site and few are expected to occur on the Project site on more than a very occasional or transitory basis.

The site is not in designated critical habitat of any federally listed species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2024) was searched prior to the field survey. The CNDDB search included the USGS 7.5-minute following topographic quadrangles: Thornton, Lodi North, Lockeford, Terminous, Lodi South, Waterloo, Holt, Stockton West, and Stockton East. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC Trust Report of Federally Threatened and Endangered species that may occur in or be affected by projects in the project’s geographical area was also reviewed. This information was used to identify wildlife and plant species that have been previously documented in the Project vicinity or have the potential to occur based on suitable habitat and geographical distribution. Habitats on the Project site are highly disturbed from intensive farming for decades and periodic disking and tilling of portions of the site for several years. The fields on the site were being farmed in various vegetable crops. Ruderal grassland vegetation on the Project site is primarily constrained to the outer edges of the vegetable fields on the Project site.

Special-Status Plants
Special-status plants generally occur in relatively undisturbed areas in vegetation communities such as vernal pools, marshes and swamps, seasonal wetlands, riparian scrub, and areas with unusual soils. All special-status plants in area occur in habitat types that do not occur on the

ATTACHMENT E
Project site. The site contains ruderal grassland species that is routinely disked and the site has been historically farmed for decades and is not suitable for special-status plants. No specialstatus plants or potentially suitable habitat for special-status plants are observed on the Project site. Due to lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that special status plants occur in the Project site.

Human settlement has involved a high frequency of ground disturbance associated with the historical farming activities in the region, including the Project site. Therefore, the Project site does not contain suitable habitat for special-status plant species. Implementation of the proposed Project the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to special-status plant species as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Special-Status Wildlife
Special-status wildlife species recorded within two miles of the Project site in the CNDDB (2024) query include burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, California linderiella, midvalley fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, giant garter snake, and Central Valley steelhead. While the Project site may have provided habitat for several of the special-status wildlife species at some time in the past, intensive farming and development have substantially modified natural habitats in the greater Project vicinity, including those in the Project site.

Invertebrates. There are eight (8) special-status invertebrates that are documented within the nine (9)-quadrangle region for the Project site according to the CNDDB, including: American bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), Midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), and western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata).

As noted previously, the Project site is predominantly comprised of agricultural and undeveloped uses. According to the CNDDB records search, there are no documented or observed specialstatus invertebrate species on the Project site. Additionally, appropriate habitat for the specialstatus invertebrates in the 9-quadrangle region were not observed within the Project site during the field survey and none are expected to be affected by the proposed Project.

Reptiles and Amphibians. There are two (2) special-status amphibians and two (2) special-status reptiles that are documented within the nine (9)-quadrangle area for the Project site according to the CNDDB, including: Giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi gigas), Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and western spadefoot (Spea hammondii). The Giant garter snake, California tiger salamander, and western spadefoot are covered species under the SJMSCP; the Northern California legless lizard is not covered.

Giant garter snake is a state and federal threatened species. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for this species is located approximately 1.75 miles northwest of the Project site. There is some limited habitat for this species within the irrigation ditches located on the Project site. It is noted

ATTACHMENT E
that this species was not observed during the field survey and has not been documented on the Project site. It is noted that the Project is subject to the SJMSCP which will require obtaining coverage for the Project. This would mean that the SJCOG, under authorization from the USFWS and CNDDB would review the Project and issue incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered specialstatus species. Full coverage under the SJMSCP is included in Project Requirement 1.

Northern California legless lizard is a Species of Special Concern. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for this species is located approximately 21.9 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project site does not contain adequate habitat for Northern California legless lizard. This species was not observed during the field survey and has not been documented on the Project site. Based on field survey, this species is not present.

California tiger salamander is a Species of Special Concern and federal threatened species. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for this species is located approximately 5.3 miles south of the Project site. The Project site does not contain adequate estivation habitat for this species because of the frequency of disturbance associated with the agricultural activities. The irrigation ditches have limited water during the non-irrigation season, which coincides with the breeding season. This means that the irrigation ditches have very limited potential to serve as aquatic habitat for this species. This species was not observed and has not been documented on the Project site. This species is not anticipated to be present due to the lack of adequate habitat. It is noted that the Project is subject to the SJMSCP which will require obtaining coverage for the Project. This would mean that the SJCOG, under authorization from the USFWS and CNDDB would review the Project and issue incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species. Full coverage under the SJMSCP is included in Project Requirement 1.

Western spadefoot toad is a Species of Special Concern. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for this species is located approximately 6.7 miles south of the Project site. The Project site does not contain appropriate and adequate habitat for western spadefoot. This species was not observed during the field survey and has not been documented on the Project site.

Western pond turtle is a Species of Special Concern. Appropriate habitat for this species is present within the irrigation ditches. The upland areas on the Project site are not expected to serve as habitat given that they are regularly disturbed in association with the agricultural operations.

This species was not observed during the field survey and has not been documented on the Project site.

Birds. There are eight (8) special-status birds that are documented in the CNDDB within the nine (9)-quadrangle area for the Project site according to the CNDDB, including: Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), Least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), Song sparrow (Modesto Population) (Melospiza melodia), Swainson’s hawk

ATTACHMENT E
(Buteo swainsoni), Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), and Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus). All of these bird species, except for Least bell’s vireo, are covered species under the SJMSCP.

Potential nesting habitat is present in a variety of trees located within the Project site and in the vicinity. There is also the potential for other special-status birds that do not nest in this region and represent migrants or winter visitants to forage on the Project site.

Year-round birds: Special-status birds that can be present in the region throughout the year include: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), song sparrow (Modesto population) (Melospiza melodia), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), and Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), among others. Some of these species are migratory, but also reside year-round in California.

Summering Birds: The only special-status bird listed in the CNDDB search that is only present in the region in the spring and summer months is Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus).

Nesting Raptors (Birds of Prey): All raptors (owls, hawks, eagles, falcons), including species and their nests, are protected from take pursuant to the Fish and Game Code of California Section 3503.5, and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, among other federal and State regulations.

Special-status raptors that are known to occur in the region include: Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), among others.

