Tracy City Council
August 15, 2023

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item is consistent with the Council approved Economic Development Strategy to ensure physical infrastructure necessary for development.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
That City Council, by resolution, approve the First Amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Western Park and Orchard Park in the Ellis Specific Plan area to allocate credit and security amounts as between the Parks and reflect adjustments due to the voi ded Reimbursement Agreement and authorize the City Clerk to file the First Amendment with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office.

Prepared by: Al Gali, Associate Engineer
Reviewed by: Koosun Kim, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Director of Development Services Sara C
owell, Finance Director
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Approved
by: Midori Lichtwardt, Interim City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Attac
hment A – First Amendment to City of Tracy—Subdivision Improvement Agreement— Western and Orchard Parks—Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 Recording Requested By
City of Tracy
Development Services Department
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
And When Recorded Mail To:

City of Tracy
Office of the City Clerk
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
Attention: Al Gali
(No recording fee under government code 27383)

CITY OF TRACY

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT

WESTERN AND ORCHARD PARKS
ELLIS TOWN & COUNTRY TRACT 4007
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT­ WESTERN AND ORCHARD PARKS-ELLIS TOWN & COUNTRY TRACT 4007 (hereinafter "First Amendment") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF TRACY, a municipal corporation ("City") and LS-Tracy, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Subdivider").

RECITALS
A. On January 17, 2023, pursuant to Resolution No. 2023-0015, the City Council approved the City of Tracy-Subdivision Improvement Agreement-Western and Orchard Parks-Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 (the "SIA") to authorize the Subdivider to proceed with the construction of the park improvements for the 1.29- acre Orchard Park site and the 2.86-acre Western Park site parcels. The Agreement was subsequently executed by the City and recorded on February 03, 2023 as Document No. 2023-008934 in San Joaquin County Records, and is on file with the City Clerk.

8. On February 15, 2023, the City issued the Notice to Proceed for the Western and Orchard Parks. Pursuant to Section 2.3 of the SIA, the Subdivider is required to complete all park improvements by May 15, 2024.

C. Subdivider began construction of Western Park many months prior to the City Council's approval of the SIA, and as such, Subdivider completed all work for Western Park shortly after the execution of the SIA.

D. The Subdivider has asked the City to accept the Western Park improvements and release to the Subdivider the improvement security provided by the Subdivider for Attachment A

CITY OF TRACY -FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF TRACY-SUBDIVISION IMPROV EMENT AGREEMENT-WESTERN AND ORCHARD PARKS-ELLIS TOWN & COUNTRY TRACT 4007

the Western Park improvements.

E. The City desires to accept the Western Park improvements so that the Ellis Town and Country subdivision residents may use the mail kiosks located in the Western Park parcel and so that City residents can have additional park amenities.

F. City and Subdivider now wish to amend the Agreement to apportion security, credits and other matters as between the two parks so that the City may separately accept each park as it is completed.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. This First Amendment hereby incorporates by reference all terms and conditions set forth in the SIA unless specifically modified by this First Amendment. All terms and conditions set forth in the SIA not specifically modified by this First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

2. AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT.

A. Section 4 of the SIA is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:

4. PARK FEE CREDITS. Following Subdivider's completion and City's acceptance of the Work in accordance with Section 16 of this Agreement, Subdivider will be eligible to receive NP Fee credits for the Park Fee portion in the following amounts:
• For Western Park. in an amount equal to $1,604,183.
• For Orchard Park. in an amount equal to $723,565.

Accordingly, Subdivider was required to pay only the PM Fee portion of the NP Fees, in the amount of $225.46, for each of the 308 SFDUs on the Property.

Subdivider acknowledges and agrees that Subdivider already has been reimbursed NP Fees for all SFDUs on the Property paid by Subdivider in the amount of $1,874,962.32. Future reimbursements shall be made in compliance with the Tracy Municipal Code.

B. Section 9 of the SIA is hereby amended to read as follows:

9. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. The Parties agree that, subject to the City accepting that portion of the Work related to Western Park, the City will release the existing improvement security provided by Subdivider for the entire Work, subject to Subdivider furnishing new improvement security for the that portion of the Work related to Orchard Park, and new warranty bond specific to

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
________________________
CIT
Y ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TRAC

Y CITY COUNCIL
RES
OLUTION 2023-_____

APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION

IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR WESTERN PARK AND ORCHARD PARK

IN THE ELLIS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO ALLOCATE CREDIT AND SECURITY

AMOUNTS AS BETWEEN THE PARKS AND REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS DUE

TO THE VOIDED MASTER PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS AND

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO

RECORD THE FIRST AMENDMENT WITH THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE
WHER
EAS, on January 17, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-015, City Council approved that certain City of Tracy—Subdivision Improvement Agreement—Western and Orchard Parks— Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 (SIA) between the City and LS-Tracy, LLC (Subdivider), for the construction of two neighborhood parks in the Ellis Specific Plan area; and WHERE
AS, the Subdivider began construction of Western Park before the City Council approved the SIA; and
WHERE
AS, the Subdivider has completed the improvements for Western Park and has asked the City to accept the Western Park improvements and release the improvement security for Western Park, which the City Council is considering by a separate agenda item; and WHER
EAS, Section 9 of the SIA required Subdivider to furnish Improvement Security in the amount of $3,666,599 for completion of both Orchard Park and Western Park, and pursuant to the SIA, Subdivider furnished the City with a single security instrument for both parks; and WHER
EAS, the First Amendment to City of Tracy—Subdivision Improvement Agreement—Western and Orchard Parks—Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 (First Amendment) will revise and replace Section 9 of the Agreement to require the Subdivider to provide new security instruments for Orchard Park improvements, thereby allowing the City to release Subdivider’s improvement security for the Western Park while retaining Subdivider’s improvement security for the Orchard Park; and
WHER
EAS, the estimated cost of the infrastructure improvements for Western Park and Orchard Park are as follows:

Park
Improvements (Western Park) $ 2,730,278
Park Improvements (Orchard Park) $ 936,321; and
Resolution 2023-_____

WHEREAS, upon approval and execution of the First Amendment, Subdivider will provide the City with new security instruments in the following amounts to replace the existing security instruments:

Faithful
Performance (Orchard Park) $ 936,321
Labor and Material (Orchard Park) $ 936,321
Warranty (Western Park) $ 273,028
Warranty (Orchard Park) $ 93,632; now, therefore be it

RESOLVED
: That the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby approves the First Amendment to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Western Park and Orchard Park in the Ellis Specific Plan area to allocate credit and security amounts as between the Parks and reflect adjustments due to the voided Reimbursement Agreement; and be it further

RESOLVED
: That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to file the First Amendment with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office.
* * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
The foregoing Resolution 2023-_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 15th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCI
L MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTENTION: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________________
NANCY D.

YOUNG
Mayor of the City of Tracy, California
ATTEST:

ADRIANNE RICHARDSON
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of the
City of Tracy, California
Exhibi
t A: First Amendment to City of Tracy—Subdivision Improvement Agreement— Western and Orchard Parks—Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 Recording Requested By
City of Tracy
Development Services Department
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
And When Recorded Mail To:

City of Tracy
Office of the City Clerk
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
Attention: Al Gali
(No recording fee under government code 27383)

CITY OF TRACY

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT

WESTERN AND ORCHARD PARKS
ELLIS TOWN & COUNTRY TRACT 4007
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT­ WESTERN AND ORCHARD PARKS-ELLIS TOWN & COUNTRY TRACT 4007 (hereinafter "First Amendment") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF TRACY, a municipal corporation ("City") and LS-Tracy, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Subdivider").

RECITALS
A. On January 17, 2023, pursuant to Resolution No. 2023-0015, the City Council approved the City of Tracy-Subdivision Improvement Agreement-Western and Orchard Parks-Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 (the "SIA") to authorize the Subdivider to proceed with the construction of the park improvements for the 1.29- acre Orchard Park site and the 2.86-acre Western Park site parcels. The Agreement was subsequently executed by the City and recorded on February 03, 2023 as Document No. 2023-008934 in San Joaquin County Records, and is on file with the City Clerk.

8. On February 15, 2023, the City issued the Notice to Proceed for the Western and Orchard Parks. Pursuant to Section 2.3 of the SIA, the Subdivider is required to complete all park improvements by May 15, 2024.

C. Subdivider began construction of Western Park many months prior to the City Council's approval of the SIA, and as such, Subdivider completed all work for Western Park shortly after the execution of the SIA.

D. The Subdivider has asked the City to accept the Western Park improvements and release to the Subdivider the improvement security provided by the Subdivider for Exhibit A

CITY OF TRACY -FIRST AMENDMENT TO CITY OF TRACY-SUBDIVISION IMPROV EMENT AGREEMENT-WESTERN AND ORCHARD PARKS-ELLIS TOWN & COUNTRY TRACT 4007

the Western Park improvements.

E. The City desires to accept the Western Park improvements so that the Ellis Town and Country subdivision residents may use the mail kiosks located in the Western Park parcel and so that City residents can have additional park amenities.

F. City and Subdivider now wish to amend the Agreement to apportion security, credits and other matters as between the two parks so that the City may separately accept each park as it is completed.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. This First Amendment hereby incorporates by reference all terms and conditions set forth in the SIA unless specifically modified by this First Amendment. All terms and conditions set forth in the SIA not specifically modified by this First Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

2. AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT.

A. Section 4 of the SIA is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety to read as follows:

4. PARK FEE CREDITS. Following Subdivider's completion and City's acceptance of the Work in accordance with Section 16 of this Agreement, Subdivider will be eligible to receive NP Fee credits for the Park Fee portion in the following amounts:
• For Western Park. in an amount equal to $1,604,183.
• For Orchard Park. in an amount equal to $723,565.

Accordingly, Subdivider was required to pay only the PM Fee portion of the NP Fees, in the amount of $225.46, for each of the 308 SFDUs on the Property.

Subdivider acknowledges and agrees that Subdivider already has been reimbursed NP Fees for all SFDUs on the Property paid by Subdivider in the amount of $1,874,962.32. Future reimbursements shall be made in compliance with the Tracy Municipal Code.

B. Section 9 of the SIA is hereby amended to read as follows:

9. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. The Parties agree that, subject to the City accepting that portion of the Work related to Western Park, the City will release the existing improvement security provided by Subdivider for the entire Work, subject to Subdivider furnishing new improvement security for the that portion of the Work related to Orchard Park, and new warranty bond specific to

August 15, 2023
Agenda Item 1.T
RECOMM

ENDATION
Staff
recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (1) accepting improvements for Western Park within Ellis Town and Country, Tract 4007 subdivision, constructed by LS-Tracy, LLC, and accepting future maintenance and repair; and (2) authorizing the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion for Western Park and record said notice with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office; and (3) authorizing the City Engineer to release the Western Park improvement security in accordance with the terms of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, as amended.

EXECUTI

VE SUMMARY
LS-Tracy,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Subdivider), has completed subdivision improvements for Western Park, a 2.86-acre neighborhood park within Ellis Phase 3 - Town and Country Tract 4007, a subdivision consisting of 308 single-family residential lots, in accordance with the applicable Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution accepting the improvements related to Western Park as completed, authorizing the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion, and authorizing the City Engineer to release the Subdivider’s improvement security in accordance with the terms of the amended Subdivision Improvement Agreement, with respect to Western Park.

BACKGRO

UND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On June
1, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-068, City Council approved a Subdivision Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ellis Phase 3, Tract 4007. The Subdivision Map, recorded as 43-MP-169, included dedication of Parcel E (the Western Park site) subject to satisfactory completion of improvements.

On Janua
ry 17, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-015, City Council approved that certain City of Tracy Subdivision Improvement Agreement—Western and Orchard Parks—Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 (SIA) between the City and Subdivider. Among other things, the SIA requires the Subdivider to perform the Scope of Work defined in the following plan set for Western Park: “Improvement Plans for Western Park Tract 4007,” consisting of 35 sheets, prepared by Gates + Associates of San Ramon, California (Plans and Specifications).

ANALYSI
S
The SI
A requires Subdivider to construct both Western Park and Orchard Park. However, Subdivider has begun construction of Western Park many months prior to the City Council’s approval of the SIA. As such, Subdivider completed all work for Western Park shortly after the execution of the SIA but has not completed the work for Orchard Park. As the SIA is for both Western and Orchard Park, by separate agenda item, staff is requesting that the City Council approve an Amendment to the SIA that apportions security, credits and other matters as between the two parks so that the City may separately accept each park as it is completed. If the SIA is so amended, then acceptance of each park would not be considered a “partial acceptance” under the Tracy Municipal Code. In addition, as the SIA reflected terms from a Agenda Item 1.T
August 15, 2023

Reimbursement Agreement that is now voided, the First Amendment reflects the currently applicable credit amounts for both Parks.

The City Engineer has inspected the completed work and confirmed that the improvements conform to the SIA and City specifications and plans, as related to Western Park. Subject to the City Council’s approval, a Notice of Completion for Western Park would be filed by the City Clerk, to be recorded with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s Office. Filing the Notice of Completion by City Clerk will finalize acceptance of the improved Western Park land pursuant to Tracy Municipal Code 12.36.110. The project carries a one-year warranty bond for all public improvements.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item is consistent with the Council approved Economic Development Strategy to ensure physical infrastructure necessary for development.

FISCAL IMPACT
All improvements were completed by the Developer in accordance with the SIA and there was no fiscal impact to the General Fund for the construction cost. Once accepted, Western Park will be maintained by the C ity, with funds collected through the Ellis Communities Facilities Dist
rict assessment that is paid by all residents within the Ellis Specific Plan area. The first year of maintenance is estimated at $62 ,000.

The estimated credit included in the SIA for Western Park and Orchard Park was $2,721,140.

This credit amount was based on an estimated park acreage originally prepared by the Subdivider. However, the City’s consultant, Harris & Associates, calculated the correct credit amount to be $2,327,747, based on the actual park acreage built by Subdivider. Of this total, Western Park receives a credit amount of $1,604,183 and Orchard Park receives a credit amount of $723,565. Per Section 13.08.020 of the Tracy Municipal Code, applicants are not eligible to receive credits for contingency or program administration costs.

Based on the original estimated costs, bonds were provided by Subdivider. The Subdivider furnished Improvement security in the amount of $3,666,599 for completion of both parks.

Pursuant to the terms of the First Amendment to City of Tracy—Subdivision Improvement Agreement—Western and Orchard Parks—Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 (First Amendment), which is being considered by the City Council by separate agenda item, the Subdivider shall replace the existing improvement security with new, separate security instruments for each park, thereby allowing the City to return the improvement security for the Western Park while retaining the improvement security for the Orchard Park, which has not been com pleted. The new improvement security to be furnished by Subdivider pursuant to the First Amendment will be the following:

Bond Type Agreement
Warranty – Western Park $273,028
Faithful Performance - Orchard Park $936,321
Labor and Material – Orchard Park $936,321
Warranty – Orchard Park $93,632
Agenda Item 1.T
August 15, 2023

Faithful Performance bonds may be released upon acceptance of improvements by the City. Labor and Material bonds may be released thirty (30) days after recordation of a Notice of Completion, as the statute of limitations period expires in accordance with Civil Code § 9356.

Warranty bond may be released one (1) year after the City accepts the improvements and any warranty work is completed.

A total of 2.86 acres has been offered for dedication for Western Park, Parcel E on the Final Map of Town and Country, Tract 4007, and accepted by the City Clerk subject to satisfactory completion of improvements. With completion of the Western Park improvements, the City can accep
t the improved Western Park parcel and proceed to releasing the security as set forth above. Satisfactory completion of improvements will be confirmed by City Council accept ance and filing of Notice of Completion.

COORDINATION
Development Services Department’s Engineering Division coordinated with the Operations & Utilities Department, and the Parks & Recreation Department.

CEQA DETERMINATION
The recommended actions were adequately analyzed by that certain Environmental Impact Report for the Modified Ellis Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2012022023, certified by City Counci
l Resolution No. 2013-011.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This agenda item is consistent with the Council approved Economic Development Strategy to ensure physical infrastructure necessary for development.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
That City Council, by resolution, (1) accept the public improvements for Western Park within the Ellis Town and Country, Tract 4007 subdivision, that were constructed by LS-Tracy, LLC; (2) authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for Western Park and record said Notice with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s office; and (3) authorize the City Engineer to release the Western Park improvement security in accordance with the terms of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, as amended.

Prepared by: Leisser Mazariegos, Associate Engineer
Reviewed by: Koosun Kim, PE, City Engineer / Assistant Director of Development Services Richar
d Joaquin, Parks Planning & Development Manager
Sara Cowell, Finance Director
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Approved by
: Midori Lichtwardt, Interim City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
________________________
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

TRACY CITY COUNCIL
RESO
LUTION 2023-_____
ADOPTING A RES OLUTION (1) ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR
WESTERN PARK WITHIN ELLIS TOWN AND COUNTRY, TRACT 4007

SUBDIVISION, CONSTRUCTED BY LS -TRACY, LLC AND ACCEPTING FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, (2) AUTHORIZING THE CITY

CLERK TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR WESTERN PARK

AND RECORD SAID NOTICE WITH THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
RECORDER’S OFFICE, AND (3) AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO

RELEASE THE WESTERN PARK IMPROVEMENT SECURITY IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT

AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED
WHEREA
S, on June 1, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-068, City Council approved a Subdivision Map and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Ellis Phase 3, Tract 4007. The Subdivision Map, recorded as 43-MP-169, included dedication of Parcel E (the Western Park site) subject to satisfactory completion of improvements; and WHEREA
S, on January 17, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-015, City Council approved that certain City of Tracy—Subdivision Improvement Agreement—Western and Orchard Parks—Ellis Town & Country Tract 4007 (SIA) with LS-Tracy, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Subdivider), for the construction of two neighborhood parks in the Ellis Specific Plan area; and
WHEREA
S, the SIA requires Subdivider to construct both Western Park and Orchard Park; and

WHEREAS, S
ubdivider began construction of Western Park many months prior to the City Council’s approval of the SIA, and, as such, has completed all work for Western Park shortly after the execution of the SIA, and prior to completion of Orchard Park; and

WHEREAS, S
ubdivider has asked the City to accept the completed improvements as related to Western Park and release to the Subdivider the improvement security furnished by the Subdivider for the Western Park improvements; and
WHEREA
S, Western Park provides park amenities to City residents, so by separate agenda item, staff is requesting that the City Council approve an Amendment to the SIA that apportions security, credits and other matters as between the two parks; and WHEREA
S, if the SIA is so amended, the City may separately accept each park as it is completed, and acceptance of each park would not be considered a “partial acceptance” under the Tracy Municipal Code; and
Resolution 2023-____

WHEREAS, a total of 2.85 acres within the Ellis Specific Plan (Parcel E of Tract No. 4007), recorded in Book 43 Maps and Plats (page 169), has been dedicated to the City in fee to the City by Subdivider with r espect to Western Park; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has inspected the completed improvements for the Western Park improvements and has determined that Subdivider has (i) constructed the Western Park improvements in conformity with all approved plans and specifications (Plans), (ii) has completed all improvements as set out in the Plans, (iii) corrected all deficiencies (if any), and (iv) submitted record drawing of the improvements. As such, pursuant to TMC section

12.36.110, the City seeks to accept as complete the Western Park improvements; and WHEREAS, with the Western Park improvements complete, the City also seeks to file a No
tice of Completion pursuant to Civil Code sections 8184 et seq. for the Western Park improvements with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s off ice and authorize the City Engineer to release the bonds relating to the Western Park improvements in accordance with the terms of the SIA and the California Civil Code; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the City Council accepts the improvements for Western Park within Ell
is Town and Country, Tract 4007 subdivision, constructed by LS-Tracy, LLC, and accepting future maintenance and repair of the Western Park Site; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council authorizes the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for Western Park and record said improvements with the San Joaquin County Recorder’s office; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council authorizes the City Engineer to release the Western Park improvement security in accordance with the terms of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, as amended, and the California Civil Code; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council hereby determines that the actions taken herein were adequately analyzed by that certain E nvironmental Impact Report for the Modified Ellis Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2012022023, certified by City Council Resolution No. 2013-011, and no further environmental review is required. * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Resolution 2023-____

The foregoing Resolution 2023-_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 15th day of August
2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS :

NOES: COUNCI
L MEMBERS:

ABSEN
T: COUNCIL M
EMBERS :

ABSTENTION: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
NA NCY D. YOUNG
Mayor
of the City of Tracy, California
ATTEST: ________________________

ADRIANNE RICHARDSON
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of
the City
of Tracy, California
August 15, 2023
Agenda Item 1.U

RECOMMENDA
TION
Staff recommends that the City Council (1) determine that waiving a competitive bidding process is in the best interest of the City, Pursuant to Tracy Municipal Code Section

2.20.140(B)(6); and (2) adopt a resolution approving (A) Amendment No. 1 to the Master Professional Services Agreement with West Yost & Associates for water pressure and capacity analyses and engineering services to extend the agreement, by an additional 18 months, through December 31, 2024, and increase compensation, from $200,000 per calendar year to a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 per calendar year, and (B) Amendment No. 1 to the Master Professional Services Agreement with Wood Rodgers for storm drainage engineering services to extend the agreement, by an additional 18 months, through December 31, 2024, and increase compensation from $200,000 per calendar year to a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 per calendar year.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed amendments will extend the Master Professional Services Agreements (MPSAs) wit
h West Yost & Associates (WYA) and Wood Rodgers (WR, and collectively, Consultants) for storm drainage engineering services and water pressure and capacity analyses by
an additional 18 months, through December 31, 2024. The amendments with the Consultants will increase compensation from $200,000 per calendar year, respectively, to a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 per calendar year.

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for storm drainage engineering services on March 19, 2020. As a result, the City and WR entered into an MPSA on September 24, 2020, under Resolution No. 2020-151, through June 30, 2023, per the RFP.

The City issued an RFP for water pressure and capacity analyses on July 18, 2019. As a result, the
City entered into a MPSA with WYA on September 1, 2020, under Resolution No. 2020-161, through
June 30, 2023 per the RFP.

The Consultants have satisfactorily met all of the terms of the MPSAs.

ANALYSIS
Development Services Staff is working with various developers on a large number of entitlement applications,
most of which include the need for storm drainage-related engineering analyses, water pressure and capacity analyses and/or other engineering assistance. Staff requires assistance
from consultants to review development projects in terms of storm drainage and water pressure and capacity analyses. Staff also requires the assistance of the Consultants for other
high-priority storm drainage review services and/or water pressure and capacity analyses.

As such, Staff requests the extension of the term of each MPSA through December 31, 2024.

Staff also requests an increase to compensation under the MPSAs to a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 per calendar year. The extensions of the contracts will allow staff to continue with the necessary evaluations.

Staff is working on issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) that will include the services in these Agenda Item 1.U
August 15
, 2023

agreements. The process of issuing the RFP awarding contracts and taking those contracts to Council for approval will take 6 to 9 months. In order for the City to continue to provide these necessary analyses in the meantime, staff is asking the City Council to determine that these Amendments
with the Consultants are in the best interest of the City pursuant to Tracy Municipal Code Section 2.20.140(b)(6).

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the amendments to agreements with Consultants are budgeted in the Development Services
annual operating budget. The cost of the work performed by consultants will be recovered through
developer contributions. The developer contributions include Cost Recovery Agreements, plan-check fees, and/or other fees collected by the City. It should be noted that Cost Recovery Agreements cover the costs of staff time and consultant work related to each project.

STRATEGIC
PLAN
This agenda item supports the City of Tracy’s Quality of Life Strategic Priority, which is to provide an outstanding quality
of life by enhancing the City’s amenities, business mix and services, and cultivating connections to promote positive change and progress in our community.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
That the City Council adopt a resolution (1) determining that waiving a competitive bidding process is in the best interest of the City, Pursuant to Tracy Municipal Code Section

2.20.140(B)(6); and (
2) adopting a resolution approving (A) Amendment No. 1 to the Master Professional Services Agreement with West Yost & Associates for water pressure and capacity analyses and engineering services to extend the agreement by an additional 18 months, through D
ecember 31, 2024, and increase compensation from $200,000 per calendar year to a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 per calendar year, and (B) Amendment No. 1 to the Master Professional Services Agreement with Wood Rodgers for storm drainage engineering serv
ices to extend the agreement for an additional 18 months, through December 31, 2024, a
nd increase compensation from $200,000 per calendar year to a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 per calendar.

Prepared by: Veronica Child, Management Analyst II
Reviewed by: Koosun Kim, PE, City Engineer/Assistant Director of Development Services Sara Cowell, Finance Director
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Midori Lichtwardt, Interim City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
A – Final Amendment No. 1 with West Yost & Associates
Attachment B – MPSA West Yost & Associates - Water
Attachment
C – Final Amendment No. 1 with Wood Rodgers
Attachment D – MPSA Wood Rodgers - Storm
Rev. October 2019

CITY OF TRACY
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

MASTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WEST YOST
& ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR WATER PRESSURE AND CAPACITY ANALYSES, AND

ENGINEERING SERVICES
Thi
s Amendment No. 1 (Amendment) to the Master Professional Service Agreement is entered into between the City of Tracy, a municipal corporation (City), and West Yost & Associates, Inc. a California Corporation (Consultant). City and Consultant are referred to individually as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
Rec
itals
A. The Ci
ty and Consultant entered into a Master Professional Services Agreement (Agreement) for Water Pressure and Capacity Analyses, and Engineering Services (Project) on September 1, 2020, under Resolution No. 2020-161.

B. The Ci
ty desires to extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2024.

C. The Par
ties also seek to amend the Agreement to increase compensation by $100,000 annually for the remainder of the Agreement term for the tasks identified in Exhibit “A”.

D. This
Amendment is being executed pursuant to Resolution No. ____ approved by Tracy City Council on ______, 2023.

Now
therefore, the Parties mutually agree as follows:

1. Incor
poration by Reference. This Amendment incorporates by reference all terms set forth in the Agreement, unless specifically modified by this Amendment. The terms which are not specifically modified by this Amendment will remain in effect.

2. Term
s of Amendment.

A. 2.1
Term.

The t
erm of the Agreement shall be extended through December 31, 2024 in accordance with Sections 2 and 13 of the Agreement.

B. 3.1
Compensation.

Consul
tant’s total compensation under this Agreement shall not exceed $300,000 per calendar year.

C. Exh
ibits.

Exh
ibit “B-1” shall replace and supersede Exhibit “B” of the Agreement.

3. Modi
fications. This Amendment may not be modified orally or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by both parties, in accordance with the requirements of the Agreement.

Attachment A
City of Tracy – Amendment No. 1 to MPSA Agreement West Yost, Inc. for Water Pressure and Capacity Analyses and Engineering Services

4. Severability. If any term of this Amendment is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Amendment shall be construed as not containing that term, and the remainder of this
Amendment shall remain in effect.

5. Signatures. The individuals executing this Amendment represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity and authority to enter into and to execute this Amendment.

This Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors and assigns.

The P
arties agree to the full performance of the terms set forth here.

City of Tracy
By: _________________________
Nancy Young
Title: Mayor
Date: ________________________
Consultant
West Yost & Associates
By: ________________________
Charles Duncan
Title: Chief Executive
Date: ________________________
Attest:

By: ________________________________
Adrianne Richardson, City Clerk
Federal Employer ID No. 68-0370826
By: ________________________
Lindsay Smith
Title: Treasurer
Date: ________________________
Approved as to form
By: ________________________________
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
4/17/2023

City of Trac
y – Amendment No. 1 to MPSA Agreement West Yost, Inc. for Water Pressure and Capacity Analyses and Engineering Services

Exhibit B
-1

Attachment B

Attachment C
6/1/2023

Attachment D

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
________________________
CIT
Y ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TRAC

Y CITY COUNCIL
RES
OLUTION 2023-_____
(1) DET

ERMINING THAT WAIVING A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS IS IN

THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, PURSUANT TO TRACY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.20.140(B)(6); AND
(2) APPROVING (A) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MASTER PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WEST YOST & ASSOCIATES FOR WATER

PRESSURE AND CAPACITY ANALYSES AND ENGINEERING SERVICES , AND (B) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MASTER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH WOOD RODGERS FOR STORM DRAINAGE

ENGINEERING SERVICES, T O EXTEND EACH AGREEMENT BY AN
ADDITIONAL 18 MONTHS, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2024, AND INCREASE COMPENSATION FROM $200,000 PER CALENDAR YEAR TO A NOT -TO- EXCEED AMOUNT OF $300,000 PER CALENDAR YEAR.

WHER
EAS, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for storm drainage engineering services on March 19, 2020; and
WHER
EAS, the City and Wood Rodgers entered into a Master Professional Services Agreement (WR MPSA) on September 24, 2020, under Resolution No. 2020-151; and WHERE
AS, the City issued a RFP for water pressure and capacity analyses on July 18, 2019; and
WHER
EAS, the City entered into a Master Professional Services Agreement with West Yost & Associates (WYA MPSA, and together with the WR MPSA, MPSAs) on September 1, 2020, under Resolution No. 2020-161; and
WHERE
AS, the original MPSAs expired on June 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Wood Rodgers and West Yost & Associates (collectively, Consultants) have satisfactorily met
all of the terms of the MPSAs; and
WHEREAS, Development Services Staff is working with various developers on a large number of entitlement applications, most of which include the need for storm drainage-related engineering analyses and/or water pressure and capacity analyses; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to amend the MPSAs to extend of the term of the MPSAs from June 30, 2023 through December 31, 2024, and to increase the compensation from $200,000 to include a not-to-exceed amount of $300,000 per calendar year; and Resolution 2023-_____

WHEREAS, Staff is working on issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) that will include the services in the proposed amendments, but the process of issuing the RFP, awarding contracts and taking those contracts to City Council for approval will take 6 to 9 months; and WHEREAS, in order for the City to continue to provide the necessary analyses in the m
eantime, staff is asking the City Council to determine that waiving a competitive bidding process for the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City, pursuant to Tracy Municipal Code Section 2.20.140(b)(6); now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: That the above recitals are true and correct; and be it, FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby determines that waiving a competitive bidding process for the proposed amendments are in the best interest of the City, pursuant to Tracy Municipal Code Section 2.20.140(b)(6); and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Council of the City of Tracy hereby approves Amendment No. 1 to the WYA MPSA and Amendment No. 1 to the WR MPSA; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED: That, after review and approval by the City Attorney’s Office, the City authorizes the execution of both amendments to the MPSAs and authorizes any and all actions
that may be necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution. * * * *
* * * * * * * * *
*
The foregoing Resolution 2023-_____ was adopted by the Tracy City Council on the 15th day
of August 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: CO
UNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTENTION: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
NANCY D. YOUNG
Mayor of the City of Tracy, California
ATTEST: ________________________

ADRIANNE RICHARDSON
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of
the City
of Tracy, California
August 15, 2023
Agenda Item 3.A

RECOMMENDATION
The Pl
anning Commission recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and, upon conclusion, introduce an Ordinance:
1) Certi
fying an Environmental Impact Report, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and making findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations for the annexation and future development of industrial buildings on the 191.18-acre property located at the northeast corner of Grant Line and Paradise Roads (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 213-170-14, -24, -25, -26, -27, And -48, collectively, the “Property”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; 2) Amendi
ng the Northeast Industrial (“NEI”) Specific Plan to add the Property to the NEI Specific Plan Area with a land use designation of light industrial (SPA22-0003); 3) Approvi
ng the prezoning of the Property to NEI Specific Plan Zone (AP20-0003); and 4) Approv
ing the submittal of a petition to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of the Property to the City of Tracy.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance effectuating the various actions stated in the title above.

The proposed Northeast Industrial (NEI) Specific Plan land use and prezoning designations would allow development of the Property with approximately 3.3 million square feet of warehouse and related uses, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental effects from this level of deve lopment. On January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the EIR and voted 4 to 0 (one member was absent) to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR as adequate and in full compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and approve the applications noted above.

BACKGROUND AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The Property has been located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) since the July 1993 General Plan Update (Attachment A). In the 30 years since the Property has been within the SOI, it has been designated Industrial by the City’s General Plan. Lands within the City’s SOI can be pursued for annexation into the City limits and, upon approval of annexation by the San Joaquin County LAFCo (LAFCo), become the subject of development applications presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. In 2019, LAFCo approved the City’s Municipal Se
rvices Revi ew, which shows the Property is located within the 10-year planning horizon.

LAFCo policies require 10 and 30-year “horizons” in an effort to plan for and evaluate upcoming development within the City’s SOI. LAFCo’s policies allow for the annexation of lands within both
the 10- and 30-year horizons, with lands in the 10-year horizon anticipated (though not required) to be annexed first, as landowner demand for development of properties is not controlled by the City.

Agenda Item 3.A
August 15, 2023

When annexing property into the City, pre-zoning m ust be established to determine the zoning designation that will take effect upon annexation approval by LAFCo. The proposed zoning is t
he City’s existing N E I Specific Plan Zone, as set forth in Tracy Municipal Code Section

10.08. 3022. Because the Property is not yet w ithin the NEI Specific Plan area, the addition of this Property to the NEI Specific Plan Zone would also require an NEI Specific Plan am endment (Attachment B), revising the boundary map of the Specific Plan area to include the Property and assigning the Property a land use designation of Li ght Industrial. Any future development of the Pr
operty would be required to comply with t he design and development r equi rements of the NEI Specific Plan.

On January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4 to 0 , with one member absent, to r ecommend t hat the City Council adopt an ordinance to certify the EIR, amend the NEI Specific Plan, pre-zone the Property, and authorize the submittal of a petition to LAFCo to annex the Property to the City.

ANALYSIS
Project Proposal
The proposed Project would establish land use and zoning designations for the Property that would govern development of the Property upon its annexation to the City. The proposed land use and zoning designations would allow for development of up to 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse and distribution and related uses on the Property.

The Property consists of six (6) separate parcels totaling approximately 191.18 acres.

The six parcels are owned by three different pa rties: the Tracy Alliance Group owns two parcels totaling approximately 122.44 acres; Suvik Farms, LLC, owns three parcels totaling approximately 46.61 acres; and Zuriakat owns one parcel of approximately 22.17 acres. All Property owners have signed the City applications. The Property is within unincorporated San Joaqui
n County adjacent to the City’s northeastern City limits and adjacent to the City’s NEI Specific Plan area (Attachment A). Any development of the Property in the City would require approva
l of annexation into the City by the San Joaquin LAFCo, an amendment to the NEI Specific Plan, pre-zoning, a Tentative Parcel Map or Lot Line Adjustment(s) to create the final lot configurations, and one or more Development Review Permits. Because the applicants have not yet determined the ultimate lot configurations or finalized any development plans, any applications for tentative maps, lot line adjustments or development review permits would be processed at a later date by City staff.

Land use, Zoning and Specific Plan
The subject Property is within the City’s SOI, with a General Plan land use designation of Industrial. The applicants propose to annex the Property into the City Limits, amend the NEI Specific Plan to inco rporate the Property and assign it a land use designation of Light Industrial, and assign it a zoning designation of NEI Specific Plan Zone. This zoning f or the site is logical as it is adjacent to the existing NEI Specific Plan area and all the adjacent properties are developed with warehouses, as is proposed for the Property. This is also consistent with the General Plan designation of Industrial, which was assigned to the Property when it was first added to the SOI in 1993 and has remained since that time. The proposed revisions to bring Agenda Item 3.A
August 15, 2023

the Property within the coverage of the NEI Specific Plan can be found in Attachment B. The NEI Specific Plan is the principal planning document for the area, and approximately 80% of the existing Specific Plan area is alr eady developed. In accordance with the City’s General Plan policies, including Land Use Objective 2.3, the annexation and development of this acreage is consistent with the expansion of the City’s industrial base. Annexation and development of the Property is a logical extension of the City limits, has been planned as a part of the City’s SOI for 30 years, and has been anticipated by the City’s infrastructure planning as a part of its Infrastructure Master Plans.

Timing of Development
With the Property divided among three property owners, staff expects development of the Property to occur in th ree phases, with the Tracy Alliance Group expected to develop its portion of
the Property first. Based on preliminary site plans provided by the Group, this first phase is exp
ected to include three warehouse buildings totaling approximately 1.8 million square feet on the Group’s 122.44 acres (Attachment C). Staff has no specific information about the timing of development on the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels.

CEQA

DETERMINATION
The Project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. On August 28, 2020, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR, to solicit comments from responsible agencies, various City departments, and the public regarding what areas and issues should be studied in the EIR. A scoping meeting for that NOP was held by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2020, after which the EIR analysis commenced. On April 20, 2022, the City published a Notice of Availability for th e D raft EIR (Attachment D), notifying the public of its publication and of opportunities for public review and comment, and a public hearing to solicit comments was held on May 25, 2022. The public comment period closed on June 3, 2022. On January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the EIR and voted 4 to 0 (one member was absent) to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR as adequate and in full compliance with CEQA requirements.

During the public comment period for the Draft EIR, the City received six w ritten comment letters, and one verbal comment at the Planning Commission hearing. Five (5) additional comment letters were received after the close of the public comment period. Two were received in August 2022, shortly after the close of the public comment period. Two additional comment letters, both from the Sierra Club, were received in February 2023, eight months after t he close of the public comment period and several weeks after the Planning Commission’s January 25 heari
ng. The fifth comment letter, from the law firm of Shute Mihaly & Weinberger on behalf of the Sierra Club, was received April 13, 2023. Written responses have been prepared to all comments, including the verbal comment and all late comments, and are included in the Final EIR (Attachment E). In response to the Sierra Club’s February 2023 letters, Mitigation Measure AIR 1.e was revised, at the request of the Sierra Club, to add signage requirements to control truck traffic entering and exiting the project site and to advise truck drivers that truck traffic to and from the project site is not permitted in the community of Banta, to the east of the project site. These additional mitigation measures do not change the analyses or any of the conclusions in the EIR and do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR under applicable CEQA requirements. In addition to the CEQA mitigation measures but distinct therefrom, the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMRP, Attachment G) also sets forth certain additional measures/design features for which the project applicants have voluntarily agreed to incorporate and/or otherwise Agenda Item 3.A
August 15, 2023

implement as enforceable conditions of approval on any future Development Review Permits issued for the Property. These conditions of approval will implement the requirements of the EIR, including both the EIR mitigation measures and the additional, voluntary measures agreed to by the project applicants.

The analyses of t he potential environmental e ffects as noted in the Draft and Final EIRs results in the conclusion that some impacts of the proposed Project are potentially significant and unavoidable. These include the following:
• Proj
ect-level conversion of prime farmland
• Cumulative conversion of prime farmland
• Project-level impact related to implementation of the applicable air quality plan • Project-level impact related to cumulatively considerable net increase of reactive organic gases and carbon monoxide during construction, and reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen during operation
• Project-level impact related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
• Cumulative air quality impact
• Project-level vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact
• Cumulative VMT impact
The Stat
e Guidelines for CEQA provide that “no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more potentially significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those potentially significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (Guidelines, § 15091).

The requir
ed findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

CEQ
A requires that a lead agency (the City) balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). CEQA requires that a lead agency support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b). The lead agency’s written reasons are referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

These required findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, referred to herein as the “CEQA Findings”, can be found in Attachment F. In addition, as required by Section 15097 of CEQA’s implementing regulations, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Agenda Item 3.A
August 15, 2023

Reporting Program (“MMRP”) to ensure that, if the Project is appr oved, t he mitigation measures in the EIR will be implemented appropriately. The MMRP also sets forth the additional, voluntary measures agreed to by the project applica nts, to facilitate the City’s imposition of these measures as conditions of approval on any future Development Review Permits. The MMRP can be found in Attachment G.

PUBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
This item was duly noticed in the local newspaper and public hearing notices were mailed to all owners of property within 300 f eet of the subject site. There was additional outreach throughout the CEQA process where, at each stage, the various portions of the project’s CEQA review (NOP, DEIR, FEIR) were posted with the State Office of Planning and Research, the San Joaquin County Clerk, posted on the City’s website, and mailed/emailed to all interested parties on the Tracy Alliance and overall CEQA interested parties lists.