Analysis: Powerlines and trees located in the region represent potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of special-status birds. Additionally, the agricultural land represents potentially suitable nesting habitat for some ground-nesting birds. In general, most nesting occurs from late February and early March through late July and early August, depending on various environmental conditions. The CNDDB currently contains records for Swainson's hawk, burrowing owl, and tricolored blackbird in the vicinity of the Project site. In addition to the species described above, common raptors, may nest in or adjacent to the Project site.

New sources of noise and light during the construction and operational phases of the Project could adversely affect nesters if they located adjacent to the Project site in any given year.

Additionally, the proposed Project would eliminate the agricultural areas on the Project site, which serve as potential foraging habitat for birds throughout the year.

As per Project Requirement 1, the Project would be required to participate in the SJMSCP. As part of the SJMSCP, SJCOG requires preconstruction surveys for projects that initiate grading activities during the avian breeding season (March 1 – August 31). When active nests are identified, the biologists develop buffer zones around the active nests as deemed appropriate until the young have fledged. SJCOG also uses the fees to purchase habitat as compensation for the loss of foraging habitat.

ATTACHMENT E
Additionally, pursuant to the SJMSCP, if construction is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (i.e., between February 15 through August 31), and Swainson’s hawks are nesting in or near the Project site, a construction setback of twice the diameter of the drip-line of the nest tree (as measured from under the nest) would be required until nesting is complete. The implementation of Project Requirement 2 would ensure that Swainson’s hawks are not impacted during construction activities. The implementation of Project Requirements 1and 2 would ensure that the Project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources.

Further, if burrow habitat for burrowing owl becomes available in the future, this species may utilize habitats in the Project site for nesting. Pursuant to the SJMSCP, if construction is scheduled to commence outside the nesting season (i.e., if construction starts between September 1 and January 31) and burrowing owls are present on-site, they can be passively relocated. If construction commences during the nesting season and burrowing owls are present on-site, a 250-foot construction setback from the natal burrow would be required until nesting is complete.

The implementation of Project Requirement 3 would ensure that burrowing owls are not impacted during construction activities. The implementation of Project Requirements 1 and 3 would ensure that the Project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources.

Lastly, pursuant to the SJMSCP, if construction is scheduled to commence during the nesting season (i.e., between February 15 through September 15), and white-tailed kites are nesting in or near the Project site, a construction setback of a 100-foot construction setback from the nest would be required until nesting is complete. The implementation of Project Requirement 4 would ensure that white-tailed kites are not impacted during construction activities. The implementation of Project Requirements 1 and 4 would ensure that the Project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources.

Mammals. There is one (1) special-status mammal that is documented within the nine (9)- quadrangle area for the Project site. Riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) is a covered species under the SJMSCP.

Riparian brush rabbit: This species is a state and federal endangered species. The Project site does not contain appropriate habitat for riparian brush rabbit. This species was not observed during the field survey and has not been documented on the Project site. The nearest CNDDB occurrence for this species is located approximately 11.3 miles northwest of the Project site. Regardless, the Project is subject to the SJMSCP which will require obtaining coverage for the Project. This would mean that the SJCOG, under authorization from the USFWS and CNDDB would review the Project and issue incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Full coverage under the SJMSCP is included in Project Requirement 1.

ATTACHMENT E
Fish. There are five (5) special-status fish that are documented within the nine (9)-quadrangle area for the Project site, including: Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), green sturgeon - southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris pop. 1), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus), and Steelhead - Central Valley DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 11).

Of the five (5) documented species, there are three (3) federal listed species (threatened) and three (3) state listed species (Species of Special Concern and threatened). Four (4) of the five (5) fish species are covered by the SJMSCP, while the remaining species is not covered (Steelhead - Central Valley DPS).

The Project site does not include appropriate habitat for any of these species. No special-status fish were observed within the Project site during the field survey.

Conclusion
The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special-status plants and animals, including habitat. The City of Stockton General Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to protect special-status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. Additionally, the Project would be subject to the requirements set forth by the SJMSCP. Implementation of the General Plan policies and actions, local plans and regulations, as well as Federal and State regulations, would ensure that the Project impacts remain less than significant would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to these species as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement 1: Prior to commencement of any grading activities, the Project proponent shall seek coverage under the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP) to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered special status species. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status species. These fees are used to preserve and/or create habitat in preserves to be managed in perpetuity. Obtaining coverage for a Project includes incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.

Project Requirement 2: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the Project site, the Project applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawks. If no hawks or hawk nests are detected, then construction activities may commence. If Swainson’s hawks or occupied nests are discovered, then the following shall be implemented:

ATTACHMENT E
• During the nesting season (February 15 through August 31) and Swainson’s hawks are nesting in or near the Project site, a construction setback of 250 feet of the nest tree (as measured from under the nest) would be required until nesting is complete.

This requirement is consistent with the incidental take and minimization measures (ITMMs) outlined in the SJMSCP. Implementation of this requirement shall occur prior to grading or site clearing activities. SJCOG shall be responsible for monitoring and a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys as required.

Project Requirement 3: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the Project site, the Project applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls. If no owls or owl nests are detected, then construction activities may commence. If burrowing owls or occupied nests are discovered, then the following shall be implemented:
• During the nesting season (February 1 and August 31) and burrowing owls are present onsite, a 250-foot construction setback from the natal burrow would be required until nesting is complete.
• Outside the nesting season (September 1 and January 31) burrowing owls occupying the Project site should be evicted from the Project site by passive relocation as described in the California Department of Fish and Game’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owls (Oct., 1995) These requirements are consistent with the incidental take and minimization measures (ITMMs) outlined in the SJMSCP. Implementation of this requirement shall occur prior to grading or site clearing activities. SJCOG shall be responsible for monitoring and a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys and relocate owls as required.

Project Requirement 4: Prior to the commencement of grading activities or other ground disturbing activities on the Project site, the Project applicant shall arrange for a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for white-tailed kites. If no kites or kite nests are detected, then construction activities may commence. If white-tailed kite or occupied nests are discovered, then the following shall be implemented:
• During the nesting season (February 15 through September 15) occupied nests shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a 100-foot construction setback 100-foot construction setback from the nest would be required until nesting is complete.