The Planning Commission met and considered this agenda item on January 25, 2023. After hearing from staff, the applicant, and various interested parties, voted 4-0 (with one member absent) to recommend that City Council certify the EIR and approve the applications.

COORDINATION
This development application was reviewed by multiple City Departments and the South San Joaquin County Fire Authority as part of the City’s normal application review process. As a part of the Project review, the EIR was also provided to the State Office of Planning and Research, various State and County agencies, posted at the San Joaquin County Clerk’s of fice and on the City’s website. This staff report was prepared by the Development Services Planning Division.

FISCAL IMPACT
This agenda item will not require any expenditure of funds. A Cost Recovery Agreement was executed with the applicants at the time of application, with the applicants reimbursing the City for all the costs associated with the review of the applications, including the EIR.

ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an Ordinance in substantially the form o f E xhibit 1 to Attachment H, to:

1. Cert
ify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopt a MMRP, and make the CEQA Findings for the annexation and future development of industrial buildings on the 191.18-acre Property located at the northeast corner of Grant Line and Paradise Roads (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 213-170-14, -24, -25, -26, -27, and -48) in accordance with the CEQA; and

2. Amend
the NEI Specific Plan to add the Property to said specific plan with a land use designation of Light Industrial (SPA22-0003); and

3. Approv
e the prezoning of the property to Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Zone (AP20-0003); and
Agenda Item 3.A
August 15, 2023

4. Approv
e the submittal of a petition to the San Joaquin County LAFCo to annex the Property to the City of Tracy.

Prepar
ed by: Victoria Lombardo, Senior Planner
Revi
ewed by: Bill Dean, Assistant Director of Development Services Sara Cowell, Finance Director
Bijal M. Patel, City Attorney
Karin Schnaider, Assistant City Manager
Approv
ed by: Midori Lichtwardt, Interim City Manager

ATTACHMENTS
Att
achment A – Location Map
Attachment B – NEI Specific Plan Amendment
Attachment C – Draft Site Plan for Alliance Property
Attachment D – Draft EIR, including the Notice of Preparation Attachment E – Final EIR
Attachment F – CEQA Findings
Attachment G – CEQA MMRP
Attachment H – Proposed City Council Ordinance

Attachment A: Location Map

City of Tracy

NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL

SPECIFIC PLAN
July 17, 2012
(Amended ______, 2023)
Attachment B

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1
PLANNING AREA LOCATION 1
Location 1
Surrounding Land Uses 1
Land Ownership 1
EXISTING PLANNING AREA CONDITIONS 1
Site Features 1
Existing Roadway Network 2
RELATIONSHIP TO TRACY'S GENERAL PLAN 10
General Plan Land Use Designations 10
Tracy's Growth Strategy 10
General Plan Goals Furthered by Northeast Industrial Area Development 10 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 12
Project Objectives 12
Land Use Designations 12
Light Industrial Land Uses (LI) 12
Existing Agricultural and Residential Uses 13
General Commercial Land Uses (GC) 13
Right to Farm Provisions 13
Mineral Extraction 13
CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION 15
PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE 19
Wastewater Collection and Disposal 19
Storm Drainage 21
Water Supply and Distribution 23
Police Protection 23
Fire Protection 23
Other Utilities 23
DESIGN GUIDELINES 25
Streetscapes 25
Recommended Trees for Major Streets 25
Street Lighting 26
Building FAR and Height 26
Building Setbacks 26
Parking and On-Site Vehicular Circulation 28
Loading and Unloading Spaces 28
Driveway Standards 31
Freeway Interface 31
Building Architecture 34
Signs 34
Landscaping 35
Screening and Storage 36
Development Review Process 36
Environmental Performance Standards 36
Use Restrictions 36
Hazardous Wastes and Water Pollutants 37
Mineral Extraction 37
Dairy Uses 37
Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses 37
Figure 1: Surrounding Land Uses 3
Figure 2a: Land Owners 4
Figure 2b: Land Owners 5
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph 8
Figure 4: Existing Site Conditions 9
Figure 5: Proposed Land Uses 14
Figure 6: Proposed Road Network 16
Figure 7A: Roadway Sections 17
Figure 7B: Roadway Sections 18
Figure 8: Master Plan Sewer 20
Figure 9: Master Plan Storm Drain System 22
Figure 10: Master Plan Water System 24
Figure 11: Setback Guidelines 27
Figure 12: Light Manufacturing/R&D Prototype 30
Figure 13: Commercial Prototype 32
Figure 14: Warehouse Prototype 33
Table 1: Permitted and Conditional Industrial and Commercial Uses 38 Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 1

INTRODUCTION
The 1,061-ac re Northeast Industrial Area Specific Plan aims to develop a well-planned industrial zone that will attract businesses to Tracy, and provide local employment opportunities. The Specific Plan anticipates a mixture of industrial uses, including rail-dependent industries and "flex-tech" light industrial.

PLANNING AREA LOCATION

Location
The Northeast Industrial planning area lies along the northeast boundary of the City of Tracy. The area is generally bounded to the north by 1-205, to the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, to the east by Banta Road, and the west by MacArthur Drive. Grant Line Road bisects the area.

Surrounding Land Uses
Presently, properties along MacArthur Drive directly west of the site are developed with industrial uses, such as the U.S. Cold Storage facility. North of the site are industrial and commercial uses, including the Tracy Outlets at MacArthur Drive and Pescadero Avenue. The Yellow Freight Company is also located to the north, between the site and 1-205. Agricultural uses are found on lands to the east.

Lands directly to the north and west of the site are included in the I-205 Corridor Specific Plan and the 1988 Industrial Areas Specific Plan. To the east is the residential Banta area of the county. The project site in the context of the existing industrial and commercial uses, and existing specific plan areas is shown in Figure 1.

Land Ownership
The Northeast Industrial planning area is currently made up of 67 properties, with a variety of owners. Parcels range in size from small half acre home sites to large agricultural and industrial holdings. The assessor's parcel numbers and ownership of the area is shown in Figure 2a and 2b.

EXISTING PLANNING AREA CONDITIONS

Site Features
Land uses within the Northeast Industrial Area are currently light industrial and agricultural, with a number of dairy operations and rural residences remaining. Few other significant site features are present. The topography is relatively level.

A Westside Irrigation District (WSID) supply or tailwater ditch crosses the area. Two properties near I-205 are located just inside the FEMA 100 year flood line found in the vicinity of the I-205/Paradise Road overcrossing.

The 100-year floodplain impacts on the NEI Specific Plan area would only result from the unlikely event of a levee failure along the San Joaquin River or Paradise Cut. Furthermore, the volume of the breach flow would need to be sufficient to inundate over 10 square miles prior to flows reaching the NEI area, which is an extreme event. If flood flows reached the NEI, they would fill available storage in the stormwater detention basin below the flood level and any additional flood flow volumes would be pumped into the Eastside Channel.

Furthermore, the City’s Municipal Code (Title 9 Building Regulations, Chapter 9.52 Floodplain Regulations), Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 2
would require all new construction and substantial construction pertaining to buildings have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the base flood elevation.

T
he existing conditions of the planning area are shown on Figures 3 and 4.

N
one of the parcels are under Williamson Act contracts, except for the Suvik Farms parcels (Parcel Numbers 64, 65 and 66 on Figure 2b). The Suvik Farms parcels are covered by an active Williamson Act contract. Pursuant to the applicable provisions of the California Government Code, the Suvik Farms landowners initiated a Notice of Nonrenewal in 2017 for the contract, beginning a nine-year process to formally expire the contract. Based on the date of the Notice of Nonrenewal, the contract will expire on August 21, 2026. Should development of the Suvik Farms parcels be pursued prior to the Williamson Act contract expiration date, the applicant for the development of the Suvik Farms parcels would be required to petition the City Council for cancellation. So long as the cancellation occurs prior to urban development, then no conflicts would occur.

E
xisting Roadway Network
The Plan area is served by a number of existing roadways, some of which have been improved to meet the circulation needs of the NEI area, and others that will be constructed or improved as traffic demand requires.

R
egional access for the area is provided by Interstate 205 (I-205) to the north and Interstate 5 (I-5) to the east. I- 205 is an east-west freeway which extends from I-5 west to I-580 with I-580 continuing west into the Bay Area.

I-5 is a north-south freeway which extends throughout California. Currently, Plan area access to I-205 is via an interchange at MacArthur Drive. I-5 access is via the full access interchange at Kasson Road (an extension of Grant Line Road). I-5 access is also available (to/from the north only) via an interchange at Eleventh Street. The p
rimary local roadways serving the area are MacArthur Drive, Pescadero Avenue, East Grant Line Road, Chrisman Road and Paradise Road.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 3

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 4

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 5

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 6

Number APN OWNER LOT SIZE (ACRES)
1 213-060-12 RADOS PROPERTIES CALIF LAND LLC 42.42
2 213-060-13 HALEY DOROTHY TRUSTEE 9.78
3 213-070-81 PIMENTEL VELMA C 35.95
4 213-070-75 PONY UP TRACY LLC 7.68
5 213-070-74 OLD GOLDEN OAKS LLC 5.35
6 213-070-73 US INDUSTRIAL REIT CONTAINER III 44.03
7 213-070-22 PIMENTEL VELMA C 9.79
8 213-070-28 MATTSON HELENE A 9.1
9 213-070-29 MATTSON HELENE A 0.689
10 213-070-19 ROBERTSON STANLEY & B 0.703
11 213-070-20 SILVA BERNARDINE M 18.88
12 213-070-18 ENDER WENDELL F & M L 0.519
13 213-070-40 PIMENTEL JOSEPH L 18.99
14 213-070-41 MARTY MARILYN 6.32
15 213-070-17 MARTY MARILYN 2.27
16 213-070-39 MARTY MARILYN 11.41
17 213-070-06 TRACY PESCADERO INDUSTRIAL PARK 19.46
18 213-070-48 SILVA MARIA O 5.34
19 213-070-49 SILVA MARIA O 33.86
20 213-070-08 SILVA MARIA O 19.55
21 213-070-51 SILVA MARIA O 17.55
22 213-070-52 SILVA MARIA O 1.005
23 213-070-53 SILVA MANUEL H 1.005
24 213-070-76 PROLOGIS LOGISTICS SERVICES INC 4.8
25 213-070-77 PROLOGIS LOGISTICS SERVICES INC 8.19
26 213-070-78 PROLOGIS LOGISTICS SERVICES INC 22.08
27 213-070-79 PROLOGIS LOGISTICS SERVICES INC 25.15
28 213-070-13 ENDER ALVETA F 0.839
29 213-070-80 PROLOGIS LOGISTICS SERVICES INC 11.3
30 213-070-44 RUSE JOSEPH T & PATRICIA A 1.619
31 213-070-45 ENDER BUDDY C 0.9
32 250-020-15 COSTA ROBERT J SR & EVELYN M 0.5
33 250-020-14 ROCHA MANUEL TOSTE JR 79.03
34 250-020-79 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 3.17
35 250-020-82 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 2.87
36 250-020-80 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 5.8
37 250-020-81 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 10.08
38 250-020-83 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 52.13
39 250-020-84 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 0.773
40 250-020-85 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 44.44
41 250-020-87 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 33.53
42 250-010-05 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 9.18
43 250-020-86 CATELLUS CORPORATE CTR TRACY LLC 5
44 250-030-10 SILVA FRANK I & MARY L 9.28
45 250-030-29 1851 E PARADISE ROAD PARTNERS LLC 6.56
46 250-030-30 BIG 4 GROUP LLC 2.17
47 250-030-27 BARBOSA INVESTMENT GROUP LTD PTP 17.73
48 250-030-28 BARBOSA INVESTMENT GROUP LTD PTP 12.59
49 250-030-02 TRACY CITY OF 4.24
50 250-030-26 HEADLANDS REALTY CORP 31.17
51 250-030-25 HEADLANDS REALTY CORP 10.51
52 250-030-24 TRACY LOGISTICS CENTER PARTNERS LLC 10.48 53 250-030-23 TRACY LOGISTICS CENTER PARTNERS LLC 4.48
54 250-030-18 TCE TRACY LLC 37.96
55 250-030-19 AMB HOLDCO LLC 6.35
56 250-280-09 AMB PROPERTY LP 8.81
57 250-280-08 AMB PROPERTY LP 3.96
58 250-280-07 AMB PROPERTY LP 3.89
59 250-280-06 AMB PROPERTY LP 14.14
60 250-280-10 AMB PROPERTY LP 17.8
61 213-070-82 CITY OF TRACY 1.089
Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 7

62 213-170-27 TRACY ALLIANCE GROUP, LLC 122.39
63 213-170-48 PACIFIC T&T COMPANY 0.05
64 213-170-24 SUVIK FARMS 31.67
65 213-170-25 SUVIK FARMS 11.70
66 213-170-26 SUVIK FARMS 3.24
67 213-170-14 ZURIAKAT 22.17
Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 8

.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 9

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 10

RELATIONSHIP TO TRACY'S GENERAL PLAN

General Plan Land Use Designations
The City of Tracy General Plan designates the entire Northeast Industrial area for Industrial land uses. Specific uses allowed in the industrial category range from flex/office space to manufacturing to warehousing and distribution. Ancillary uses, such as restaurants, consumer services, and parks may be allowed to serve the daily needs of the workers.

Tracy’s Growth Strategy
The City of Tracy has embraced a “balanced growth” strategy, seeking to direct growth in an efficient, cost- effective manner, balancing land uses and appropriate use of the land with well-planned and utilized infrastructure. This strategy seeks to improve the jobs/housing balance and to encourage development of employment opportunities and capitalize on freeway interchanges with industrial, retail, and service-related development.

The northeastern sector of Tracy has been designated as one area in which the City’s industrial growth will occur. Adjacent to existing industrial development and with direct access to the I-205 freeway and rail transportation, the Northeast Industrial area is ideally situated to attract and support business without the need for major infrastructure expenditures.

General Plan Goals Furthered by the Northeast Industrial Area Development The Northeast Industrial Specific Plan proposes development consistent with the General Plan. It furthers many of the Goals and Policies stated in the General Plan and it implements many of the Actions set forth in the General Plan. Following is a summary of General Plan Goals, Policies, and Actions to which the Northeast Industrial Specific Plan contributes.

Land Use

Objective LU-1.1 Establish a clearly defined urban form and city structure.

Policy P1: New development and redevelopment in existing areas shall be organized as a series of residential Neighborhoods, Employment Areas, Corridors, Village Centers, the Downtown and the I -205 Regional Commercial Area.
• Employment Areas are the job-centers of the city and include office districts, retail centers and industrial areas.

Objective LU-2.3 Expand the City’s industrial base.

Policy P1: The Northeast Industrial Area should contain a mix of heavy industrial, light industrial, warehouse, and distribution users to maximize rail and highway access on large parcels of land. The Northeast Industrial Area should also contain commercial uses and services to meet the daily needs of workers.

Objective LU-6.2 Ensure land use patterns that minimize conflicts between transportation corridors and neighboring uses.

Policy P1: Uses that are compatible with the noise, air quality and traffic impacts associated with freeways, such as auto-oriented commercial and industrial uses, should be located near and along freeway corridors whenever possible.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 11

Economic Development

Objective ED-4.1 Ensure an adequate, balanced supply of all land uses for future economic development.

Action A1: Monitor current and future land supply needs for industrial, office and retail growth.

Objective ED-6.3 Promote expansion in the Northeast Industrial Area.

Policy P1: The City shall encourage and facilitate the development and buildout of the entire 870 -acre Northeast Industrial Area.

Policy P2: The City shall direct business attraction efforts to manufacturing uses, rather than warehouse distribution facilities, due to their higher employment densities.

Policy P3: Developers should consider flexible facility design and construction types that can accommodate future manufacturing uses with higher employment densities.

Policy P4: The City should support efforts to attract private developers and equity investors to participate in the development of the area.

Community Character

Objective CC-11.2 Encourage attractive design in Employment Areas.

Policy P1: Development in Employment Areas should adhere to high-quality design standards.

Policy P4: Building setbacks for office buildings or office portions of industrial buildings should be minimized to ensure that buildings define the edges of the street.

Policy P6: Loading facilities in Employment Areas should be screened from view from public streets to the extent possible.

Policy P9: Fencing visible from the public right -of-way shall be visually appealing when used in industrial and commercial developments.

Objective CC-11.3 Minimize the impact of parking on the pedestrian environment in Employment Areas.

Policy P1: The impact of parking in Employment Areas on the pedestrian environment should be minimized with attractive landscaping.

Policy P2: Parking lots should be set back from the street with a landscaped buffer wherever possible.

Circulation

Objective CIR-1.4 Protect residential areas from commercial truck traffic.

Policy P1: Significant new truck traffic generating uses shall be limited to locations along designated truck routes, in industrial areas or within ¼-mile of freeways.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 12

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

Project Objectives
The objectives of the project are:
• To develop the Northeast Industrial Area as a high-quality industrial and commercial site of significant benefit to the City of Tracy and the nearby region.
• To develop a well-planned site that will attract businesses to Tracy, providing local employment opportunities.
• To develop the Northeast Industrial Area for primarily mixed industrial uses, including rail-dependent industries.
• To minimize project-related impacts to Tracy's transportation network. • To provide a flexible phasing program that allows market forces to dictate reasonable growth increments, while ensuring that agricultural properties are allowed to remain until ready to develop. • To create a project consistent with the goals of the General Plan. • To integrate the Northeast Industrial Area into the development pattern of the City of Tracy. • To integrate mitigation for environmental impacts into the design of the project.

Land Use Designations
The Northeast Industrial Area will consist primarily of light industrial land uses. In addition, general commercial land uses are planned at major intersections along Pescadero Avenue and Grant Line Road. Figure 5 shows the configuration of the land uses in the planning area.

The development prototypes included in the Design Guidelines indicate possible site planning scenarios for environmental impact analysis.

Light Industrial Land Uses (LI)
Light Industrial land uses cover approximately 990 acres of the planning area. Assuming a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.5, approximately 21.6 million square feet of light industrial, warehouse and manufacturing facilities would be provided. Light industrial land uses would be compatible with existing industrial land uses to the west and north, as well as with freeway noise, and rail noise and vibration.

Several types of light industrial land uses are appropriate in the Northeast Industrial Area. It is anticipated that warehousing and distribution businesses with low employee densities will be the predominant development type. This development pattern is similar to those that have located in Tracy in recent years. The southern portion of the Planning Area is appropriate to uses that require rail access.

The City of Tracy is also interested in attracting higher employee density businesses to the area. It is anticipated that there may be a future demand for a "Flex-Tech" development that would accommodate research & development businesses and call centers.

The light industrial zone may also be appropriate for service commercial businesses with little pedestrian traffic, that are not necessarily compatible with general commercial land uses, such as automotive supply and plumbing stores. Commercial development may be permitted on sites designated Light Industrial without the site being redesignated General Commercial if:

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 13

1. The site is a minimum of one acre and located on the northwest or southwest corners of Pescadero Avenue and Paradise Road or the northwest or southwest corners of Grant Line Road and Paradise Road.

2. The site has City Engineer-approved access from at least two streets.

3. The proposal is for a convenience retail or general commercial service use to the industrial area, such as restaurants, hotels, or convenience stores and service stations.

4. 15,000 square feet of retail within an industrial warehouse located on the southwest corner of Chrisman Road and Paradise Road.

A variety of parcel sizes are foreseeable, probably ranging from 5 to 50 acres, depending upon the type of industrial user attracted to the area. Since market forces will dictate that eventual parcel size, the Specific Plan does not reflect an exact parcelization plan.

Existing Agricultural and Residential Uses
The parcels containing former dairy operations; existing agricultural operations, and/or former or existing residences, may remain in operation until ready to develop. The planned light industrial land uses will be compatible with these properties. (The agricultural lands are subject to the City's Right to Farm Ordinance, discussed below)

General Commercial Land Uses (GC)
Three parcels of general commercial, totaling 45.5 acres are provided within the planning area. These commercial sites are intended to expand upon the existing commercial uses adjacent to the I-205/ MacArthur Drive interchange, take advantage of the freeway-oriented traffic circulation of the site, and serve the local industrial community. The largest parcel (25.5 acres) is located in the northwest comer of the project along Pescadero Avenue. This parcel provides for potential factory outlet expansion or other interstate-related commercial uses. General Commercial land uses provide for service commercial oriented land uses, such as animal shelters, who’s land use characteristics are compatible with industrial uses.

Right to Farm Provisions
Agricultural operations currently exist within the Northeast Industrial planning area. This Specific Plan intends to allow the continued operation of these existing agricultural uses until such time as the owners wish to convert their property to nonagricultural uses.

When nonagricultural land uses move into areas near to pre-existing agricultural operations, the agricultural operations frequently become the subject of nuisance complaints. Chapter 10.24 of the Tracy Municipal Code, the Right to Farm Ordinance, declares that farming operations are not a nuisance, and recognizes the right to farm within the incorporated City. Agricultural and dairy operations are included in the Permitted Uses (page 36) for both the Light Industrial and General Commercial land use designations.

Mineral Extraction
A number of the parcels in the Northeast Industrial planning area have mineral rights that are owned by different owners than the underlying land. It is possible that these owners may choose to exercise these rights at some time in the future. As such, mineral extraction is included as a Conditionally Permitted use within the Light Industrial land use designation. Any mineral extraction operation will be unobtrusive, and will be a subsidiary use to the primary use of the parcel.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 14

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 15

CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION
T
he Northeast Industrial Specific Plan provides for efficient circulation by automobiles and trucks. The proposed land use mix, street geometry, and proximity to the interstate freeway system will minimize project-related impacts to Tracy's transportation network.

Th
e distribution, location and extent of the roadway improvements within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the NEI Phase I Finance and Implementation Plans, dated December 1999 (Resolution Numbers 99-462 and 99-485), April 1, 2003 (Resolution Number 2003-100), January 4, 2005 (Resolution Number 2005-023), February 21, 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-069), and April 15, 2008 (Resolution Number 2008-065), and the NEI Phase II Finance and Implementation Plans, dated January 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-038) and January 15, 2008 (
Resolution Number 2008-010). All future roadway improvements will also be subject to any revisions or u
pdates to the NEI Finance and Implementation Plans, and subject to the development impact fees as established in those plans. Figures 6 and 7A and 7B show the original roadway network and street sections for the Specific Plan, which will be modified by the Finance and Implementation Plan process.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 16

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 17

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 18

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 19

PUBLIC SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Wastewater Collection and Disposal
Th
e distribution, location and extent of the wastewater conveyance treatment and discharge within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the NEI Phase I Finance and Implementation Plans, dated December 1999 (Resolution Numbers 99-462 and 99-485), April 1, 2003 (Resolution Number 2003-100), January 4, 2005 (Resolution Number 2005-023), February 21, 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-069), and April 15, 2008 (Resolution Number 2008-065), and the NEI Phase II Finance and Implementation Plans, dated January 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-038) and January 15, 2008 (Resolution Number 2008-010). All future wastewater improvements will also be subject to any revisions or updates to the NEI Finance and Implementation Plans, and subject to the development impact fees as established in those plans. Figure 8 shows the master sewer plan for the Specific Plan, which will be modified by the Finance and Implementation Plan process.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 20

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 21

Storm Drainage

The distribution, location and extent of the storm drainage improvements within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the NEI Phase I Finance and Implementation Plans, dated December 1999 (Resolution Numbers 99- 462 and 99-485), April 1, 2003 (Resolution Number 2003-100), January 4, 2005 (Resolution Number 2005-023), February 21, 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-069), and April 15, 2008 (Resolution Number 2008-065), and the NEI Phase II Finance and Implementation Plans, dated January 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-038) and January 15, 2008 (Resolution Number 2008-010). All future storm drainage improvements will also be subject to any revisions or updates to the NEI Finance and Implementation Plans, and subject to the development impact fees as established in those plans. Figure 9 shows the original storm drainage master plan for the Specific Plan, which will be modified by the Finance and Implementation Plan process.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 22

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 23

Water Supply and Distribution

The distribution, location and extent of the water improvements within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to the NEI Phase I Finance and Implementation Plans, dated December 1999 (Resolution Numbers 99-462 and 99- 485), April 1, 2003 (Resolution Number 2003-100), January 4, 2005 (Resolution Number 2005-023), February 21, 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-069), and April 15, 2008 (Resolution Number 2008-065), and the NEI Phase II Finance and Implementation Plans, dated January 2006 (Resolution Number 2006-038) and January 15, 2008 (Resolution Number 2008-010). All future water improvements will also be subject to any revisions or updates to the NEI Finance and Implementation Plans, and subject to the development impact fees as established in those plans. Figure 10 shows the original water master plan for the Specific Plan, which will be modified by the Finance and Implementation Plan process.

Police Protection
Police services to the project will be provided by the City of Tracy Police Department.

Fire Protection
The planning area is located within the boundaries of the Tracy Fire Department. The Tracy Fire Department will provide fire protection service and paramedic ambulance service to the planning area.

Other Utilities
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) will provide electricity and natural gas to the planning area. Comcast and/or AT&T will provide telephone/internet service to the planning area.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 24

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 25

DESIGN GUIDELINES

The Specific Plan includes design guidelines and development standards to guide site planning and architecture.

These design guidelines are similar to those adopted in the Industrial Areas and I-205 Corridor Specific Plans, which are adjacent to the planning area.

Streetscapes

1. The design of the streetscape should integrate, in a consistent and creative manner, plant materials, paths, berming, lighting, and signage to produce an attractive and functional environment.

2. All landscaping should employ a mix of trees, shrubs, groundcovers and turf, where appropriate. The plant palette should be relatively limited and applied in groupings of similar species rather than a few plans of many different species planted together. The use of water conserving plantings, such as California natives and drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and turf is encouraged, and compliance with the state’s water efficient landscape guidelines is required.

3. The use of lawn substitutes is encouraged in all medians and for parkways. The use of turf should be minimized and reserved for areas of high use or visibility and temporary median planting in anticipation of future street widths.

4. Automatic irrigation is required for all landscape areas. Plants should be watered and maintained on a regular basis. Irrigation systems should be designed so as not to overspray walks, buildings, and parking areas, etc. The use of water conserving systems, such as drip irrigation for shrub and tree planting, is encouraged.

5. Tree plantings should reflect street hierarchy with larger trees along arterial streets and smaller trees on industrial streets. Tree plantings shall be symmetrical and of the same species in the parkways on both sides of the streets. One tree species or mixture of species shall be planted consistently at regular intervals along the entire length of a street. Spacing interval shall be no greater than 40 feet on center.

Where trees are planted in medians, the plantings shall be continuous and at regular intervals. Spacing of median trees shall be no greater than 30 feet on center. Different tree species shall be planted at intersections to highlight these areas.

6. Adequate sight lines shall be maintained at all times

Recommended Trees for Major Streets
The following list identifies recommended trees for the major streets that form the framework of the area:

Street Parkway Median
Grant Line Rd Pistacia chinensis Prunus serrulata cvs.

Chinese Pistache Flowering Cherry
Paradise Rd/ Loop Rd Celtis sinensis Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' Chinese Hackberry Bradford Pear
Pescadero Ave Fraxinus oxycarpa 'Raywoodii' Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' Raywood Ash Aristocrat Pear

Select one of the following street trees for use on each industrial road:

Botanical Name Common Name
Eucalptus gunnii Cider Gum
Fraxinus oxycarpa ‘Raywoodii’ Raywood Ash
Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen Ash
Platanus acerifolia Sycamore
Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 26

Street Lighting

1. Illumination standards for arterial and industrial streets should reflect the different right-of-way widths and functions.

2. Light fixtures and standards shall meet all safety standards and shall be employed throughout the length of the street. It is recommended that one lighting fixture style be employed for use on all streets.

Where possible, light standards shall be located in medians.

Building Floor Area Ratio and Height

Land Use Max. Floor Area Ratio Max. Building Height
General Commercial 0.35 46 ft.

Office 0.35 60 ft.

Light Industrial 0.50 60 ft.

Building Setbacks

The following shall be the minimum building and parking setbacks required for all building types. Figure 14 illustrates these guidelines.

1. Building setback from any property line adjacent to a street or Caltrans right-of-way shall be 25 feet minimum. Rear and side yard building setbacks from property lines not adjacent to a street or Caltrans right-of-way shall be 15 feet minimum.

2. A 5 foot wide landscape setback is required along property lines not adjacent to a right-of-way. On the property lines perpendicular to the street frontage on industrial streets, the landscaped setback is only required to a point 150 feet onto the parcel from the street right-of-way or 50 feet back of building face, whichever is greater.

3. Parking setback from any property line along a public street or the Caltrans right-of-way for commercial land uses shall be 10 feet and for industrial uses shall be 15 feet.

4. Parking shall not be permitted within 10 feet of the building entry face of any commercial structure. In the event the building has an arcade or other shade structure along this frontage, the structure can be located within this required setback. Parking shall not be permitted within 15 feet of the office face or portion of a building. On industrial buildings, a 15 foot setback to the parking area shall be provided at building entries.

5. Commercial buildings shall be sited so as to create and enhance the streetscape. This can only be accomplished if all or a portion of the buildings are located near the street. On commercial sites of over 4 acres, at least one building must be located with a minimum setback from public-right-of-way to building face of 50 feet. On corner sites adherence to this requirement is encouraged on both frontages, however, only required on the major street frontage.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 27

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 28

Parking and On-Site Vehicular Circulation

1. Parking, on-site circulation, and loading area standards shall be as required by the provisions of Title 10, Article 26, Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Tracy Municipal Code unless modified below or as part of the Development Review approval. Portions of off-street parking requirements are summarize below.

2. Parking lots containing 10-20 spaces may include a maximum of 20% of the total number of spaces for compact cars. These spaces shall be designed and marked in accordance with City standards and distributed throughout the lot. Parking areas containing 20 or more spaces may include a maximum of 30% of the total number of spaces for compact cars.

3. Minimum off-street parking standards:

Uses Minimum Parking Spaces Required
Retail One space per 250 square feet of gross floor area Vehicle sales and rentals, including
recreational vehicles and mobile homes
One space per 250 square feet of gross floor area plus
one space per vehicle for sale or stored on lot.

Office: business, professional (not
including medical or dental), banks
One space per 250 square feet of gross floor area

Dental and medical clinics or office One space per 200 square feet of gross floor area

Motor vehicle repair garages One space per 600 square feet of gross floor area; repair stalls not counted as parking spaces

Cafes, restaurants, and other
establishments for the sale and
consumption of food and beverages
Dining: one space per 45 square feet of customer area
and one space per 250 square feet of all other area, plus additional spaces connected to uses such as drinking
establishments. Drinking bars, cocktail lounge: one space per 35 square feet of drinking, bar, lounge area.

Manufacturing One space per 600 square feet of gross floor area, or if the number of employees on the maximum work shift
can be verified, one space per one employee on the
maximum work shift

Warehouses/Storage and Distribution One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 20,000 square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per 2,000 square feet of the second 20,000 square feet of gross
floor area, plus one space per 4,000 square feet of the remaining square feet of gross floor area.

Loading and Unloading Spaces

1. Sufficient off-street loading and unloading spaces shall be provided on each site, and adequate provisions and space shall be made for maneuvering freight vehicles and handling all freight. All loading activity, including turnaround and maneuvering, shall be made on site.

2. In commercial areas, truck loading areas and docks shall not be permitted between building(s) and the public street unless enclosed with architectural screen of material similar to building.

3. In industrial areas, truck loading areas and docks shall not be permitted between building(s) and the street unless the building(s) are set back from the curb a minimum of 125 feet and doors are screened by landscaping, berms, and/or fences.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 29

4. Buildings, structures, and loading facilities shall be designed and placed upon the site so that vehicles, whether rear loading or side loading, may be loaded or unloaded at any loading dock, door, or area w
ithout extending beyond the property line.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 30

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 31

Driveway Standards

Driveways should be carefully located so as not to impede the primary function of the streets, which is to carry through traffic. It should be noted that these spacing guidelines are minimum values. The goal should be to exceed them where possible.

1. Individual industrial parcels on major arterial streets may have driveways, but they should be carefully located so as not to impede the traffic efficiency. In general, parcels with frontage on the major arterials should have their entryway on side streets if possible. If a parcel’s only frontage is on the major arterial, every effort should be made to consolidate access at a single driveway. Spacing standards for driveways on major arterials shall be as follows:
a. Full access driveways , 500 ft. minimum
b. Partial access driveways (right in/out, left turn in), 500 ft. minimum c. Right turn in and out, 350 ft. minimum upstream from an intersection d. Right turn in and out, 200 ft. minimum downstream from an intersection

2. On industrial streets, spacing for full access driveways is 450 feet, minimum. “T” intersections are encouraged over four-way intersections. Every effort should be made to consolidate driveways.

3. No driveway shall be located closer than 200 feet to the radius return point at intersections.

4. Driveways shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide. Subsequent development shall demonstrate driveway width and placement can accommodate truck turning movement and clearing without blocking roadways.

5. Driveway width modifications may be approved with shared (ganged) driveways. Ganged driveways which serve two adjacent sites will be required to install landscaped islands along parking adjacent to the gang driveway and a landscape zone at the end of the common drive will act as a terminus to the view line down the ganged driveway.
a. Full curb returns (as opposed to a standard driveway) shall be utilized for entries to all sites of over ten acres in size or for common driveways that serve two adjacent sites that together total more than ten acres.

6. Access driveways shall provide adequate length to accommodate off-street vehicle stacking needs during times of peak use.

7. Parcel entry should be clear, attractive, and inviting; circulation should direct employee and visitor traffic clearly through the site to main building entries and drop-off points and service trucks to loading.

8. In commercial areas, vehicular entries to the site shall be well defined and recognizable to motorists.

Improvements should include accent paving, signs, special plantings, and lighting. Such improvements shall not block motorists’ sight lines to oncoming traffic.

Freeway Interface

The control of views of Tracy from I-205 is critical for the establishment of a quality image for the community.

1. Locate services and storage areas to minimize visibility from I-205.

2. All freeway setback zones shall be planted with a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover.

Automatic irrigation is required of all planted area. Use large scale trees, from a 24-inch box minimum, grouped in single species clusters. Mass trees to avoid blocking views of commercial signage while providing at least one tree per 1,500 square feet of setback area. Plant shrubs in an informal hedge near the property line with gaps between hedges of 50 feet maximum. Install from 5 gallon cans, minimum, in single species clusters at least 100 feet long. Hydroseed or otherwise install permanent groundcover in all places not planted with shrubs.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 32

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 33

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 34

Building Architecture

1. Use of creative building design and construction techniques is encouraged. Special attention should be given to that portion of the building visible from adjacent roadways or public parking areas.

2. Large buildings should have facades that include variations in massing, form, and texture. Continuous surface treatments of a single material should be minimized. Architecture should be used to highlight building entries.

3. Any accessory buildings and enclosures, whether attached or detached from the main building, shall be of similar compatible design and materials.

4. Continuous arcades along the front of commercial buildings are encouraged as they provide the pedestrian protection from the weather, reduce solar gain, and can serve to enhance the character of what might otherwise be simple, formless structures. When more than one building is to be developed on a commercial site, the buildings should be designed to relate to one another as a total composition with well thought out relationships to one another.

Signs

1. Signs must conform to the requirements of Signs, Title 10, Article 35 of the Tracy Municipal Code as modified herein.

2. A site sign program should be integrated into a total design concept for a site and its buildings. The primary goal of the project sign system is to provide information and identification. When more than one sign is permitted, all signs shall be of similar style, shape, and materials.

3. All signs must be approved prior to installation, and should be designed in a manner that coordinates the sign designs and locations with the site plan and building architecture for each project. The sign plans should include:
a. Detatched Business Identification Signs: One such monument sign (as defined by the Tracy Municipal Code) shall be allowed for each street frontage of the site. These signs may only contain the symbol and/or name of the business and its street address. The sign shall be free standing, may be double-sided, and shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the public right- of-way. Sign area shall not exceed 32 square feet per frontage and sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height from finished grade. Signs should generally be oriented perpendicular to approaching traffic.
b. Wall signs: On large single tenant buildings, signs should be located immediately above or adjacent to the primary building entrance. No sign shall extend above dominant roof lines. The area of any single sign shall not exceed 100 square feet. Total area shall not exceed one-half square foot of sign per lineal foot of business being served.

On smaller multi-tenant buildings, signs should be located at the frontage of each individual lessee. The area of any single sign shall not exceed 100 square feet nor more than 75 percent of the tenant frontage. Capital letters shall be no more than 2.5 feet in height and lower case letters no more than 1.5 feet in height. When individually-lettered wall signs comprise over 50 percent of the sign area of all sign types, total sign area shall not exceed 1.2 square feet per lineal foot of business being served. When comprising less than 50 percent of the total sign area, the maximum sign area shall be one-half square foot per lineal foot of business being served.
c. Directional Signs: Signs required or desired to assist patrons in accessing the facility shall be located in the site parking areas. The design of such signs shall be simple and easily legible.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 35

There is no limit to the number of signs provided on a site; however, no single sign shall exceed 6 square feet in area, except that vehicular “stop” signs shall be mounted per State standards.

4. A sign may be illuminated provided that no flashing, traveling, animated, or intermittent illumination shall be used. Such illumination shall be confined to the area of the sign except when such illumination is back lighting for an otherwise non-illuminated sign. No sign illumination shall cast a glare which is visible from any street.

5. Signs should be constructed with quality materials and in a craftsman-like manner to ensure both an attractive appearance and durability.

Landscaping

Minimum on-site landscaping requirements shall be established by Off-Street Parking Requirements (Title 10, Article 26 of the Tracy Municipal Code), except as modified below.

Summary of Requirements Commercial Industrial
Landscaped frontage setback 10 feet 15 feet
Minimum number of trees in parking area 1 tree per 5 spaces 1 tree per 10 spaces Percentage of landscaping in parking areas:
0 - 15 cars 5% 5%
16 - 30 cars 10% 5%
31-60 cars 15% 7½%
Over 60 cars 20% 10%

1. While commercial uses benefit from a well-landscaped parking area and visibility from the street, views of industrial uses benefit from a more generously landscaped streetscape. Thus, parking lot landscaping requirements for industrial uses may be reduced as specified in the Off-Street Parking Requirements in order to create a large landscape setback along the street. These provisions allow the reduction of 50 percent of the required landscaping based on the provision of a 15 foot landscape setback along the street frontage. The 15 foot strip may be included in the calculation of the total parking lot landscaping requirement. The remainder of the landscaping requirement must be distributed over the lot(s) to provide shade and landscape building frontage. Canopy trees shall be evenly distributed throughout the parking area to provide shade.

2. On-site landscaping along rights-of-way between property lines and buildings, parking lots, or vehicular circulation improvements shall be installed by the property owner. This landscaping shall be designed as an extension of the adjacent public right-of-way landscaping. Completion of landscaping on the site shall be simultaneous with completion of the building and other improvements on the site.

3. Landscaping shall not obstruct sight lines at street or driveway intersections.

4. In place of the wheel stops at parking lots, landscape areas and pedestrian walkways may be extended not more than 2 feet into required parking spaces, to include a 6” concrete curb. In such cases, no credit toward parking lot landscape requirements shall be given for the resulting additional landscaping.

5. Screening of the parking area from public rights-of-way in industrial areas shall be provided with a 2½ to 3 foot high element, measuring from the top of the parking area pavement. Screening may consist of one or a combination of the following:
a. Berms landscaped with ground cover, trees, and shrubs; b. Solid, low profile, decorative masonry walls;
c. Evergreen shrubbery which, when solely used as screening, shall be continuously maintained to provide solid screening.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 36

6. Generous landscaping screening is required adjacent on all street frontages for industrial areas. These areas should be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to soften views of parking areas.