Response b): The CNDDB record search revealed documented occurrences of four sensitive habitats within the nine-quadrangle area for the Project site: Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Great Valley Valley Oak Riparian Forest, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool, and Valley Oak

ATTACHMENT E
Woodland. Based on the field surveys conducted by De Novo, these sensitive natural communities do not occur within the Project site. Additionally, the Project site does not contain riparian habitat. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Response c): A wetland is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. State and federal agencies regulate these habitats and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that a permit be secured prior to the discharge of dredged or fill materials into any waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Some jurisdictional waters of the U.S. also fall under the jurisdiction of CDFW and/or the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Wetlands are defined by regulatory agencies as having special vegetation, soil, and hydrology characteristics. Hydrology, or water inundation, is a catalyst for the formation of wetlands.

Frequent inundation and low oxygen causes chemical changes to the soil properties resulting in what is known as hydric soils. The prevalent vegetation in wetland communities consists of hydrophytic plants, which are adapted to areas that are frequently inundated with water.

Hydrophytic plant species can grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and persist in low oxygen soil conditions.

No wetlands or waters of the U.S. or waters of the State have been delineated on the Project site.

The irrigation ditches are manmade agricultural irrigation facilities that are not jurisdictional.

Water flows are controlled by the irrigation district that owns the facilities. There are no other aquatic features. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact on wetlands and jurisdictional waters, and is within the range of impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR for wetlands.

Response d): Impacts related to wildlife corridors and movement of wildlife as a result of General Plan implementation were determined to be less than significant. The General Plan EIR concluded that waterway like Bear Creek could be used as movement corridors by aquatic animals, but General Plan Action SAF-2.4.C and compliance with the federal and state law and regulations would ensure that the impacts remain less-than-significant. (General Plan EIR, p. 4.4-

27.) The CNDDB record search did not reveal any documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is located within a mostly developed area that includes roads, existing residential developments. Thus, with compliance with the General Plan policies and actions and the federal and state regulations, the residential development of the proposed Project is not anticipated to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, development of 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
Response e): The Stockton Municipal Code, Title 16 Development Code protects Heritage Oak Trees through permit requirements. Section 16.130.020 provides the Director with Review Authority for permits to remove heritage trees. The decision of the Director is subject to an appeal to the Council in compliance with Chapter 16.100 (Appeals). (Ord. 015-09 C.S., eff. 12-3-09).

Section 16.130.030 provides the permit requirements, and describes the process for approval or denial of a permit application. Section 16.130.040 establishes fines for violation of this requirement. Section 16.130.050 provides exemptions under emergencies. Section 16.130.060 establishes the replacement requirements.

There are various trees located on the site, mainly along the site border and along agricultural ditches.

Heritage Tree Permit
The City evaluates Heritage Tree impacts pursuant to existing regulations in Chapter 16.130, Heritage Tree Permit, of the City of Stockton Municipal Code. Any removal of Heritage oak trees will require a permit under the specific provisions of Chapter 16.130, Heritage Tree Permit, of the City of Stockton Municipal Code. If removal of the Heritage Trees is required, replacement tree plantings will be required, as specified in the Municipal Code. This is presented as Project Requirement 5 from SJMSCP below. Consistency with the existing ordinance protecting Heritage Trees, as well as the Project Requirements, will ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic, and development of 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 5: If removal of any oak tree on the Project site is required, a certified arborist shall survey the oak trees proposed for removal to determine if they are Heritage Trees as defined in Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 16.130. The arborist report with its findings shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department. If Heritage Trees are determined to exist on the property, removal of any such tree shall require a permit to be issued by the City in accordance with Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 16.130. The permittee shall comply with all permit conditions, including tree replacement at specified ratios.

Responses f): The Project site is located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin County MultiSpecies Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (“Plan” or “SJMSCP”) and is located within the Central Zone of the SJMSCP. The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) prepared the Plan pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding adopted by SJCOG, San Joaquin County, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the CDFW, Caltrans, and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy in October 1994. On February 27, 2001, the Plan was unanimously adopted in its entirety by SJCOG and approved by the USFWS.

According to Chapter 1 of the SJMSCP, its key purpose is to “provide a strategy for balancing the need to conserve open space and the need to convert open space to non-open space uses, while protecting the region's agricultural economy; preserving landowner property rights; providing

ATTACHMENT E
for the long-term management of plant, fish and wildlife species, especially those that are currently listed, or may be listed in the future, under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); providing and maintaining multiple use Open Spaces which contribute to the quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin County; and, accommodating a growing population while minimizing costs to project proponents and society at large.”
In addition to providing compensation for conversion of open space to non-open space uses, which affect plant and animal species covered by the SJMSCP, the SJMSCP also provides some compensation to offset impacts of open space conversions on non-wildlife related resources such as recreation, agriculture, scenic values, and other beneficial open space uses. Specifically, the SJMSCP compensates for conversions of open space to urban development and the expansion of existing urban boundaries, among other activities, for public and private activities throughout the County and within Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy.

Participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary for both local jurisdictions and project applicants. Only agencies adopting the SJMSCP would be covered by the SJMSCP. As noted in the General Plan EIR, the City of Stockton is a plan participant, for the SJMSCP and the proposed General Plan Land Use Action LU-5.2.A directs the City to continue to coordinate with SJCOG and comply with the terms of the SJMSCP. (General Plan, p. 4.4-28.)
Individual project applicants have two options if their project is in a jurisdiction participating in the SJMSCP: mitigating under the SJMSCP or negotiating directly with the state and/or federal permitting agencies. If a project applicant opts for SJMSCP coverage in a jurisdiction that is participating under the SJMSCP, the following options are available, unless their activities are otherwise exempted: pay the appropriate fee; dedicate, as conservation easements or fee title, habitat lands; purchase approved mitigation bank credits; or, propose an alternative mitigation plan.

Responsibilities of permittees covered by the SJMSCP include collection of fees, maintenance of implementing ordinances/resolutions, conditioning permits (if applicable), and coordinating with the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for Annual Report accounting. Funds collected for the SJMSCP are to be used for the following: acquiring Preserve lands, enhancing Preserve lands, monitoring, and management of Preserve lands in perpetuity, and the administration of the SJMSCP. Because the primary goal of SJMSCP is to preserve productive agricultural use that is compatible with SJMSCP’s biological goals, most of the SJMSCP’s Preserve lands would be acquired through the purchase of easements in which landowners retain ownership of the land and continue to farm the land. These functions are managed by SJCOG.