7. Tree planting and selection and massing should be compatible with streetscape plantings. Provide minimum 1 tree per 400 square feet of landscape setback. The plant palette should be relatively limited and applied in groupings of similar species rather than a few plants of many different species planted together.

8. The use of water conserving plantings, such as California natives and drought tolerant trees, shrubs, and turf is encouraged. The use of turf in the narrow planting islands is discouraged.

9. Live plant materials shall be used in all landscaped areas. The use of gravel, colored rock, bark, and other similar materials are not acceptable as a sole groundcover material.

10. All trees shall be of 24 inch box size minimum at planting with a minimum branching height 5 years after installation of 10 feet above road or parking surfaces and 6 feet at pedestrian areas. Shrubs shall be of 5 gallon size minimum with a maximum on-center spacing of 24 inches. Likewise, groundcover may be planted at 1 gallon size minimum with a maximum spacing of 12 inches on center.

11. Automatic irrigation is required for all landscaped areas. Irrigation systems shall be designed so as not to overspray walks, buildings, and parking areas.

Screening and Storage

1. All exterior trash areas, storage structures, and service areas shall be screened from public view with a wall or fence of a minimum height of 8 feet above the street curb level. Storage areas shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from streets, unless fully enclosed in an architecturally compatible enclosure.

2. No storage areas are allowed within the landscape easements, front setbacks, or side or rear yard landscaped buffers.

3. Roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from street view. Pad-mounted transformers, utility connections, and meter boxes shall be screened and integrated into the site plan.

4. The design of masonry walls, fencing, trash enclosures, and similar accessory site elements should be compatible with the architecture of the building and should use similar materials. Where masonry walls are along property frontage, they should enhance the entrance to the property and should not impair traffic safety by obscuring views. Long expanses of wall surfaces should be architecturally designed to prevent monotony.

5. The use of chain link fences shall be discouraged, and no chain link fences shall be visible from any public right-of-way.

Development Review Process

All development in the NEI shall be subject to the requirements of Tracy Municipal Code Article 30, Development Review (TMC Sections 10.08.3920 through 10.08.4110).

Environmental Performance Standards

Use Restrictions
No use shall be permitted to exist or operate on any lot which:

1. Emits dust, sweepings, dirt, cinders, fumes, odors, radiation, gases and vapors, or discharges liquid or solid wastes or other harmful matter into the atmosphere or any body of water which may, according to the appropriate agency, adversely affect the health and safety persons within the area or the health and safety of persons in adjacent areas or the use of adjacent properties.

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 37

2. Discharges waste or any harmful substance, as defined by the Municipal Code, into any public sewer or storm drainage system.

3. Produces intense glare or heat, unless such use is performed only within an enclosed or screened area, and then only in such manner that glare or heat emitted will not be discernible from any exterior lot line.

4. Creates a sound pressure level in violation of any regulation of any public body having jurisdiction. This requirement shall also be applicable to the disposal of trash and waste materials.

5. Allows the visible emissions of smoke (outside any building) other than the exhausts emitted by motor vehicles or other transportation facilities or any emissions in violation of any regulation of any public body having jurisdiction. This requirement shall also be applicable to the disposal of trash and waste materials.

6. Creates a ground vibration that is perceptible, without instruments, at any point along any of the exterior lot lines.

Hazardous Wastes and Water Pollutants

1. All new industries locating with the area will be required to obtain a Discharge Permit from the Director of Utilities prior to occupancy. This permit shall establish the amount and quality of wastes allowed to be discharged into the City’s sanitary sewer.

2. The quality of wastewater entering the city sewage system from the proposed uses shall be measured by the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) levels referenced in the local Water Quality Control Board 208 Plan. Users that are not expected to comply with these standards will be required to provide on-site pretreatment facilities.

3. The storage and distribution of hazardous materials shall be subject to the rules of the San Joaquin County Health District.

4. Industries regularly using significant quantities of hazardous chemicals as defined by State Law in the course of their operations shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit.

Mineral Extraction

1. Mineral extraction shall only be permitted as a subsidiary use to main use of the site.

2. Locate equipment, storage, and facilities for mineral extraction to avoid visibility from the public street.

Dairy Uses

1. With development applications for an individual site, provide information demonstrating provisions of adequate buffers between proposed development and adjacent existing dairy uses.

2. Existing dairy uses are exempted from the Environmental Performance Standards.

Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses

The following table indicates uses which are to be permitted and permitted subject to Conditional Use Permits in the Northeast Industrial area. The land use designations are abbreviated as follows:

LI: Light Industrial
GC: General Commercial

Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 38

The uses shown in Table 18 as Permitted (“P”) are those that are deemed acceptable anywhere in the assigned land use designation. They are uses that, when developed in conformance with this Plan, will not require special conditions in order to avoid negative impacts.

The uses shown as Conditionally Permitted (“C”) are of two types. Some of these uses are not acceptable in every location within a land use but are acceptable in certain locations. Other uses may require special conditions to make them acceptable at particular locations, due to their potential negative impacts on existing or planned uses. This may be because of their potential nuisance aspects, such as noise or hazardous wastes.

Where neither a “P” or “C” is shown for a particular land use district, that use is not allowed.

Table 1: Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Land Uses Land Uses LI ● GC
Agricultural, including dairies P ◊ P ●, ◊
Accessory uses and structures; not including warehouses located on the same site as a permitted use
P P
Administrative, executive, research, medical offices P P Call centers P P
Accessory uses and structures located on the same site as a conditional use
C C
Warehousing and distribution facilities P
Manufacturing, repair, assembly, or packaging of products from previously prepared materials, such as cloth, plastic, leather, or semi-precious metals or stones, but not including such operations as saw or planing mills, any manufacturing involving primary production of wood, metal, or chemical products from raw materials
P
Manufacture of food products, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology products and the like, but not including fish or meat products, sauerkraut, vinegar, or the like, or rendering or refining of fats and oils.

P
Laboratories, including chemical, physical materials testing, electronic, agricultural, photographic film processing, and general research P
Electrical industrial apparatus manufacturing, service, and repairs, including motors, generators, welding equipment, electrical transmission and distribution equipment, and turbines and pumps.

P
Manufacture, repair of optical electronic, timing, and measuring instruments
P
Dairy products plants P
Machine shops P
Heating, plumbing, and ventilating equipment manufacturing, servicing, repairs
P
Refrigerator, furnace, water heater, and other household appliance manufacturing, service and repairs, not incidental to retail sales P
Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 39

Furniture and cabinet assembling whose activities are carried on entirely within an enclosed building and which have no construction yards on the lot
P
Parcel delivery service and vehicle storage inside and outside the building P Truck terminals P
Mini storage P
Equipment storage P
Janitorial services and supplies P
Printing, including lithographing, engraving, and other such similar reproduction services
P
Automotive supply stores C
Rental yards, including the rental of hand tools, garden tools, power tools, trucks, trailers, and other similar equipment
C
Building materials sales, lumberyards (outside storage) C Repair, painting, and body work for automotive, motorcycle, and farm machinery
C
Boat sales, service, repair C
Service stations, provided all operations except sales of gas and oil are conducted within an enclosed building. Sales shall be limited to petroleum products and automotive accessories, and retail products typically found in a convenience store.

C
Wholesale trade business C
Intermediate manufacturing uses involving the processing of raw materials, including food and paper processing, wineries, and concrete mixers
C
Mineral and hydrocarbon extraction C
Recycling (collection and sorting) C
Outlet stores and centers P
Warehouse retail, including furniture, office supply, sporting goods, or wholesale merchandising
P
Hardware stores, including garden centers P
Home improvement and interior decorating stores, including carpet, drapery, floor covering, paint, glass, and wallpaper shops P
Garden centers, including plant nurseries and retail sales P Sporting goods and toy stores P
Specialty retail stores selling those items and services normally sold in department stores (including clothing, shoes, and accessories) P
Shoe and clothing repair P
Food markets, convenience markets P
Liquor stores P
Drug stores and prescription pharmacies P
Restaurants, including fast food P
Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Page | 40

Art galleries and artists supply stores P
Barbershops, beauty shops, and hairstylists P
Financial institutions, including banks, savings and loan offices, finance companies, credit unions, and related services
P
Refrigerator, furnace, water heater, and other household appliance sales including repair, provided repair services are incidental to retail sales.

P
Laundries and dry cleaners P
Photocopying and related duplicating services, not including printing, lithographing, engraving, or such similar reproduction services P
Pet and bird stores with incidental veterinary services P Animal Shelters P
Video stores, sales, and rental P
Automobile and motorcycle sales and rental, including new and used sales C Bars without significant food service C
Building materials sales (no outside storage) C
Miniature golf C
Service stations, provided all operations except sales of gas and oil are conducted within an enclosed building. Sales shall be limited to petroleum products and automotive accessories, and retail products typically found in a convenience store.

C

●: Subject to compliance with the Environmental Performance Standards. Note that as defined by State law, any business using significant quantities of hazardous materials requires a Conditional Use Permit.
◊: Existing dairy operations are exempt from the Environmental Performance Standards.

Attachment C: Overall Site Plan

City of Tracy, California
Notice of Preparation and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Tracy Alliance Project
Date: August 28, 2020
To: Public Agencies and Interested Parties
From: Bill Dean, Assistant Development Services Director Victoria Lombardo, Senior Planner
Subject: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Public Scoping Meeting for the Tracy Alliance Project
The City of Tracy (City) is the Lead Agency and will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Tracy Alliance Project (proposed project) identified herein.

The City is soliciting comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR, and environmental issues and alternatives to the proposed project to be addressed in the Draft EIR. The City requests that interested parties provide comments on the proposed project’s scope and the content of descriptions of significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures to be explored in the Draft EIR. Public agencies may need to use the EIR when considering permitting or other approvals that are relevant to the agencies’ statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project.

Because of time limits mandated by State law, public agencies must submit any comments in response to this notice at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. The City of Tracy will also accept comments from other interested parties regarding this notice during this period.

Public agencies providing comments are requested to include a contact person for the respective agency. Please send written responses to Victoria Lombardo at the address shown below by September 30, 2020.

Victoria Lombardo, Senior Planner
City of Tracy, Development Services
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
Phone: 209.831.6428
Email: [email protected]
Public Scoping Meeting
A public scoping meeting, convened by the City of Tracy Planning Commission, will be held on September 9, 2020, starting at 7:00 p.m. as a Teleconference Meeting, using Webex.

In response to the COVID-19 crisis and Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, this hearing will be conducted utilizing teleconferencing technology. Participants can join the scoping meeting by viewing the City’s WebEx Event at https://cityoftracyevents.webex.com and using the following Event Attachment D
Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project 2 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx Number: 126 086 2910 and Event Password: Planning1; or via phone by dialing (209) 831-6010 during the public comment portion of this item.

At this meeting public agencies, organizations, and members of the public will be able to review the proposed project application materials and provide comments on the scope of the environmental review process.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation

FirstCarbon Solutions 3
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT
The project site is located on approximately 191 acres at the northeast corner of Grant Line Road and Paradise Road, in unincorporated San Joaquin County, adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the City of Tracy city limits and the Northeast Industrial (NEI) Specific Plan boundary, but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) (Exhibits 1 and 2). The unincorporated community of Banta lies southeast of the project site. The proposed project is on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Union Island 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle Section 22, 23, and 24 (and El Pescadero Land Grant), Township 2 South, Range 5 East (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 213-170-14, -24, -25, -26, -27, and -48).

1.1 - Overview
The Tracy Alliance Group, Suvik Farms, LLC., and Zuriakat (co-applicants) are proposing the Tracy Alliance Project (proposed project), which consists of the development of up to 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse development on approximately 191 acres comprising six parcels. The six parcels consist of two Tracy Alliance parcels (totaling 122.44 acres), three Suvik Farms, LLC., parcels (totaling

46.61 acres), and one Zuriakat parcel (22.17 acres).

The project site is within unincorporated San Joaquin County adjacent to the City of Tracy’s northeastern city limits and adjacent to the City of Tracy NEI Specific Plan area. The proposed project would require approval of annexation into the City of Tracy, pre-zoning, an amendment to the NEI Specific Plan, and a Tentative Parcel Maps or Lot Line Adjustment to create final development lots.

Development on the two Tracy Alliance parcels, as proposed by co-applicant, Tracy Alliance Group, would consist of 1,849,500 square feet of warehouse space located in three buildings, as well as a stormwater detention basin with a pump station (that would be City-owned and managed).

Approximately 13.36 acres of the Tracy Alliance land would be reserved to accommodate a portion of a planned interchange at Paradise Road and Interstate 205 (I-205). The future design of the interchange would undergo a separate environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) once funding is programmed and available.

Development plans for the Suvik Farms, LLC., parcels (identified as Suvik Farms parcels) and the Zuriakat parcel are not specified at this time. For the purposes of analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), buildout of these parcels is estimated to consist of 1,502,820 square feet of warehouse development, consistent with the maximum allowable density per acre identified in the NEI Specific Plan.

The proposed project also includes demolition of existing residential and agricultural buildings, removal of existing trees and crops, road improvements, and grading of approximately 500,000 cubic yards, which would be balanced on-site. Of the 500,000 cubic yards of material graded, approximately 300,000 cubic yards would occur on the Tracy Alliance parcels, approximately 150,000 cubic yards would occur in development of the Suvik Farms parcels, and approximately 50,000 cubic yards would occur in development of the Zuriakat parcel.

Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project

4 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx

1.1.1 - Surrounding Land Uses
The area surrounding the project site has both an agricultural and industrial character. Land uses north of the project site consist of single-family homes north of California Avenue; there is a cell tower just east of the terminus of California Avenue. A vehicle dealership and agricultural lands are also to the north (north of I-205). East of the project site is agricultural land with associated single-family homes and agricultural structures and outbuildings. Neighboring properties south and west of the project site consist of agricultural lands and industrial warehouses, which are part of the NEI Specific Plan area, with vacant lots interspersed among the agricultural and industrial lands to the west.

Existing Conditions
The project site consists of six parcels, as shown in Exhibit 3 and listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Existing Parcels
Assessor’s
Parcel
Number
Parcel
Naming
Convention Address Ownership/Applicant Acreage
213-170-14 Zuriakat
Parcel
6050 California Avenue Zuriakat/ Not Applicable 22.17
213-170-24
213-170-25
213-170-26
Suvik
Farms
Parcels
6103 Grant Line Road
6281 Grant Line Road
6301 Grant Line Road
Suvik Farms/Souza Realty & Development 31.67

11.70 3.24
213-170-27
213-170-48
Tracy
Alliance
Parcels
6599 Grant Line Road
Grant Line Road (no
street number)
Tracy Alliance /Tracy Alliance Group
Pacific T & T Company/Tracy Alliance Group
122.39

0.05 Total 191.22
Source: San Joaquin County. no date. Assessor’s Map. Book 213. Page 17.

The project site is relatively flat and low in elevation (15-30 feet above mean sea level) with a gentle topographic slope in the north-northeast direction.1,2 There are two existing residences (one occupied and one vacant) and nine agricultural structures on-site in the southwest corner of the Tracy Alliance parcels. The Suvik and Zuriakat parcels do not contain any structures, only row crops.

Approximately 118-acres of the Tracy Alliance parcels are currently used for row crop production, including alfalfa, winter wheat, and almonds, with a small cattail marsh in a drainage ditch along the southern side of California Avenue.

Several private dirt roads provide access within the project site; irrigation/ drainage canals run along several of these roads. There is also a paved irrigation/drainage canal between the Tracy Alliance parcels and Zuriakat parcel. In addition, there are streetlights and power and telecommunication lines in various locations surrounding the project site.

1 Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2018. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Tracy Ridge. December 21. 2 Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. 2020. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Suvik and Zuriakat Properties, page 5.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation

FirstCarbon Solutions 5
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx The site provides suitable foraging habitat with potential to support birds of prey, including Swainson’s hawk. Northern portions of the site are within a 100-year floodplain as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).3 The project site consists of mostly Prime Farmland as mapped by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Prime Farmland has the best combination of features able to sustain long-term agricultural production with sustained high yields.4 The Suvik Farm parcels are bound by a Williamson Act contract.5 The contract is set to expire in 2026. Should development of the Suvik parcels be pursued prior to the Williamson Act contract expiration date, the Suvik landowner will be required to petition the City Council for cancellation.

The Tracy Municipal Airport is approximately 5.82 miles southwest of the project site; the site is not within the Airport Influence Area. The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) runs trains east from Stockton to San Jose in the morning and back west in the evening; the Tracy Station is located 5.05 miles southwest of the project site. The closest bus stop to the project site is 1.59 miles west at the Shops at Northgate Village. The stop is served by the City of Tracy TRACER bus service Route E, connecting to the Tracy Transit Station, and San Joaquin Regional Transit District bus routes 90 and 97, connecting to Lathrop and Stockton.6,7,8
Land Use Designations
The San Joaquin County General Plan (County General Plan) designates the site Agriculture-Urban Reserve (A/UR) (Exhibit 4) which allows for agricultural uses, farm-related residential use, and open space and parks.9 The A/UR designation reserves areas for urban development if the area is designated for urban development in a city’s general plan, and the County determines the area is a reasonable future expansion for the city.

The City of Tracy General Plan (General Plan) designates the project site Industrial (I) (Exhibit 5).

Primary land uses allowed under this designation consist of flex/office space, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and ancillary uses for workers’ needs (e.g. restaurants, parks, consumers services, etc.). The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.5.10 Zoning
The site is located within the General Agriculture Zoning District with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres (AG-40) on the County’s Zoning Map (Exhibit 4). The AG zoning preserves agricultural lands for

3 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. April 6. Website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=6281%20Grant%20Line%20Road%20Tracy%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor.

Accessed April 6, 2020
4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2018. San Joaquin County Important Farmland 2016.

May.
5 The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter contracts with private landowners to restrict specific parcels to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. 6 City of Tracy. 2019. TRACER Route Map. October.
7 San Joaquin Regional Transit District. 2014. Route 90 Map. August 10. 8 San Joaquin Regional Transit District. 2013. Route 97 Map. August 11. 9 Mintier Harnish Planning Consultants (prepared for San Joaquin County). 2016. San Joaquin County General Plan: Policy Document.

December.
10 Design, Community & Environment (prepared for the City of Tracy). 2011. City of Tracy General Plan. February 1.

Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project

6 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx continuation of commercial agricultural enterprises.11 The project site is not within city limits, accordingly, the City of Tracy does not currently provide a zoning designation for the project site; the applicant has requested pre-zoning to a designation of NEI Specific Plan (and annexation into the boundaries of the NEI Specific Plan) as part of the application for development.

Project Description

1.1.2 - Land Uses
The proposed project includes demolition of 11 existing residential and agricultural structures on 4 acres located at the southwestern corner of the Tracy Alliance parcels, removal of all crops, and construction of the following primary components:
• Multiple warehouse buildings totaling up to 3,352,320 square feet that support industrial uses and associated offices;
• A 13.01-acre City-owned and managed stormwater detention basin with pump station; • Approximately 110,000 square feet of landscaped areas associated with the site plan for the Tracy Alliance parcels; and
• Approximately 948 automobile parking spaces and approximately 572 trailer parking spaces provided within the site plan for the Tracy Alliance parcels.

Although development plans for the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels are not specified, these properties will be required to meet the minimum standards for landscaping and parking when a specific Site Plan is processed for those parcels. Based on the site acreage, the City has estimated the theoretical maximum square footage for development and has identified a minimum number of required parking spaces for the based on City code requirements.

The proposed site plan for all parcels is shown on Exhibit 6a and Exhibit 6b depicts a detailed site plan for the Tracy Alliance parcels. Table 2 summarizes locations and square footage for each project component.

11 San Joaquin County. 2001. Ordinance Code of San Joaquin County. Section 9-600.1.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation

FirstCarbon Solutions 7
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx Table 2: Proposed Development Summary
Tracy Alliance Parcels (APN 213-170-27, -48)
Land Use (NEI Specific Plan) Area (square feet) Total gross square feet Total acres Light Industrial (LI)
Building A Warehouse 948,500 978,500 22.46
Office 30,000
Building B Warehouse 62,000 64,000 1.47
Office 2,000
Building C Warehouse 782,000 807,000 18.52
Office 25,000
Total 1,849,500 -
Basin Area - - 13.01
Total 55.46
Suvik Farms Parcels (APNs 213-170-24, -25, -26)
Land Use (NEI Specific Plan) Maximum Building (gross square feet)1 Light Industrial (LI) 1,023,660
Zuriakat Parcel (APN 213-170-14)
Land Use (NEI Specific Plan) Maximum Building (gross square feet)2 Light Industrial (LI) 479,160
Total Maximum Building Gross Square Footage = 3,352,320 Notes:
1 The maximum building square footage is calculated from the maximum allowable FAR (50 percent) as set forth in the NEI Specific Plan. The total land area is approximately 2,047,320 square feet (47 acres). 2 The maximum building square footage is calculated from the maximum allowable FAR (50 percent) as set forth in the NEI Specific Plan. The total land area is approximately 958,320 square feet (22 acres).

Source: Tracy Alliance Group. 2020.

Light Industrial
The buildings would support warehouse and office uses. Based on the proposed uses described below, it is expected that approximately 1,871 employees would work on-site.12 Warehouse
Multiple warehouse buildings are proposed, totaling up to 3,352,320 square feet. Three warehouse buildings are proposed on the Tracy Alliance parcels, totaling 1,849,500 square feet. The number of buildings to be constructed on the Suvik Farms parcels and Zuriakat parcel is not specified at this time. For purposes of analysis in the Draft EIR, it is assumed that buildout on the Suvik Farms parcels

12 Conversation between Victoria Lombardo, Senior Planner and with Barbara Harb, Economic Development Analyst, City of Tracy in May 2020. Employment data collected by conversations with business owners for various industrial businesses, including warehousing, manufacturing, and employee-intensive (Amazon) warehousing, and existing building square footage data, averaged.

Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project

8 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx and Zuriakat parcel would be to the maximum allowable FAR of 0.5, which provides the most conservative impact estimates. Although future occupants are unknown at this time, the buildings would be utilized for light industrial uses as defined by the NEI Specific Plan, which is most commonly warehouse and distribution operations with low employee densities. Using the maximum FAR allowed, and accounting for setbacks, parking, access, circulation, and landscaping requirements, the Suvik Farms parcels could support up to 1,023,660 square feet, while the Zuriakat parcel could support up to 479,160 square feet.

Office
Office use is permitted within the Light Industrial (LI) designation under the NEI Specific Plan. Each warehouse would include office space for the purpose of facilitating and administering operations of each building and their company occupants. It is assumed that the buildings on the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels would also include office space.

Parking
Parking would be provided pursuant to parking requirements of Tracy Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 Article 26. The required automobile and bicycle parking per parcel are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Required Parking
Tracy Alliance Parcels (APN 213-170-27, -48)
Site Area Building A Building B Building C Total
AUTO PARKING REQUIRED 377 44 316 737
AUTO PARKING PROVIDED 470 57 421 948
TRAILER PARKING PROVIDED 319 0 253 572

MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING

REQUIRED
191 31 161 38
Suvik Farms Parcels (APNs 213-170-24, -25, -26)
AUTO PARKING REQUIRED 276

MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING

REQUIRED
141
Zuriakat Parcel (APN 213-170-14)

MINIMUM AUTO PARKING

TO BE REQUIRED
140

MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING

REQUIRED
71 TOTAL AUTO PARKING REQUIRED = 1,153

TOTAL AUTO PARKING
PROVIDED = 1,364

TOTAL BICYCLE PARKING
REQUIRED = 591
Notes: 1. Number of spaces is rounded up.

Source: Tracy Alliance Group, 2020.

There will be trailer parking provided on the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels, but the count and location of these spaces is not known at this time.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation

FirstCarbon Solutions 9
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx

1.1.3 - Proposed Land Use Designation and Zoning
Land Use Designation
General Plan
As described above and shown on Exhibit 5, the City of Tracy General Plan designates the site Industrial. The project site would be annexed into the City of Tracy (as shown in Exhibit 7a) and the current San Joaquin County General Plan designation (A/UR) would no longer apply to the site.

Because the proposed project is already designated Industrial by the City of Tracy General Plan, no land use redesignation would be required. Primary land uses allowed under this designation consist of flex/office space, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and ancillary uses for workers’ needs (e.g. restaurants, parks, consumers services, etc.). The maximum FAR is 0.5.13 Northeast Industrial Specific Plan
The project site would be annexed into the NEI Specific Plan area, and the NEI Specific Plan would be amended to designate the site LI. Primary land uses allowed within this designation include warehouse and distribution operations with low employee densities. The LI designation also allows for general commercial uses such as automotive supply or plumbing stores.14 The proposed NEI Specific Plan land use designation is shown in Exhibit 7b.

Zoning
The project site is currently zoned General Agriculture with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres (AG- 40) by the Ordinance Code of San Joaquin County. The San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will require the City to pre-zone the site in conjunction with the proposed annexation. The project site would be pre-zoned NEI Specific Plan, which would take effect upon annexation into the City. Allowable uses within this zoning district are governed by the NEI Specific Plan and light industrial uses, as described in the NEI Specific Plan, would be allowed.15 The proposed zoning is shown in Exhibit 7c.

1.1.4 - Circulation and Access
Vehicle
Primary vehicle access to the project site would be provided from four access points on Grant Line Road and four access points on Paradise Road; the northerly access point along Paradise Road would be for Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only. Once the future I-205 Interchange at Paradise Road is complete, the two northmost access points along Paradise Road (including the EVA) would be slightly modified to accommodate the interchange. A second EVA may be added along California Avenue to provide emergency access to the Zuriakat parcel. The decision to include or not include this EVA would occur during site plan review for any future development on the Zuriakat parcel.

A new signalized intersection on Grant Line Road would provide access to a New Private Drive that would facilitate on-site circulation for the warehouses on the Tracy Alliance parcels as well as access to the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels as shown in Exhibit 6a. The New Private Drive, located along

13 Design, Community & Environment (prepared for the City of Tracy). 2011. City of Tracy General Plan. February 1. 14 City of Tracy. 2012. Northeast Industrial Specific Plan. Pages 10-11. July 17. 15 City of Tracy. 2016. Tracy Municipal Code Section 10.08.3022 – Northeast Industrial Specific Plan. October 18.

Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project

10 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx the Tracy Alliance parcels’ eastern boundary, would also provide access to the detention basin area.

Since no site plan is being processed on the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels, the exact location(s) of access points from the New Private Drive to the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels have not been identified at this time.

Future Interchange
The City of Tracy Transportation Master Plan includes improvements to Chrisman Road, which are planned as part of improvements to the City’s expressway system, as well as a future I- 205/Paradise/Chrisman interchange. The schedule for implementation of the improvements is not known as this time. The proposed project would set aside 13.36 acres in the northwest corner of the project site, which would be sufficient to accommodate the future interchange. The proposed project includes annexation of this land into the city, but does not include any design, analysis, or construction of the future interchange. Therefore, the Draft EIR includes an evaluation of potential impacts of annexing the future interchange area into the City but does not include evaluation of any future construction.

Future design of the interchange would undergo a separate environmental review process pursuant to CEQA and NEPA once funding is programmed and available.

1.1.5 - Design, Landscaping, and Lighting
The NEI Specific Plan includes design guidelines and development standards that regulate site planning and architecture within the NEI Specific Plan area. Specific design details are not known at this time, but the proposed project would be required to conform to the design guidelines set forth in the NEI Specific Plan, subject to review and approval by the City’s Development Services Director.

Building Design and Height
The NEI Specific Plan requires that attention be given to parts of any buildings visible from adjacent roadways or public parking. Large buildings should have facades that include variations in massing, form, and texture. Continuous surface treatments of a single material should be minimized.

Architecture should be used to highlight building entries. Any accessory buildings and enclosures, whether attached or detached from the main building, shall be of similar compatible design and materials.
16 The maximum height for LI uses under the NEI Specific Plan is 60 feet. Buildings would not exceed this height.

Landscaping
Within parking areas on-site, landscaping would conform to the requirements for Off-Street Parking established by Municipal Code Chapter 10.08, Article 26, except where modified by the NEI Specific Plan. Landscaping requirements as set forth in the NEI Specific Plan are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 assumes parking lot landscaping would be decreased by 50 percent, and that a corresponding increase in perimeter landscaping of 50 percent would be provided to compensate, as allowed in the

16 City of Tracy. 2012. Northeast Industrial Specific Plan. Page 32. July 17.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation

FirstCarbon Solutions 11
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx Municipal Code.17 These requirements include designing landscapes as extensions of adjacent public right-of-way landscaping as applicable and completing on-site landscaping simultaneous to completion of buildings and other improvements. Additionally, landscaping shall not obstruct sight lines at street or driveway intersections, and parking areas and project frontages shall be screened from public rights-of-way.18 Additional landscaping guidelines are available in the NEI Specific Plan.

Table 4: Summary of City Landscaping Requirements
Landscaping Requirement Industrial Use
Landscaped frontage setback 10 feet
Minimum number of trees in parking area 1 tree per 5 spaces Percentage of landscaping in parking areas for over:
0-15 cars
16-30 cars
31-60 cars
Over 60 cars

5 percent
5 percent

7.5 percent
10 percent
Source: City of Tracy. 2012. Northeast Industrial Specific Plan. July 17.

Lighting and Signage
Light fixtures would meet all safety standards pursuant to the latest adopted edition of the California Building Code and would be installed throughout the length of the New Private Drive pursuant to the Municipal Code. The NEI Specific Plan recommends that one lighting fixture style be used on all streets. Where possible, light standards would be located in roadway medians. 19 Signage would be required to conform to the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 10.08, Article 35, except as modified by the NEI Specific Plan. A site sign program would be prepared and integrated into the total design concept for the proposed project, and all signs would be approved prior to installation. Project signage may be illuminated provided that no flashing, traveling, animated, or intermittent illumination would be used. Such illumination would be confined to the area of the sign except when such illumination is back lighting for an otherwise non-illuminated sign.

No sign illumination would cast a glare which is visible from any street.

1.1.6 - Infrastructure Improvements
Domestic Water
The City’s Public Works Department would supply potable water to the project. In the City’s 2012 Water System Master Plan, 12-inch water lines were proposed for continuation north on Paradise Road until West Arbor Avenue, and within the project site along the perimeter of the Suvik Farms parcels. 20 17 City of Tracy. 2019. Tracy Municipal Code Section 10.08.3560(g). 18 City of Tracy. 2012. Northeast Industrial Specific Plan. Pages 33 and 34. July 17. 19 City of Tracy. 2012. Northeast Industrial Specific Plan. Page 24. July 17. 20 West Yost Associates. 2012. City of Tracy Citywide Water System Master Plan, Figure 8-2 on Page 8-25. December.

Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project

12 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx The 12-inch water line in Paradise Road has been extended as planned; planned water lines that would traverse through the project site have not yet been installed.

The project proposes to install 10-inch lines to accommodate the level of development proposed on the Tracy Alliance parcels. These lines would connect to the buildings on the Tracy Alliance parcels at several locations (as shown in Exhibit 8). Several fire hydrants would be installed surrounding the buildings on the Tracy Alliance parcels and would connect to the 10-inch water lines. Since no site plan is being processed for either the Suvik Farms or Zuriakat parcels at this time, the location and sizing of water lines will be identified and reviewed by the City as part of subsequent engineering plans when development applications are submitted for these parcels.

Stormwater Drainage
The project site drains generally toward the northeast and has its own sub-basin (E65) within the Eastside Industrial future service area, one of the future development areas where the City anticipates new development. There are no existing stormwater drainage facilities near the project site.21
The proposed project includes construction of a stormwater detention basin on-site as identified in the City of Tracy Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan.22 The proposed 13.01-acre stormwater detention basin with a pump station would be located along the northeast site boundary. Following its construction, the basin would be dedicated to and managed by the City. Construction of this stormwater detention basin would also support future development within the Eastside Industrial service area and the applicant would be awarded a fee credit against the stormwater impact fee required for the project.

The proposed project would construct a 12-inch forced main storm drain line along the corner of I- 205 east and Paradise Road (see Exhibits 8, 9a, and 9b) to connect the proposed on-site detention basin to the City’s NEI detention basin adjacent to the western boundary of the project site. Project discharge into the on-site detention basin would be held until the NEI detention basin is drained enough to accept inflow; all stormwater would eventually discharge into the Eastside Channel.

Bio-retention treatment areas would intermittently surround the buildings on the Tracy Alliance parcels and be interspersed throughout the parking lots (Exhibit 9b). On-site storm drain lines within the Tracy Alliance parcels would be 12 inches and would connect bio-retention treatment areas to the proposed on-site detention basin.

Should the NEI detention basin not be finished by the time the proposed project is operational and not able to accommodate flow from the proposed project, the applicant would work with the City to modify the proposed on-site detention basin to ensure stormwater drainage for the project site would be sufficient.

Since no site plans are being processed for the Suvik Farms or Zuriakat parcels at this time, the exact location and sizing of on-site stormwater drainage facilities and how they connect to the on-site

21 Stantec. 2012. City of Tracy Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan. November. 22 Stantec. 2012. City of Tracy Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan. Figure 5-1a. November.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation

FirstCarbon Solutions 13
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx stormwater detention basin will be identified and reviewed as part of subsequent engineering plans when development applications are submitted for these parcels.

Sanitary Sewer
The proposed project is anticipated to include connections to the existing City sanitary sewer system operated by the Public Works Department via the existing wastewater line beneath Paradise Road (see Exhibit 8).23 An existing 15-inch sanitary sewer line is located within the Paradise Road right-of- way and an existing 10-inch sanitary sewer line is located within Grant Line Road and have sufficient capacity to accommodate the development as proposed. The development of the Tracy Alliance parcels would be served as follows:
• Building A: would be served via two proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer lines that would each connect to the existing 15-inch sanitary sewer line in Paradise Road. • Building B: would be served by a proposed 6-inch sanitary sewer line that would traverse the northern side of Building A, connecting to the existing 15-inch sanitary sewer line in Paradise Road.
• Building C: would be served by two sanitary sewer lines: (1) a proposed 6-inch sanitary sewer line that would connect to an existing 10-inch sanitary sewer line in Grant Line Road, and (2) a proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer line that would connect to the existing 15-inch sanitary sewer line in Paradise Road.

Since no site plans are being processed for the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels, the exact location and sizing of an on-site sanitary sewer system will be identified and reviewed by the City of Tracy as part of subsequent engineering plans when development applications are submitted for these parcels.

Solid Waste and Recycling Collection
The City Public Works Department provides solid waste and recycling services for areas within city limits and certain surrounding County areas. The Public Works Department has a partnership with Tracy Disposal Service Company to provide residential and commercial solid waste collection and disposal, including recycling and organics services.24,25 Garbage is collected once a week, and recycling and yard waste are collected on alternating weeks.26 Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be accommodated at the Tracy Material Recovery Facility & Solid Waste Transfer (MRF), and then hauled to the Foothill Sanitary Landfill on North Waverly Road east of Tracy. On a designated day, Tracy Disposal Service Company collects and transports solid waste to the MRF.

23 De Novo Planning Group. 2019. Tracy Municipal Services Review. July. 24 City of Tracy. 2020. Recycling & Solid Waste. Website: https://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/?navId=688. Accessed April 9, 2020. 25 Tracy Delta Solid Waste Management, Inc. Website: https://www.tdswm.com/. Accessed April 9, 2020. 26 City of Tracy. 2020. Garbage & Recycling Schedule. Website: https://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/?navId=700. Accessed April 16, 2020.

Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project

14 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx Power and Telecommunications
Electricity and natural gas services for the proposed project would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). There is a natural gas pipeline under Grant Line Road (the southern project site boundary), as well as an electric transmission line above ground.27,28 Phone and internet services could be provided by various private companies, including AT&T, Xfinity, Comcast, and Verizon.

1.1.7 - Discretionary and Ministerial Actions
Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City for implementation of the proposed project. The project application would require the following discretionary approvals and actions:
• EIR certification;
• Annexation and Prezoning; final approval action for annexation would be required by San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission;
• Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Amendment;
• Development review permit;
• Tentative Parcel Maps or Lot Line Adjustment as needed to create final development lots; and • Cancellation of the Williamson Act contract on the Suvik Farms parcels (if required).

Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for implementation of the proposed project, including issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits.

1.1.8 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Several other agencies in addition to the City of Tracy will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. The Draft EIR will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation.

These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• United States Army Corps of Engineers
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• California Public Utilities Commission
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) • County of San Joaquin
• San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (San Joaquin LAFCo)

27 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2020. Gas Transmission Pipelines. Website: https://www.pge.com/en_US/safety/how-the- system-works/natural-gas-system-overview/gas-transmission-pipeline/gas-transmission-pipelines.page. Accessed April 9, 2020. 28 California Energy Commission. California Electric Infrastructure App. Website: https://cecgis- caenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/app/ad8323410d9b47c1b1a9f751d62fe495. Accessed April 9, 2020.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation FirstCarbon Solutions 15
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx • San Joaquin County Airport Land Use Commission
• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) A
ctions that are necessary to implement the project that must be taken by other agencies are:
• Annexation, with Prezoning, of the Project into the City of Tracy (San Joaquin LAFCo) • Detachment from Tracy Rural Fire District (San Joaquin LAFCo) • Coverage under General Construction Stormwater Permit (California State Water Resources Control Board/Central Valley RWQCB)
• Approval of Indirect Source Review (Valley Air District) I
ssuance of Encroachment Permits for roadway, trail, or utility improvements within facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans or the County of San Joaquin may also be necessary.

Environmental Review

1.1.9 - Potential Environmental Effects
The Draft EIR will evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the approval and implementation of the proposed project. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), the following environmental resource categories will be analyzed in relation to the Project:
• Aesthetics • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Land Use and Planning • Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Public Services
• Cultural Resources • Transportation
• Energy • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils • Utilities and Service Systems
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Wildfire
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Aesthetics— The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of aesthetic impacts related to the c
onversion of the site from agricultural to industrial uses. • Agriculture and Forestry Resources— There are three active Williamson Act contract parcels within the project site. The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of converting the project site from active agriculture to industrial uses.
• Air Quality— The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of construction-period toxic air c
ontaminants to assess potential construction health risks for area employees. The Draft EIR will also include an evaluation of operational air quality effects. • Biological Resources— There is potential for special-status species on the project site including s
ong sparrow, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, Swainson’s hawk, and Notice of Preparation City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project

16 FirstCarbon Solutions
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx roosting bats. The site contains aquatic features, potentially qualifying as jurisdictional waters of the United States and/or waters of the State. The Draft EIR will include analysis of potential impacts on relevant special-status species and sensitive habitats, including a project specific Biological Resources Assessment.
• Cultural and Resources— The Draft EIR will include a summary of a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment to confirm whether the implementation of the project would result in impacts to cultural resources. The Draft EIR will include mitigation, where needed, to reduce potential impacts.
• Energy— The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of energy use to assess consistency with the City’s Sustainability Action Plan.
• Geology and Soils— The project site is not located within in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the applicant-prepared geotechnical report includes several recommendations. The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of site soils and geology and recommendations from the geotechnical report will be included as mitigation measures. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions— The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of construction-period greenhouse gas emissions to assess consistency with the City’s Sustainability Action Plan. The Draft EIR will also include an evaluation of operational-period emissions to assess compliance with Valley Air District thresholds.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials— The Draft EIR will identify impacts and mitigation for hazards and hazardous materials. The Draft EIR will summarize the applicant-prepared Phase I and Phase II ESAs for the Tracy Alliance parcels as well as the Phase I for the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels and include recommendations provided in those reports. Emergency response and evacuation impacts will be reviewed, including the proposed emergency vehicle access road off Paradise Road.
• Hydrology and Water Quality— The proposed project would involve grading and creation of new impervious surfaces that have potential to create runoff. The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of increased development and impervious surfaces on water quality, stormwater drainage, and other hydrology issues. The Draft EIR will also include an evaluation of constructing and dedicating a new on-site detention basin to the City. • Land Use and Planning— As previously described, the proposed project would include annexation of land into the City and a NEI Specific Plan amendment. Conformity with City policies will be evaluated as part of the analysis.
• Noise— The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of construction-period noise based on the estimated equipment list and duration of construction activities. Operational traffic noise impacts will also be evaluated.
• Public Services— The proposed project would include development of new warehouse and office buildings that would increase demand for public services, including police and fire services. The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of public service impacts related to the new industrial operations.