The proposed Project is classified as Urban under the SJMSCP. The proposed Project was analyzed for consistency with the SJMSCP by Principal Biologist Steve McMurtry, De Novo Planning Group, and it was determined that the proposed Project would not conflict with the SJMSCP. The City of Stockton and the Project applicant shall consult with SJCOG to utilize coverage of the Project pursuant to the SJMSCP prior to development of the Project site, as

ATTACHMENT E
provided under Project Requirement 1. The implementation of Project Requirement 1 would 3ensure that the Project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan to protect biological resources. Thus, with implementation of proposed General Plan actions and SJMSHCP and the federal, state and local regulations requiring the survey and mitigation processes for development, if needed, 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. 33 According to the SJMSCP Land Use Map, available here: https://casjcog2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/10/Land-Use-Map-pdf

ATTACHMENT E
V. 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
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
'15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to '15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Project Impacts:

A Cultural Resource Assessment Summary (Peak & Associates, Inc. 2025) has been prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix C), 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 following discussion is based on the Cultural Resource Assessment Summary.

Research
Five resources have been reported in the Project area. One of the sites listed in the Project area is the bridge over Bear Creek on the railroad line, technically outside the Project area (P3900363). Another site records the levees along Bear Creek (P-39-004875).

P-39-004642 is an irrigation system with ten features.

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.

P-39-000005 (CA-39-253) 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.

Additionally, six resources have been found in the 0.25-mile buffer search radius for the Project.

There are six reports for studies within the Project site, 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); (SJ 06843 Busby in 1996 (SJ 6507); Jurich, Martinez and Smith (SJ 6541); and ESA in 2007). Full citations for the reports are included in the Report List in Appendix 2 of Appendix C.

ATTACHMENT E
Project Soils
The Project area contains a mix of two soil types: about 90 percent Jacktone clay and 10 percent 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 to 40 inches as a dark clay, ending on a duripan.

Below the duripan 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 (Appendix D of Appendix C).

The Stockton clay, is 0 to 40 inches clay, with 40 to 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 (Appendix D of Appendix C).

In conclusion, the Project has a high likelihood of containing prehistoric period resources, in particular, below a depth of 5 feet.

Field Assessment
A field survey of the Project site was conducted in April 2022. See Appendix C for additional information regarding the field survey of the Project Site. Only portions of the Project area could be covered due to the dense growth of alfalfa on some pieces, and inundation of stormwater of other portions of the site. This survey was focused on finding the previously recorded sites.

Prehistoric period artifacts were found 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.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts that would occur to historical, 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 archaeological, historical, cultural, and paleontological resources. In particular, prior to development, as part of the permitting process, Action LU-5.2.D requires identification and protection of archaeological resources, including 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

ATTACHMENT E
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
Response a), b), c): As noted previously, Resource 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. According to the Cultural Resource Assessment Summary prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix C), the historic evidence at P-004641 needs to be evaluated under the criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources for its information potential. In-depth historical research needs to be undertaken to identify landowners and the use of the site through time. It appears to be the remains of a farm or ranch. An excavation should then be conducted of the site, and a formal evaluation made of the significance of the resources.

These recommendations are included as part of Project Requirement 6, which incorporates the requirements of the General Plan Action LU-5.2.D and Project Requirements 8 related to discovery of undocumented archeological resources as per the requirements of Section 16.36.050 of the City’s Municipal Code.

There are no known human remains located on the Project site. The Stockton General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. The proposed Project would be subject to all relevant General Plan policies and actions and the Stockton Municipal Code requirements that provide protections for cultural, historical, and tribal resources. The General Plan policies and actions along with the Code requirements provide a framework for ensuring that effects on significant unknown historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources are reduced to the extent feasible. The Project would be subject to all General Plan policies and actions and the Code requirements and is consistent with the development types anticipated under the General Plan and General Plan EIR. Furthermore, in accordance with the City of Stockton General Plan, a cultural resources constraints analysis was prepared for the Project, which included recommendations to be incorporated into the construction of the proposed Project. These recommendations have been incorporated into the following Project requirements. Implementation of the following Project requirements would ensure the potential impacts are less than significant.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement 6: Consistent with the requirements of the General Plan Action LU-5.2.D, prior to the beginning of construction work, subsurface testing of the property shall be completed to determine if any buried sites are located on-site. If findings are made, particularly of human remains, a major archeological data recovery effort shall be required. A discovery excavation shall

ATTACHMENT E
be done with backhoe trenching 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 shall involve a tribal representative from the Northern Valley Yokuts.

Subsurface testing shall be conducted extending to a depth of more than 60 inches to locate the location and extent of the buried sites using trenches or test units as per the recommendations of the Cultural Resources Assessment Summary of the site. The locations of the subsurface testing shall be determined by a qualified archaeologist. These resources may provide information on early man in this region.

Non-invasive testing such as ground penetrating radar or a magnetometer survey are not advised.

There are not likely to be intact burials or subsurface features due to the long-term plowing over the last 175 years, deep ripping, development of orchards as well as other agricultural features such 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.

There is always a possibility that a site may exist in the Project area, and be obscured by vegetation, siltation, or historic activities, leaving no surface evidence, even with testing. As per the requirements of the General Plan Action LU-5.2.F, prior to the beginning of construction work, the developer shall contact an appropriate Tribal representative from the Northern Valley Yokuts 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 Tribal representative from the Northern Valley Yokuts 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 Archaeological Sites would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and a Tribal monitor from the Northern Valley Yokuts if the development cannot avoid an archaeological or paleontological deposit prior to construction.

Project Requirement 7: As per the requirements of California Public Resources Code section 5097.98 and to Section 16.36.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, 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. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5), the San Joaquin County Sheriff/Coroner must be contacted immediately.

The San Joaquin County Coroner shall determine whether the remains are subject to any provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and shall make 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

ATTACHMENT E
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 Coroner determines the remains to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will in turn appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to act as a tribal representative. The MLD will work with the Project proponent/applicant and a qualified archaeologist to determine the proper treatment of the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Construction activities will not resume until either the human remains are exhumed, or the remains are avoided via Project construction design change.