City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project Notice of Preparation

FirstCarbon Solutions 17
\\10.200.1.5\adec\Publications\Client (PN-JN)\1726\17260011\NOP\17260011 Tracy Alliance NOP.docx • Transportation— The CEQA analysis will include a comprehensive traffic analysis that considers aspects such as roadway design and safety, effects on increased traffic volumes on Grant Line Road and Paradise Road as well as other roadways, and analysis of proposed improvements. A vehicle miles traveled analysis will also be provided. • Tribal Cultural Resources— The Draft EIR will include analysis of tribal cultural resources and a summary of tribal coordination to confirm whether the proposed project would potentially affect any resources of importance to local tribes.
• Utilities and Service Systems— The proposed project would require extension of public water and wastewater systems on-site. The Draft EIR will evaluate potential impacts associated with construction of the proposed utility extensions, as well as operational components of the City water supply, stormwater, wastewater, solid waste collection systems, and private power and telecommunications provision.
• Wildfire— The Draft EIR will include an evaluation of wildfire risk in the City and identify impacts, if any, associated with implementation of the proposed project, including mitigation, if required.

It is anticipated that the following environmental topics will not require detailed analysis, and instead will be addressed under an Effects Found not to be Significant chapter of the Draft EIR:
• Mineral Resources— There are no known mineral resources located on or adjacent to the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in significant effects related to mineral resources.
• Population and Housing— The proposed project would require removal of one occupied residential structure and prezoning of agricultural land. Although the project would displace the existing occupied residence and associated structures, the proposed project would not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere not already anticipated by the City.

It is expected that employees from the local labor force would be the primary source for workers, however, the possibility exists for individuals to relocate to the City to work at the proposed warehouses. Based on the light industrial nature of the proposed project, it is expected that approximately 1,871 employees would work on-site. Because the population of the City is currently estimated at 95,931, the total number of employees that may work at the project site represents approximately 2 percent of the current population of the City.

Therefore, proposed project implementation would not displace any individuals or significantly increase population, and less than significant impacts related to population and housing would occur.
• Recreation–Because the proposed project is not located within or adjacent to any designated natural or open space areas and would not significantly increase City population, the project would not impact park usage. Furthermore, because the proposed project is not expected to result in a significant increase in population, the ratio of parks to residents would be unchanged by the project. As such, the proposed project would not result in significant effects related to recreation.
!
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
Contra Costa County
Alameda County
·|}þ99
·|}þ4
·|}þ120
·|}þ132
·|}þ33
San JoaquinRiver
San Joaquin County
Stanislaus County
%&'(580
%&'(205
%&'(5
San Joaquin River Middle River
Big Break
Lake Del
Valle
Clifton
Court
Forebay
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
Oakley
Stockton
Manteca
Tracy
Livermore
Ripon
Patterson
Lathrop
Brentwood
E xh i b i t 1
R e g i o n a l L o c a t i o n M a p 5 0 52.5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
S o u r c e : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 D a t a , T h e C a S I L , F C S G I S 2 0 1 6 .

I
C I T Y O F T R A C Y
T R A C Y A L L I A N C E P R O J E C T N O T I C E O F P R E P A R A T I O N 1 7 2 6 0 0 1 1 " 0 4 / 2 0 2 0 | 1 _ r e g i o n a l . m xd Project Site

17260011 • 08/2020 | 2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Aerial Imagery, August 2018.

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
205
Paradise Rd
W Pescadero Ave
E Grant Line Rd
California Ave
Arbor Rd
Laurel Rd
W Canal Blvd
Paradise Rd
El Rancho Rd
Brichetto Rd
W 11th St
W 11th St
Tom Paine Slough
S Chrisman Rd
2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Tracy
Northeast Industrial (NEI) Specific Plan boundary
Smart & Final
Distribution
Tracy Pescadero
Distribution Warehouse
Home Depot
Distribution Center
Best Buy
Warehouse
Victory Packaging
US Foods
Barbosa Cabinets
Kelloggs
Amazon Fulfillment Center
Crate and Barrel
Warehouse
17260011 • 07/2020 | 3_project_parcel_map.mxd
Exhibit 3
Project Parcel Map
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. County of San Joaquin.

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
700 0 700350
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Project Site Parcels
Suvik Farms Parcels
Tracy Alliance Parcels
Zuriakat Parcel
17260011 • 07/2020 | 4_County_GP_Zoning.mxd
Exhibit 4
San Joaquin County General Plan
Land Use and Zoning Designations
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. San Joaquin County GIS Data, 2020.

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Tracy
Zoning Designations

GENERAL AGRICULTURE

PUBLIC FACILITIES

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL SERVICE COMMERCIAL

WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL
General Plan Designations

R/R - RESIDENTIAL/RURAL

C/RS - COMMERCIAL/RURAL SERVICE

I/L - INDUSTRIAL/LIMITED

A/G - AGRICULTURE/GENERAL

A/UR - AGRICULTURE/URBAN RESERVE

OS/RC- OPEN SPACE/RESOURCE CONSERVATION

P/F - PUBLIC/FACILITY
AG-40
P-F
R-R
C-RS
I-W
17260011 • 08/2020 | 5_city_general_plan.mxd
Exhibit 5
City of Tracy
General Plan Designation
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Tracy. County of San Joaquin.

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
City of Tracy
Sphere Of Influence
General Plan
Industrial
I
17260011 • 08/2020 | 6a_comprehensive_site_plan.cdr
Exhibit 6a
Comprehensive Site Plan

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Source: Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors Inc., 9/12/2019.

BLDG. C BLDG. A
BLDG. B
I
17260011 • 08/2020 | 6b_Tracy_Alliance_Parcels_Site_Plan.cdr Exhibit 6b
Tracy Alliance Parcels Site Plan

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Source: HRA Architecture, June 20, 2020.

17260011 • 08/2020 | 7a_proposed_annexation.mxd
Exhibit 7a
Proposed Annexation
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Tracy. County of San Joaquin.

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Proposed City of Tracy Limits
Existing City of Tracy Limits
General Plan Designation
Industrial
17260011 • 08/2020 |7b_proposed_NEI_SP_LU.mxd
Exhibit 7b
Proposed NEI Specific Plan
Land Use Designation
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Tracy. County of San Joaquin.

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Proposed City of Tracy Limits
Existing City of Tracy Limits
Northeast Industrial Areas (NEI) Specific Plan Land Use Designation Light Industrial
17260011 • 08/2020 | 7c_proposed_city_zoning.mxd
Exhibit 7c
Proposed City of Tracy
Zoning Designation
Source: Bing Aerial Imagery. City of Tracy. County of San Joaquin.

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
1,000 0 1,000500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Proposed City of Tracy Limits
Existing City of Tracy Limits
Zoning Designation
Northeast Industrial Areas (NEI) Specific Plan
Source: Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors Inc., 07/09/2020.

I
17260011 • 08/2020 | 8_tracy_alliance_parcels_preliminary_utility_plan.cdr Exhibit 8
Tracy Alliance Parcels - Preliminary Utility Plan

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
BLDG. C BLDG. A
BLDG. B
I
17260011 • 08/2020 | 9a_tracy_alliance_parcels_preliminary_grading_drainage_plan.cdr Exhibit 9a
Tracy Alliance Parcels - Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Source: Kier + Wright, July 9, 2020.

BLDG. C BLDG. A
BLDG. B
I
17260011 • 08/2020 | 9b_tracy_alliance_parcels_preliminary_storm_water_control_plan.cdr Exhibit 9b
Tracy Alliance Parcels - Preliminary Storm Water Control Plan

CITY OF TRACY

TRACY ALLIANCE PROJECT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Source: Kier + Wright, July 9, 2020.

NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
FINAL
Environmental Impact Report
Tracy Alliance Project
City of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2020080524
Prepared for:

City of Tracy
Development Services Department
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
209.831.6428
Contact: Victoria Lombardo, Senior Planner
Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contacts: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Date: March 27, 2023
Attachment E

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Section 2: Master Responses ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - Master Responses .......................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3: Responses to Written Comments ............................................................................... 3-1

3.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 - Responses to Comments ................................................................................................ 3-1 Section 4: Errata ........................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments .................................................................. 4-1

Appendix A: Exhibit
Appendix B: Tracy Alliance Full Project I-205 MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Introduction

FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Tracy (Lead Agency) has evaluated the comments received on the Tracy Alliance Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Draft EIR (and appendices attached thereto), a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments and errata (along with the related appendices), which are included in this document, together with the ; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), comprise the Final EIR for use by the City of Tracy during its review and to ensure proper implementation of the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR. This document is organized into three sections:
• Section 1— Introduction. Provides an introduction to the Final EIR. • Section 2— Master Responses. Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a particular topic.
• Section 3— Responses to Written Comments. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of all of the letters received providing comments on the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section. • Section 4— Errata. Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR, which have been incorporated.

The Final EIR is comprised of the following contents:
• Draft EIR (provided under separate cover)
• Draft EIR Appendices (provided under separate cover)
• Responses to Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Errata (Sections 2 and 3 of this document) • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Master Responses

FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx SECTION 2: MASTER RESPONSES
Master responses address similar comments made by multiple public agencies, organizations, or individuals through written comments submitted to the City of Tracy (City).

2.1 - Master Responses
Master Response 1— Orderly development of industrial uses within or immediately adjacent to the Northeast Industrial Specific Plan
A number of comments stated that the proposed project would result in significant, unplanned growth within the City; loss of prime farmland; and that the proposed project was not envisioned in the Northeast Industrial (NEI) Specific Plan.

The City of Tracy adopted the NEI Specific Plan to implement a balanced growth strategy. The NEI Specific Plan directs growth as envisioned by the City in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and balances appropriate land uses with well-planned supporting infrastructure.1 The NEI Specific Plan is intended to improve the jobs/housing balance by encouraging the development of industrial, retail, and service-related employment opportunities in proximity to existing freeway interchanges.

As part of the NEI Specific Plan, the northeastern sector of the City has been identified for industrial growth. With direct access to Interstate 205 (I-205) and rail transportation, the NEI Specific Plan area is ideally situated to attract and support business without the need for major infrastructure expenditures.

The NEI Specific Plan area is intended for high-quality industrial and commercial sites that would attract businesses to the City. It provides a flexible phasing program that allows market forces to dictate reasonable growth increments, while ensuring that agricultural properties remain devoted to agricultural uses until ready to develop.2
The proposed project is immediately adjacent to the NEI Specific Plan area, which boundary runs along Paradise Road and Grant Line Road, as shown in Exhibit 2-2 of the Draft EIR. The proposed project is consistent with its existing City of Tracy General Plan land use designation of Industrial; this reflects the long-planned urban development vision for the project site, which contemplates a variety of light industrial uses including warehousing and distribution. The project site would be annexed into the NEI Specific Plan, representing a logical expansion of the NEI Specific Plan vision.

The proposed project has been designed to incorporate applicable NEI development standards and design guidelines; accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the urban, industrial character of the NEI Specific Plan area.

1 City of Tracy. Amended 2012. Northeast Industrial Specific Plan. 2 City of Tracy. 1996.Northeast Industrial Plan Draft EIR.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

3.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments during the public review period, which ran from April 20, 2022, to June 3, 2022, on the Tracy Alliance Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be cross-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.

After the close of the public comment period, four additional comment letters were received. The letter from Advocates for the Environment was received by the City on August 16, 2022. The letter from Genna McIntosh (shown as MCINTOSH-3, below) was received by the City on August 29, 2022.

The letters from Sierra Club were received by the City on February 8 and February 22, 2023. All of these late comment letters were treated by the City as though they had been submitted during the regular public comment period.

A lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period. (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15088). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond. (PRC § 21091(d)(1); PRC § 21092.5(c)). Accordingly, although the City of Tracy is not required to provide a written response to late comment letters, nonetheless, the City of Tracy has elected to respond to these late letters, but without waiving its position that written responses to late comment letters are not required by law.

Author Author Code
State Agencies
California Department of Transportation ................................................................................. CALTRANS Local Agencies
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ............................................................. CVRWQCB San Joaquin Council of Governments, Laurel Boyd ........................................................................ SJCOG San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ........................................................ Valley Air District-1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ........................................................ Valley Air District-2 Organizations
Blum Collins and Ho, Attorneys at Law ........................................................................................... GSEJA Individuals
McIntosh, Genna ................................................................................................................. MCINTOSH-1 City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Comments received at the public hearing held May 25, 2022 McIntosh, Genna ................................................................................................................. MCINTOSH-2 Late Comments
Advocates for the Environment ....................................................................................................... AENV Sierra Club .................................................................................................................................. SIERRA-1 Sierra Club .................................................................................................................................. SIERRA-2 McIntosh, Genna ................................................................................................................. MCINTOSH-3

3.2 - Responses to Comments

3.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Tracy, as the Lead Agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020080524) for the Tracy Alliance Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document is part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.

CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR when the lead agency adds “significant new information” to an EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR for public review, but before EIR certification (State CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15088.5). Recirculation is not required unless the EIR is changed in a way that would deprive the public of the opportunity to comment on significant new information, including a new significant impact in which no feasible mitigation is available to fully mitigate the impact (thus resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact), a substantial increase in the severity of a disclosed environmental impact, or development of a new feasible alternative or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen environmental impacts but which the project proponent declines to adopt (State CEQA Guidelines CCR § 15088.5(a)).

Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (State CEQA Guidelines CCR § 15088.5(b)).

These Responses to Comments include discussion providing clarification and/or additional information. Neither the clarifications nor the additional information constitutes “significant new information” requiring recirculation.
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT 10 DIRECTOR
P.O. BOX 2048 | STOCKTON, CA 95201
(209) 948-7943 | FAX (209) 948-7179 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
June 2, 2022
10-SJ-205-PM R009.500
Tracy Alliance Project
Suvik, Zuriakat
SCH#2020080524
Victoria Lombardo
City of Tracy
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
Dear Ms. Lombardo:

The California Department of Transportation appreciates the opportunity to review the proposed Mountain House Apartments. The project is located south of Interstate 205, east of Paradise Road, and north of Grant Line Road. The proposed project consists of the development of up to 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse and distribution and related uses on a total of approximately 191.18 acres. The site consists of six parcels under ownership by three separate parties: the Tracy Alliance Group owns two parcels (totaling approx. 122.44 acres), Suvik Farms, LLC owns three parcels (totaling approx.

46.61 acres), and Zuriakat owns one parcel (approx. 22.17 acres). The Department has the following comments:

1. There is a future project 205/Chrisman Road interchange currently in PA&ED.

Please continue to work with Caltrans to ensure this warehouse proposal will not conflict with the ultimate build out of the 205/Chrisman Road interchange footprint.

2. Please submit a revised Traffic Impact Study (TIS) report with the following changes to Caltrans for review and comment prior to project approval. a. The TIS should include the following Analysis Scenarios. i. Existing Conditions.
ii. Project Only Condition.
iii. Existing Conditions plus Project.
iv. Cumulative Conditions (Existing Conditions plus Other Approval and Pending Project without this project).
v. Cumulative Conditions with this project.

CALTRANS

1 2
3 Ms. Lombardo
June 2, 2022

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” vi. Synchro/Simtraffic version 10 electronic files should be included with the submittal.
b. The TIS shows I-205/MacArthur interchange is the only access from freeway to this facility. At this time the south site of the interchanges is signed for STAA however, with the significant truck use of this facility, the 95th Percentile queue length analysis using Simtraffic (Simtraffic 5 runs, four 15- minute intervals with 10-minute seeding period) is required to review for all scenarios above to ensure no tr affic spillback to the mainline. It is the project proponent’s responsibility to provide mitigations to avoid negative impacts to the mainline operation.
c. Please ensure the revised study clearly explains how the City’s draft VMT per employee threshold is developed and is being met.
d. The study should explain how all the project trip distributions are derived. e. The study should provide the supporting analysis documenting how the project’s VMT per employee is derived.
f. Please clarify how the City’s travel demand model is utilized in developing the cumulative volumes.
g. The revised study should cite the source of the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance which allows the exclusion of truck trips from VMT impact analysis for clarification.

3. From the perspective of goods movement there exists concern with the access to the proposed project. The traffic stud y identifies a daily truck traffic volume of 1510 vehicles to and from the proposed project. This volume is anticipated to access the proposed project by the MacArthur Road / I-205 interchange, then travel south on MacArthur Road to Grant Line Road to the project.

MacArthur Road is a terminal access route consistent with the standards of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1984. However, Grant Line Road is not, according to a 2019 map of truck routes in Tracy. As the proposed project is a warehouse, it will likely require access by STAA class truck, and the City of Tracy and the project proponent must address this. The applicant will be responsible for making the needed improvements to the highway and acquiring the appropriate STAA Terminal Access approvals. Terminal Access application procedures can be found at the following link:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/legal-truck-access/ta-process

4. Since on-site mitigation measures are not able to significantly reduce the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts, off-site mitigation measures should be considered and implemented as these may be acceptable as an exchange.

The City could collect fees and use toward offsite mitigations such as public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements to help reduce VMT impacts .

CALTRANS


&217








Ms. Lombardo
June 2, 2022

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

5. The developer needs to ensure that the existing State drainage facilities will not be significantly impacted by the project. If historical undeveloped topography shows drainage from this site flowed into the State Right-of-Way, it may continue to do so with the conditions that peak flows may not be increased from the pre-construction quantity and the site runoff be treated to meet present storm water quality standards. Please submit to Caltrans would for review and comment the pre and post construction runoff calculations, basin calculations, and drainage plans to understand flow patterns prior to project approval.

6. An Encroachment Permit will be required for work (if any) done within Caltrans’s right of way (ROW). This work is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, environmental studies may be required as part of the encroachment permits app lication. A qualified professional must conduct any such studies undertaken to satisfy Caltrans’ environmental review responsibilities. Ground disturbing acti vities to the site prior to completion and/or approval of required environmental documents may affect Caltrans’ ability to issue a permit for the project.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 209-483-2582 or Nicholas Fung at (209) 986-1552.

Sincerely,
Tom Dumas
Chief, Office of Metropolitan Planning

CALTRANS

12 13

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx State Agencies
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
Response to CALTRANS-1
This comment is a brief summary of the proposed project. It does not raise any specific project- related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-2
The commenter notes there is a future Interstate 205 (I-205)/Chrisman Road interchange project currently in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) review process known as Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED), and requests continued coordination with Caltrans to ensure the proposed project would not conflict with the ultimate buildout of the future I- 205/Chrisman Road interchange footprint. The comment is noted and acknowledged. Because it does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

Although the comment does not raise any environmental questions regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR, the following response provides additional clarification and information. None of the additional information requires recirculation or revision of the Draft EIR The City of Tracy staff and the applicant met with the City’s engineering consultant Dokken Engineering to discuss the proposed footprint of the aforementioned interchange project and to continue coordination per the email from Juann Ramos of Dokken Engineering on September 28, 2020, indicating the 2028 Geometric Approval Drawing for the I-205/Chrisman Road Interchange.

The City of Tracy staff and the applicant also met with Caltrans’ engineering consultant Kimley-Horn to discuss the preliminary footprint of the I-205 Managed Lanes project and to resolve potential conflicts (if any). See Appendix A.1 for an exhibit from those meetings, which shows that the project’s proposed right-of-way boundary would accommodate the future footprint of the interchange.

Response to CALTRANS-3
The commenter requests that the project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be updated to reflect the commenter’s requested changes and to include the following analysis scenarios: (1) Existing Conditions, (2) Project Only Conditions, (3) Existing Conditions Plus Project,(4) Cumulative Conditions (Existing Conditions Plus Other Approval and Pending Projects without the proposed project), and (5) Cumulative Conditions with the proposed project. The commenter also requests that Synchro or SimTraffic Version 10 modeling files be included in the TIA.