After notification, the NAHC will follow the procedures outlined in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. that include notifications of the 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).

Project Requirement 8: Consistent with Section 16.36.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, if presently undocumented buried archaeological deposits are encountered during construction activities, work must cease within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified archaeologist must be retained to document the discovery, assess its significance, and recommend treatment in accordance with appropriate standards, such as the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Treatment of Archaeological Sites.”

ATTACHMENT E
VI. ENERGY
Significant Impact Peculiar to the Project or the Project Site
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 potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, energy would be used during both the construction phase and during the operational phase of the proposed Project. Energy usage during the construction phase would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment. Construction-related energy usage can vary substantially depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, and types of equipment. Operational energy usage would be generated by electricity use for the onsite facilities and landscaping at the Project site. As described under the Response to Checklist Questions below, energy usage during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed Project would not represent a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan (EIR) evaluated energy impacts in the Utilities chapter in the Energy Conservation section. The General Plan EIR included a host of other adopted regulations that require energy efficiency standards, including:
• Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (CCR): Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards • Title 24, Part 6, CCR: Building Energy Efficiency Standards • Title 24, Part 11, CCR: Green Building Standards Code Consistency with these standards, as well as other applicable city regulations, would ensure energy efficiency to the greatest extent feasible.

Additionally, the General Plan EIR included an analysis of the electricity supplies, natural gas supplies, and energy facilities that would be required for the implementation of the General Plan.

The General Plan EIR found that there are sufficient electricity and natural gas supplies to serve development allowed under the General Plan. In addition, the General Plan includes the following policies and actions that avoid and reduce inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption:

ATTACHMENT E
• Policy LU-5.4: Require water and energy conservation and efficiency in both new construction and retrofits.
• Action LU-5.4.B: Require all new development, including major rehabilitation, renovation, and redevelopment, to incorporate feasible and appropriate energy conservation and green building practices, such as building orientation and shading, landscaping, and the use of active and passive solar heating and water systems. • Action SAF-4.1.A: Require the construction and operation of new development to implement best practices that reduce air pollutant emissions, including through installation of Energy Star-certified appliances.
• Action CH-3.3.C: Continue to work with commtrbia l unity-based organizations that employ local Stockton youth to perform energy efficiency, alternative energy, and water conservation assessments and installations in local homes and businesses.

Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.7 of the General Plan EIR, Air Quality, the proposed General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions that promote energy efficiency from the transportation sector. Specifically, policies and actions under Goals TR-1 and TR-2 encompass multi-modal and active transit improvements, including 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, Policies LU-1.1 and LU-6 would support infill and mixed-use development, which would increase use of alternative transit options (i.e., walking, biking, and public transit) and decrease vehicle trips and the average trip distances traveled.

Furthermore, Policy SAF-4.2 and Action SAF-4.2.A encourages new employers to participate in a transportation demand management program.

Although new and/or expanded transmission and distribution lines and pipelines may be required to serve development allowed by the proposed General Plan, the General Plan EIR found that the estimated timing or location of such required facilities or the exact nature of these facilities are not known, so future project-specific environmental impacts that would occur from their construction and operation cannot be determined at the time of the General Plan EIR.

However, the General Plan EIR identified that such impacts would be specifically associated with physical development projects, and would therefore require permitting and review in accordance with CEQA, which would ensure that any environmental impacts are disclosed and mitigated to the extent possible. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a-b): Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a Project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In

ATTACHMENT E
particular, the proposed Project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The proposed Project includes various characteristics that reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy and reduce energy emissions. For example, the Project would comply with State requirements such as the energy efficiency requirements of the latest version of the California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project is also anticipated to produce on-site solar photovoltaic (PV) for on-site use, also consistent with the latest version of the California Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards.

Moreover, it should be noted that, over time, electrification of the vehicles will increase due to state requirements, and state and national trends. Electric charging infrastructure would be installed on the property to facilitate the conversion of the truck fleet to zero-emission electric trucks as they become available in the market and used for truck deliveries to and from the facility.

The amount of energy used at the Project site would directly correlate to the energy consumption (including fuel) used by vehicle trips generated during Project construction, fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction, fuel used by vehicles during Project operation, and electricity and natural gas usage during Project operation. The following discussion provides a detailed calculation of energy usage expected for the proposed Project, as provided by applicable modelling software (i.e. CalEEMod v2022.1) and the CARB EMFAC2021). Additional assumptions and calculations are provided within Appendix A of this EIR.

ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS
Operation. Electricity and natural gas used by the proposed Project during operation would be used primarily to generate energy for Project buildings, as well as for outdoor parking lot lighting.

As shown in further detail in the CalEEMod modeling outputs provided in Appendix A, “Energy” is one of the categories that was modeled for GHG emissions. As also shown in the CalEEMod modeling outputs as provided in Appendix A, the proposed Project is anticipated to consume approximately 19,106,115 kWh of electricity per year and approximately 65,190,747 kBTU per of natural gas per year.

The proposed Project’s buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings and Green Building Code Standards. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting, are widely regarded as the some of the most advanced

ATTACHMENT E
and stringent building energy efficiency standards in the country. In addition, the on-site solar PV system would meet the State legal requirements. As such, the design of the proposed project would facilitate the future commitment to renewable energy resources. Therefore, building energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Additionally, the proposed Project is anticipated to implement renewable energy features. In particular, the proposed Project would be required to implement on-site solar, consistent with the most recent (2022) Title 24 standards. The 2022 Title 24 standards require single-family homes and low-rise multi-family projects to install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and be “battery-ready”, by installing either a subpanel or a split-bus main panel with four backed-up circuits.4 This is a requirement as part of the 2022 Title 24 standards. However, it should be noted that additional on-site solar PV could be installed, especially in the case that stricter Title 24 standards come into effect prior to portions of Project development.

Separately, the 2022 Title 24 standard requires that the number of electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces depends on the building type and total number of parking spaces on-site. Similarly, such requirements would be anticipated to further reduce energy consumption beyond what is modeled herein.

Construction. Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers inside temporary construction trailers, and water for dust control would be provided by PG&E. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for Project operation, and would therefore have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the Project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed below under the “on-road and off-road vehicles” subsections. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of Project construction would be substantially less than that required for Project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption.

ON-ROAD VEHICLES (OPERATION)
The proposed Project would generate vehicle trips (i.e., passenger vehicles for employees and heavy-duty trucks for hauling) during its operational phase. Compliance with applicable State laws and regulations would limit idling and a part of a comprehensive regulatory framework that is implemented by the CARB. A description of Project operational on-road mobile energy usage is provided below.

According to the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed Project (Barrios Transportation Consulting, 2024), the proposed Project would increase total vehicle trips by approximately 17,633 new daily trips. In order to calculate operational on-road vehicle energy usage, De Novo Planning Group used fleet mix data from the CalEEMod (v.2022.1) output for the proposed Project, and Year 2040 gasoline and diesel MPG (miles per gallon) factors for individual vehicle 4 See: https://calsolarinc.com/news/title-24-california/

ATTACHMENT E
classes as provided by EMFAC2021, to derive weighted average gasoline and diesel MPG factors for the vehicle fleet as a whole. Based on these calculations, as provided in Appendix A, upon full buildout, the proposed Project would generate operational vehicle trips that would use a total of approximately 4,326 gallons of gasoline and 10,774 gallons of diesel per day, or 1,579,036 gallons of gasoline and 3,932,473 gallons of diesel per year. Additionally, the Project would generate operational vehicle trips that require electricity for electric vehicles, which is dependent on the amount of electric vehicles within the vehicle fleet at the time of Project operation.

Over the lifetime of the Project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the Project is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the Project site during operation would decrease over time. Numerous regulations are in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted a new approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the numbers of plug-in hybrids and ZEVs in California. The Project would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes, which would minimize fuel consumption. Operation of the Project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy. The Project would provide a bike-friendly, pedestrianfriendly development and facilitate ride-sharing and carpooling to reduce VMT.

In summary, although Project implementation would result in an increase in petroleum use during construction and operation, over time vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

ON-ROAD VEHICLES (CONSTRUCTION)
The proposed Project would also generate on-road vehicle trips during Project construction (from construction workers and vendors travelling to and from the Project site). De Novo Planning Group estimated the vehicle fuel consumed during these trips based on the assumed construction schedule, vehicle trip lengths and number of workers per construction phase as provided by CalEEMod, and Year 2027 gasoline and diesel MPG factors provided by EMFAC2021 (year 2027 factors were used to represent a conservative analysis, as the energy efficiency of construction activities is anticipated to improve over time). For the sake of simplicity and to be conservative, it was assumed that all construction worker light duty passenger cars and truck trips use gasoline as a fuel source, and all medium and heavy-duty vendor trucks use diesel fuel.

Table ENERGY-1, below, describes gasoline and diesel fuel consumed during each construction phase (in aggregate). As shown, the vast majority of on-road mobile vehicle fuel used during the construction of the proposed Project would occur during the building construction phase. See Appendix A of this CEQA document for a detailed accounting of construction on-road vehicle fuel usage estimates.

ATTACHMENT E
Table ENERGY-1: On-road Mobile Fuel Usage by Project Construction Activities – By Phase

CONSTRUCTION PHASE TOTAL GALLONS OF GASOLINE FUEL(B) TOTAL GALLONS OF DIESEL FUEL(B) Site Preparation 2,271 0
Grading 4,332 0
Building Construction 42,989 31,243
Paving 1,830 0
Architectural Coatings 171,528 0
Total 222,950 31,243
NOTE: (A) PROVIDED BY CALEEMOD OUTPUT. (B)SEE APPENDIX A OF THIS EIR FOR FURTHER DETAIL SOURCE: CALEEMOD (V.2022.1); EMFAC2021.

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT (CONSTRUCTION)
Off-road construction equipment would use diesel fuel during the construction phase of the proposed Project. A non-exhaustive list of off-road constructive equipment expected to be used during the construction phase of the proposed Project includes: forklifts, generator sets, tractors, excavators, and dozers. Based on the total amount of CO2 emissions expected to be generated by the proposed Project (as provided by the CalEEMod output), and standard conversion factors (as provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the proposed Project would use a total of approximately 223,812 gallons of diesel fuel for off-road construction equipment. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix A of this EIR.

State laws and regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are part of a comprehensive regulatory framework that is implemented by the CARB. Additionally, as a practical matter, it is reasonable to assume that the overall construction schedule and process would be designed to be as efficient as feasible in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for further future efficiency gains during construction are limited. For the foregoing reasons, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

CONCLUSION
The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (natural gas and electricity), outdoor lighting (electricity), on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the proposed Project, and off-road and on-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, including through the Project Requirements provided throughout this EIR, as well as through the implementation of statewide and local measures. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy by complying with existing rules and regulations and General Plan goals and policies.

ATTACHMENT E
The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County. For example, buildings developed as part of the proposed Project would be required to comply with the latest version of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24), which require a high degree of energy efficiency for new buildings. The latest version of Title 24 also includes a requirement that approximately 30% of the electricity for the Project’s single-family residences would be supported by on-site rooftop solar PV. Furthermore, the latest version of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards also requires energy efficient appliances for new developments (such as the proposed Project). Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavyduty truck vehicle fleet (e.g., the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), which improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel for any trips that would be generated by the Project. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

It is also noted that 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. By encouraging walking and biking with these provided improvements, the Project promotes multi-modal transportation in order to minimize energy use related to vehicle trips.

The amount of energy used by the proposed Project during operation would include the amount of energy used by the Project building and outdoor lighting, the fuel used by vehicle trips generated during operation, and fuel used by Project maintenance activities during Project operation. Additionally, as shown above, for construction, the proposed Project would not require energy consumption that would be out of the ordinary for a Project of its size and type.

Overall, the proposed Project would not violate any state or federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to Project energy requirements, energy efficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

The General Plan policies and actions provide a framework for ensuring that effects on energy resources and usage are reduced to the extent feasible. The Project would be subject all General Plan Requirements, and is consistent with the development types anticipated under the General Plan and General Plan EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-33). As such, with compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

ATTACHMENT E
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

X
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
Project Impacts:

The proposed Project includes the development of 2,241 single-family residences in a seismically active region. The Project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known surface expressions of active faults are believed to exist within the Project site. The U.S. Geological Survey identifies the potential seismic source within 30 miles of the Project site. Three of the closest known faults classified as active by the California Geological Survey include the Vernalis Fault east of the Tracy, the San Joaquin Fault southeast of

ATTACHMENT E
Tracy, and the Great Valley Thrust Fault System south of Tracy. Other faults that could potentially affect the proposed Project include the Midway Fault, the Midland Fault, the Black Butte Fault, Corral Hollow-Carnegie Fault, the Greenville Fault, and the Foothills Fault System.

Construction of the proposed Project will involve clearing and grading of the Project site, which could render the Project site susceptible to a temporary increase in erosion from the grading and construction activities. Grading and building design must be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the potential impacts due to local soils and geologic conditions that would occur because of the future urban development, such as residential development of the Project site, that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included seismic hazards such as groundshaking and liquefaction, erosion, soil stability, and wastewater conflicts (City of Stockton General Plan Update Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.6-12 through 4.6-15). The analysis found that while development and buildout of the General Plan can result in geological impacts, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of development standards contained in the Stockton Municipal Code, the application of General Plan goals and policies that would assist in minimizing or avoiding geologic hazards and compliance with local, state, and federal standards related to geologic conditions.

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, and goals and policies in the General Plan Safety Element requiring soils and geotechnical reports for new development, enforcement of the building code, and limiting development of severe slopes.

The General Plan EIR determined that impacts due to geologic and seismic conditions were less than significant (pages 4.6-12 through 4.6-15). These impacts were adequately addressed in Chapter 4.6 of the General Plan EIR. The proposed Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a.i), a.ii): The Project site is in an area of moderate to high seismicity. However, no known active faults cross the Project site, and the Project site is not located within an AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Nevertheless, relatively large earthquakes have historically occurred in the Bay Area and along the margins of the Central Valley. Many earthquakes of low magnitude occur every year in California.

Portions of the Great Valley fault are considered seismically active thrust faults; however, since the Great Valley fault segments are not known to extend to the ground surface, the State of California has not defined Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones around the postulated traces. The Great Valley fault is considered capable of causing significant ground shaking at the Project site, but the recurrence interval is believed longer than for more distant, strike-slip faults. Further seismic activity can be expected to continue along the western margin of the Central Valley, and

ATTACHMENT E
as with all projects in the area, the proposed Project will be designed to accommodate strong earthquake ground shaking, in compliance with the applicable California building code standards.

Since there are no known active faults crossing the Project site and the Project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Special Study Zone, the potential for ground rupture at the Project site is considered low.

An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region and along the margins of the central valley could cause considerable ground shaking at the Project site, like that which has occurred in the past. To minimize potential damage to the proposed structures caused by groundshaking, all construction would comply with the latest California Building Code standards, as required by the City of Stockton Municipal Code.

Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead-and-live loads. The code-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the comparable forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage.

Building new structures for human use would increase the number of people exposed to local and regional seismic hazards. Seismic hazards are a significant risk for most property in California.

The City reviews all proposed development projects for consistency with the General Plan policies and California Building Code provisions identified above. This review occurs throughout the project application review and processing stage, and throughout plan check and building inspection phases prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Furthermore, in accordance with the City of Stockton General Plan, a geotechnical report for the Project shall be prepared, which would include earthwork, foundation, and design recommendations to be incorporated into the Project design plans and specifications. Therefore, compliance with federal, state and local regulations, development standards, General Plan policies and implementation of the Project requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to seismic hazards as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Project Requirement(s)
Project Requirement 9: All Project buildings shall be designed in conformance with the current edition of the California Building Code (CBC), as adopted and amended by the City of Stockton.

Project Requirement 10: In accordance with the CBC Section 1803, prior to final design approval and issuance of building permits for each phase of the Project, the Project applicant shall hire a qualified geotechnical engineer to complete a geotechnical report for the Project. The investigation

ATTACHMENT E
shall evaluate and identify onsite soil conditions and identify any site-specific engineering measures to be implemented during the construction of building foundations and subsurface utilities in accordance with the recommendations of the California Geological Survey. Measures shall be recommended by the Project geotechnical consultant and these measures shall be noted on the Project improvement plans.

Project Requirement 11: In accordance with the CBC and Stockton Municipal Code Chapter 15.08, all grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in the Project design.

Response a.iii): Liquefaction normally occurs when sites underlain by saturated, loose to medium dense, granular soils are subjected to relatively high ground shaking. During an earthquake, ground shaking may cause certain types of soil deposits to lose shear strength, resulting in ground settlement, oscillation, loss of bearing capacity, landsliding, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. Most liquefaction hazards are associated with sandy soils, some silty soils of low plasticity, and some gravelly soils. Cohesive soils are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. In general, liquefaction hazards are most severe within the upper 50 feet of the surface, except where slope faces or deep foundations are present.

The City of Stockton General Plan requires geotechnical investigations to be completed prior to approval of any buildings to ensure that these facilities are constructed in a way that mitigates site-specific seismic and/or geological hazards. Any future development would be required to prepare soils investigations to address seismic safety issues and provide adequate mitigation for potential hazards identified, and would be required to comply with all CBC seismic requirements.

The City requires that, prior to development of the Project site, a subsurface geotechnical investigation must be performed to identify onsite soil conditions and identify any site-specific engineering measures to be implemented during the construction of building foundations and subsurface utilities. As noted above, this requirement will be met because a geotechnical investigation which includes recommendations to be incorporated in the design of the Project and implemented during construction is required by Project Requirement 10. Adherence to the engineering requirements contained in the subsurface geotechnical report would ensure that the Project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan. Therefore, compliance with federal, state and local regulations, development standards, General Plan policies and implementation of the Project requirements would ensure that the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to liquefaction as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Response a.iv): The Project site is relatively flat and there are no major slopes in the vicinity of the Project site. As such, the Project site is exposed to little or no risk associated with landslides, and the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of

ATTACHMENT E
previously identified environmental effects related to landslides as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Response b): During the construction preparation process, exposed surfaces could be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. Effects from erosion include impacts on water quality and air quality. Exposed soils that are not properly contained or capped increase the potential for increased airborne dust and increased discharge of sediment and other pollutants into nearby stormwater drainage facilities. Risks associated with erosive surface soils can be reduced by using appropriate controls during construction and properly re-vegetating exposed areas, as required under the existing regulatory requirements, such as implementation of erosion control measures specified in the CBC, Chapter 15.48 of the City of Stockton Municipal Code, and the City’s grading permit process.

In accordance with Chapter 15.48 of the City of Stockton Municipal Code, a grading and erosion control permit shall be required for all construction projects which disturb the soil. Grading plans shall be prepared in conformance with the City's requirements for improvement plans as delineated in Title 16, Development Code and Appendix J, California Building Code. Additionally, construction activities that disturb one acre or more shall provide for effective control of erosion, sediment, and all other pollutants as required in the Construction General Permit. The permit holder shall be responsible for the installation and monitoring of effective erosion and sediment controls. Such controls may be evaluated by the authorized enforcement officer and shall be required to comply with the provisions in Section 15.48.080 of the Municipal Code.

Thus, with compliance with the existing regulatory requirements and the City’s grading permit process, the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

Responses c), d): The potential for the Projectto be exposed to unstable soil conditions resulting from on-or off-site landslide, and liquefaction are discussed above under Responses a.iii, and a.iv., and were found that the Project would not result in any new significant effects or increase the severity of previously identified environmental effects related to landslides as compared with the General Plan EIR.

Lateral Spreading: The geologic conditions conducive to lateral spreading include gentle surface slope (0.3-5% slope), and liquefiable soils, none of which are present on the Project site.

According to the General Plan EIR, the majority of the EIR Study Area does not appear to be located atop unstable geologic materials that are prone to subsidence, lateral spreading, or collapse (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-13). The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

Expansive Soils: Expansive soils shrink/swell when subjected to moisture fluctuations, which could cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to moisture changes in expansive soils could be reduced by appropriate grading practices and using posttensioned slab foundations or similarly stiffened foundation systems which are designed to resist the deflections associated with soil

ATTACHMENT E
expansion. As noted in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the General Plan EIR, all future projects would be required to comply with the provisions of the CBC, which requires development projects to: perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law, and engineer and incorporate improvements to address potential geologic issues. As noted above, as per Project Requirement 10, a geotechnical investigation has been prepared for the proposed Project which includes recommendations to be incorporated in the design of the Project and implemented during construction. Adherence to the engineering requirements contained in the subsurface geotechnical report and compliance with the State and local regulations and standards would ensure that the Project implements the requirements specified in the General Plan. The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

Response e): The Project site would be served by public wastewater facilities and does not require an alternative wastewater system such as septic tanks. Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact on this environmental issue, and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

Response f): The Project site is in an area known to have paleontological resources. The Stockton General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to paleontological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of paleontological resources. For example, General Plan Action LU-5.2.D requires identification and protection of paleontological resources, including through a treatment plan in accordance with appropriate standards where avoidance is not feasible. General Plan Action LU-5.2.D requires that a records search be done at the Central California Information Center, the University of California Museum of Paleontology at Berkeley, and other appropriate repositories to identify cultural resources in a project site.

Additionally, the Stockton Municipal Code requires appropriate evaluation of unanticipated archaeological deposits discovered in the course of ground-disturbance. The proposed Project would be subject to all relevant General Plan policies and actions that provide protections for paleontological resources.

The General Plan policies and actions provide a framework for ensuring that effects on significant unknown paleontological resources are reduced to the extent feasible. The Project would be subject all General Plan Requirements, and is consistent with the development types anticipated under the General Plan and General Plan EIR (See General Plan Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-19). As such, with compliance with the General Plan policies and actions, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than identified in the General Plan EIR.

ATTACHMENT E
XIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
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) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gasses?
X
Project Impacts:

As discussed below, development of the proposed Project will result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operational activities. The proposed Project is allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation and is consistent with the growth assumptions of applicable plans. There is nothing peculiar about the site that presents impacts greater than was anticipated under the General Plan. As discussed below, compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into 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 greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant level.

Prior Environmental Analysis:

The General Plan EIR analyzed the anticipated impacts of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the future urban development that was contemplated by the General Plan. These impacts included direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and compliance with applicable adopted greenhouse gas plans, policies, or regulations resulting from implementation of the General Plan (City of Stockton General Plan Draft EIR, 2018, pages 4.7-28 through 4.7-43). The General Plan EIR concluded that due to the magnitude of growth associated with the buildout of the General Plan, development anticipated by the General Plan could remain substantial and would not contribute to net achievement of the State’s long-term climate stabilization goals. However, implementation of the proposed General Plan policies and actions, combined with application of the Federal and State regulations, the CARB’s Scoping Plan, SJCOG’s RTP/SCS, City of Stockton’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. In addition, findings of fact and a statement of overriding consideration were adopted by the Stockton City Council regarding these impacts.

Background Discussion
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.

ATTACHMENT E
Naturally occurring GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also GHGs, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct GHGs, including CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the preindustrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three GHGs have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC, 2013).

Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

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. Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2021, accounting for 39% of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (22%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (16%) and the agriculture and forestry sector (8%) (California Energy Commission, 2024).

As the name implies, global climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, respectively. California produced approximately 381 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMTCO2e) in 2021 (California Energy Commission, 2024). Given that the U.S. EPA estimates that worldwide emissions from human activities totaled nearly 46 billion gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (BMTCO2e) in 2010, California’s incremental contribution to global GHGs is approximately 2% (U.S. EPA, 2014).

Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
• 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
Appendix A: CalEEMod Results

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

ATTACHMENT E
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Appendix B: IPAC Species List

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E
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
(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
▪
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

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 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

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

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

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

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
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Assessment

ATTACHMENT E
This page left intentionally blank.

ATTACHMENT E

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

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
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.

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
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

McNair High
Clairmont
Elementary
Westwood
Elementary
Ansel Adams

MOSHER SLOUGH

PIXLEY SLOU GH

MOSHER CREEK

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
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

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

MOSHER CREEK

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
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.

City Council and Concurrent AuthoritiesJuly 7, 2026

City Council and Concurrent Authorities
July 7, 2026