The TIA was updated to reflect queueing conditions at the I-205/MacArthur Interchange for Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions. See Responses to CALTRANS-4 through CALTRANS-9 that address each of the commenter’s requested changes to the TIA.

Response to CALTRANS-4
The commenter requests that a 95th Percentile Ramp Queueing Analysis be prepared at the I- 205/MacArthur interchange for all scenarios to ensure no traffic spillback to the mainline freeway. In accordance with CEQA, the Draft EIR and related TIA considered site design and off-site City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx improvements with respect to potential hazards that could be substantially increased as a result of the proposed project and concluded that there would be no significant impacts requiring mitigation.

However, for purposes of being responsive to this comment, the City elected to have a supplemental analysis was conducted and included in the Errata. Ramp queues were analyzed at the off-ramps for the I-205 and MacArthur Interchange under Existing and Existing Plus Full Project Conditions. The Ramp Queueing Analysis is attached as Appendix A.2 of this Final EIR. All project trips at the I-205 and MacArthur Interchange under Existing Plus Full Project Conditions are anticipated to move to the future I-205 and Chrisman Interchange under Cumulative Conditions and are assumed to be included in the Final Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) published by Fehr and Peers.

Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a queueing deficiency at the MacArthur interchange in the Cumulative Conditions.

Consistent with the commenter’s request, the analysis utilized SimTraffic 11 with a 10-minute seeding period, four 15-minute periods and 5 runs. The 95th-percentile queues for each of the five runs was averaged and are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 of the Ramp Queueing Analysis (Appendix A.2). The Existing Conditions queues were calibrated based on field-verified queueing. All ramp queueing under Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Full Project Conditions is within each ramp’s storage capacity and would not extend to the freeway mainline. Therefore, no significant project impacts in this regard would occur and therefore no mitigation is required. The comment does not identify any additional mitigation measures or a significant impact that requires additional mitigation.

As such, this information provides clarification and does not affect the impact analyses and the environmental determination of the Draft EIR.

Response to CALTRANS-5
The commenter asks for explanation on how the City’s draft Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per employee threshold is developed and is being met. The commenter raises a general question with respect to a VMT threshold but does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA; therefore, no further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. The VMT thresholds determination is thoroughly discussed in the City’s 2022 Citywide Roadway and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (Chapter 2.6).1 The VMT analysis and thresholds remain unchanged between the 2020 TMP and the 2022 TMP Updates.

Response to CALTRANS-6
The commenter requests that the updated TIA explain how all the project trip distributions were derived.

1 City of Tracy. 2022. Citywide Roadway and Transportation Master Plan. Website:
https://www.cityoftracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13757. Accessed September 6, 2022.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx The project trip distribution was primarily based on existing traffic patterns and supplemented with the City of Tracy travel demand model. See the project TIA for a detailed discussion of trip distribution and assignment. Therefore, no update to the TIA is required.

Response to CALTRANS-7
The commenter requests that the updated TIA provide supporting analysis documenting how the project’s VMT per employee was derived.

Section 3.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR as well as the TIA, provide a detailed discussion in this regard. As explained more fully therein, the VMT per employee used for the transportation analysis is derived from Table 3.4: FARs and Employment Densities of the TMP, which includes floor area ratios and employee densities used in the Tracy Travel Demand Model.2 For all uses other than retail and office uses, the proposed project is assumed to generate one employee per 1,000 square feet of use. No update to the TIA is required.

Response to CALTRANS-8
The commenter requests that the updated TIA clarify how the City’s travel demand model was utilized in developing the cumulative volumes.

Section 3.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR as well as the TIA, provide a detailed discussion in this regard. As explained more fully therein, Year 2035 turning movement volumes were extrapolated from the TMP 2035 Horizon Year turning movement figures. For intersections without 2035 data, volumes were estimated using the intersection turning movement volumes provided in the TMP .

Adjustments to the 2035 Horizon Year turning movement figures were made for the new Northeast Industrial (NEI) Phase 3 project proposed along Grant Line Road. No update to the TIA is required.

Response to CALTRANS-9
The commenter requests the updated TIA cite the source of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance which allows the exclusion of truck trips from VMT impact analysis.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. The commenter makes a request to include a citation to OPR guidance with respect to the methodology used in conducting the VMT analysis but does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA; therefore, no further response is required.

For informational purposes, the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA published by the OPR in December 2018 provides the following methodology guidance for the exclusion of heavy trucks from VMT calculations:
3 Proposed Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks.

2 Ibid.
3 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

December. Website: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed September 6, 2022.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx The TIA was prepared in accordance with the methodology guidance above.

Response to CALTRANS-10
The commenter raises issues concerning access to the proposed project; notes that while MacArthur Road is a terminal access road consistent with Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) standards, Grant Line Road is not; and states that the project applicant would be responsible for making the needed improvements to the highway and acquiring the appropriate STAA Terminal Access approvals.

This comment is noted and acknowledged. The commenter indicates a potentially applicable approval process but does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA; therefore, no further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. STAA truck routes are discussed in Impact Trans- 2, Section 3.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. The City of Tracy is actively seeking approvals for additional STAA truck routes within the NEI Specific Plan area. See Figure 4.41: Future Truck Routes of the TMP for the proposed interim and future STAA routes.4 Grant Line Road between MacArthur Drive and the eastern boundary of the project site (Paradise Road) is a planned STAA truck route.

The conversion of Grant Line Road to a STAA route, and the construction of new STAA routes in the project vicinity, would further improve both access and roadway safety. Since the City has already planned for improvement of Grant Line Road, the applicant would not be required to make further improvements.

Response to CALTRANS-11
The commenter states that since on-site mitigation measures are not able to significantly reduce VMT impacts, off-site mitigation measures should be considered and implemented as these may be acceptable as an exchange. The commenter suggests that the City could collect fees and use toward off-site mitigation such as public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements to help reduce VMT impacts.

As discussed in detail in Section 3.14, Transportation, the proposed project would implement the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures:
• Communication and Information Strategies–4 percent reduction • Telecommuting for administrative staff (5 percent of staff population)–1 percent reduction • Designated parking spaces for carpool vehicles–1 percent reduction • Provide a transit stop along the project frontage on Grant Line Road (if agreed to by the City)– 2 percent reduction
• Provide bike lanes and sidewalks along the project frontage–1 percent reduction • Provide on-site bike racks and showers–1 percent reduction

4 City of Tracy. 2022. Citywide Roadway and Transportation Master Plan. Website:
https://www.cityoftracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13757. Accessed September 6, 2022.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-11
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx These include both on-site and off-site VMT mitigation measures for a total VMT reduction of 10 percent.

In addition, the proposed project would pay toward the City’s VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program (which is pending as of this writing) for a further VMT reduction of an additional 5 percent. The City’s Draft Senate Bill (SB) 743 policy requires a minimum of 15 percent VMT reduction, and the proposed project would achieve this mitigation threshold. As noted in the VMT study, the VMT impact would remain significant and unavoidable even with the 15 percent minimum reduction because the VMT impact is only partially mitigated by the TDM measures identified for the proposed project.

If the City Council has not adopted the Mitigation Banking Fee Program such that it is effective and in place at the time an applicant for an individual development proposal seeks to obtain a building permit, then the relevant applicant shall implement additional VMT reduction measures in order to meet the minimum VMT reduction requirement of 15 percent. Mitigation Measure (MM) TRANS- 1(b) is revised to reflect this clarification (see Section 4, Errata).

Response to CALTRANS-12
The commenter states the applicants need to ensure that State drainage facilities will not be significantly impacted by the project. The commenter also notes that if historical undeveloped topography shows drainage from the project site flowed into the State Right-of-Way, it may continue to do so as long as the applicants ensure that drainage peak flows not increase from the pre- construction condition and that the site runoff be treated in accordance with present stormwater quality standards. The commenter also requests to review the project’s pre and post construction runoff calculations, basin calculations, and drainage plans.

Impacts related to stormwater runoff are discussed at length in Section 3.10, Hydrology, of the Draft EIR. The proposed project includes mitigation measures requiring preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (MM HYD-1-a), a Stormwater Management Plan (MM HYD-1-b), and final Drainage Plan (MM HYD-3), which would confirm that the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin and bioretention treatment areas could accommodate project flows to the satisfaction of the City and that post-development stormwater flow rates would not substantially exceed predevelopment rates pursuant to the applicable C.3 requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. The aforementioned plans will be provided to Caltrans for review when available.

Response to CALTRANS-13
The commenter states that an Encroachment Permit will be required for work (if any) done within Caltrans’ right-of-way, and that any such work would be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, environmental studies may be required as part of the Encroachment Permit application, which would need to be conducted to satisfy Caltrans’ environmental review responsibilities. The commenter also notes that ground-disturbing activities on the project site prior to completion and/or approval of the required environmental documents may affect Caltrans’ ability to issue a permit for the proposed project.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx The comment is noted and acknowledged. No work within Caltrans’ right-of-way is anticipated in connection with the proposed project. However, the applicants would be required to comply with the Encroachment Permit process if any work within Caltrans’ right-of-way were necessary to implement the proposed project. For informational purposes, it is noted that while it is not anticipated that the proposed project would encroach onto any Caltrans right-of-way, the applicants have offered to set aside approximately 12.51 acres in the northwest corner of the project site, which would be sufficient to accommodate the future planned interchange. &HQWUDO9DOOH\5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG
-XQH
VLFWRULD/RPEDUGR
&LW\RI7UDF\
&LYLF&HQWHU3OD]D
7UDF\&$

[email protected]
&200(176725(48(67)255(9,(:)257+('5$)7(19,5210(17$/ ,03$&75(325775$&<$//,$1&(352-(&76&+6$1-2$48,1 &2817<
3XUVXDQWWRWKH6WDWH&OHDULQJKRXVH’s $SULOUHTXHVWWKH&HQWUDO9DOOH\ 5HJLRQDO:DWHU4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG
&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUG
KDVUHYLHZHGWKH
Request 0for Review for the Draft Environmental Impact Report IRUWKH7UDF\$OOLDQFH 3URMHFWORFDWHGLQ6DQ-RDTXLQ&RXQW\
2XUDJHQF\LVGHOHJDWHGZLWKWKHUHVSRQVLELOLW\RISURWHFWLQJWKHTXDOLW\RIVXUIDFHDQG JURXQGZDWHUVRIWKHVWDWH
WKHUHIRUHRXUFRPPHQWVZLOODGGUHVVFRQFHUQVVXUURXQGLQJ WKRVHLVVXHV
, 5HJXODWRU\6HWWLQJ
%DVLQ3ODQ
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ntidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality VWDQGDUGVDUHDOVRFRQWDLQHGLQWKH1DWLRQDO7R[LFV5XOH&)56HFWLRQ DQGWKH&DOLIRUQLD7R[LFV5XOH&)56HFWLRQ
7KH%DVLQ3ODQLVVXEMHFWWRPRGLILFDWLRQDVQHFHVVDU\FRQVLGHULQJDSSOLFDEOHODZV SROLFLHVWHFKQRORJLHVZDWHUTXDOLW\FRQGLWLRQVDQGSULRULWLHV7KHRULJLQDO%DVLQ 3ODQVZHUHDGRSWHGLQ
DQGKDYHEHHQXSGDWHGDQGUHYLVHGSHULRGLFDOO\DV
UHTXLUHGXVLQJ%DVLQ3ODQDPHQGPHQWV2QFHWKH&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGKDV DGRSWHGD%DVLQ3ODQDPHQGPHQWLQQRWLFHGSXEOLFKHDULQJVLWPXVWEHDSSURYHGE\ WKH6WDWH:DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RQWURO%RDUG
6WDWH:DWHU%RDUG
2IILFHRI

CVRWQCB



7UDF\$OOLDQFH3URMHFW 
6DQ-RDTXLQ&RXQW\
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH/DZ
2$/
DQGLQVRPHFDVHVWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV(QYLURQPHQWDO
3URWHFWLRQ$JHQF\
86(3$
%DVLQ3ODQDPHQGPHQWVRQO\EHFRPHHIIHFWLYHDIWHU
WKH\KDYHEHHQDSSURYHGE\WKH2$/DQGLQVRPHFDVHVWKH86(3$(YHU\WKUHH


\HDUVDUHYLHZRIWKH%DVLQ3ODQLVFRPSOHWHGWKDWDVVHVVHVWKHDSSURSULDWHQHVV RIH[LVWLQJVWDQGDUGVDQGHYDOXDWHVDQGSULRULWL]HV%DVLQ3ODQQLQJLVVXHV)RUPRUH LQIRUPDWLRQRQWKHWater Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River BasinsSOHDVHYLVLWRXUZHEVLWH

KWWS
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYFHQWUDOYDOOH\ZDWHUBLVVXHVEDVLQBSODQV $QWLGHJUDGDWLRQ&RQVLGHUDWLRQV
$OOZDVWHZDWHUGLVFKDUJHVPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH$QWLGHJUDGDWLRQ3ROLF\ 6WDWH:DWHU
%RDUG5HVROXWLRQ
DQGWKH$QWLGHJUDGDWLRQ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ROLF\FRQWDLQHGLQ WKH%DVLQ3ODQ7KH$QWLGHJUDGDWLRQ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ROLF\LVDYDLODEOHRQSDJH DW

KWWSV
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYFHQWUDOYDOOH\ZDWHUBLVVXHVEDVLQBSODQVVDFVMUB SGI
,QSDUWLWVWDWHV

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

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives. 7KHDQWLGHJUDGDWLRQDQDO\VLVLVDPDQGDWRU\HOHPHQWLQWKH1DWLRQDO3ROOXWDQW 'LVFKDUJH(OLPLQDWLRQ6\VWHPDQGODQGGLVFKDUJH:DVWH'LVFKDUJH5HTXLUHPHQWV

:'5V
SHUPLWWLQJSURFHVVHV7KHHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZGRFXPHQWVKRXOGHYDOXDWH SRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVWRERWKVXUIDFHDQGJURXQGZDWHUTXDOLW\ ,, 3HUPLWWLQJ5HTXLUHPHQWV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ6WRUP:DWHU*HQHUDO3HUPLW
'LVFKDUJHUVZKRVHSURMHFWGLVWXUERQHRUPRUHDFUHVRIVRLORUZKHUHSURMHFWV GLVWXUEOHVVWKDQRQHDFUHEXWDUHSDUWRIDODUJHUFRPPRQSODQRIGHYHORSPHQWWKDW LQWRWDOGLVWXUEVRQHRUPRUHDFUHVDUHUHTXLUHGWRREWDLQFRYHUDJHXQGHUWKH *HQHUDO3HUPLWIRU6WRUP:DWHU'LVFKDUJHV$VVRFLDWHGZLWK&RQVWUXFWLRQDQG/DQG 'LVWXUEDQFH$FWLYLWLHV
&RQVWUXFWLRQ*HQHUDO3HUPLW
&RQVWUXFWLRQ*HQHUDO3HUPLW
2UGHU1R

':4&RQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLW\VXEMHFWWRWKLVSHUPLWLQFOXGHV FOHDULQJJUDGLQJJUXEELQJGLVWXUEDQFHVWRWKHJURXQGVXFKDVVWRFNSLOLQJRU H[FDYDWLRQEXWGRHVQRWLQFOXGHUHJXODUPDLQWHQDQFHDFWLYLWLHVSHUIRUPHGWRUHVWRUH WKHRULJLQDOOLQHJUDGHRUFDSDFLW\RIWKHIDFLOLW\7KH&RQVWUXFWLRQ*HQHUDO3HUPLW UHTXLUHVWKHGHYHORSPHQWDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRID6WRUP:DWHU3ROOXWLRQ3UHYHQWLRQ 3ODQ
6:333
)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH&RQVWUXFWLRQ*HQHUDO3HUPLWYLVLWWKH 6WDWH:DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RQWURO%RDUGZHEVLWHDW

KWWS
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYZDWHUBLVVXHVSURJUDPVVWRUPZDWHUFRQVWSHUPLWVVKW PO

&217


CVRWQCB

7UDF\$OOLDQFH3URMHFW 
6DQ-RDTXLQ&RXQW\
3KDVH,DQG,,0XQLFLSDO6HSDUDWH6WRUP6HZHU6\VWHP
06
3HUPLWV
7KH3KDVH,DQG,,06SHUPLWVUHTXLUHWKH3HUPLWWHHVUHGXFHSROOXWDQWVDQGUXQRII IORZVIURPQHZGHYHORSPHQWDQGUHGHYHORSPHQWXVLQJ%HVW0DQDJHPHQW3UDFWLFHV

%03V
WRWKHPD[LPXPH[WHQWSUDFWLFDEOH
0(3
063HUPLWWHHVKDYHWKHLURZQ
GHYHORSPHQWVWDQGDUGVDOVRNQRZQDV/RZ,PSDFW'HYHORSPHQW /,'
SRVW
FRQVWUXFWLRQVWDQGDUGVWKDWLQFOXGHDK\GURPRGLILFDWLRQFRPSRQHQW7KH06 SHUPLWVDOVRUHTXLUHVSHFLILFGHVLJQFRQFHSWVIRU/,'SRVWFRQVWUXFWLRQ%03VLQWKH HDUO\VWDJHVRIDSURMHFWGXULQJWKHHQWLWOHPHQWDQG&(4$SURFHVVDQGWKH GHYHORSPHQWSODQUHYLHZSURFHVV
)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQZKLFK3KDVH,063HUPLWWKLVSURMHFWDSSOLHVWRYLVLWWKH &HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGZHEVLWHDW

KWWS
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYFHQWUDOYDOOH\ZDWHUBLVVXHVVWRUPBZDWHUPXQLFLSDOBS HUPLWV
)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH3KDVH,,06SHUPLWDQGZKRLWDSSOLHVWRYLVLWWKH 6WDWH:DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RQWURO%RDUGDW

KWWS
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYZDWHUBLVVXHVSURJUDPVVWRUPZDWHUSKDVHBLLBPXQLFL SDOVKWPO
,QGXVWULDO6WRUP:DWHU*HQHUDO3HUPLW
6WRUPZDWHUGLVFKDUJHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKLQGXVWULDOVLWHVPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKH UHJXODWLRQVFRQWDLQHGLQWKH,QGXVWULDO6WRUP:DWHU*HQHUDO3HUPLW2UGHU1R ':4)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH,QGXVWULDO6WRUP:DWHU*HQHUDO3HUPLW YLVLWWKH&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGZHEVLWHDW

KWWS
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYFHQWUDOYDOOH\ZDWHUBLVVXHVVWRUPBZDWHULQGXVWULDOBJH QHUDOBSHUPLWVLQGH[VKWPO
&OHDQ:DWHU$FW6HFWLRQ3HUPLW
,IWKHSURMHFWZLOOLQYROYHWKHGLVFKDUJHRIGUHGJHGRUILOOPDWHULDOLQQDYLJDEOHZDWHUV RUZHWODQGVDSHUPLWSXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FWPD\EH QHHGHGIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV
86$&(
,ID6HFWLRQ
SHUPLWLVUHTXLUHGE\WKH86$&(WKH&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGZLOOUHYLHZWKH SHUPLWDSSOLFDWLRQWRHQVXUHWKDWGLVFKDUJHZLOOQRWYLRODWHZDWHUTXDOLW\VWDQGDUGV,I WKHSURMHFWUHTXLUHVVXUIDFHZDWHUGUDLQDJHUHDOLJQPHQWWKHDSSOLFDQWLVDGYLVHGWR FRQWDFWWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG*DPHIRULQIRUPDWLRQRQ6WUHDPEHG$OWHUDWLRQ 3HUPLWUHTXLUHPHQWV,I\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVUHJDUGLQJWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW 6HFWLRQSHUPLWVSOHDVHFRQWDFWWKH5HJXODWRU\'LYLVLRQRIWKH6DFUDPHQWR 'LVWULFWRI86$&(DW



&OHDQ:DWHU$FW6HFWLRQ3HUPLW–:DWHU4XDOLW\&HUWLILFDWLRQ ,IDQ86$&(SHUPLW
HJ1RQ5HSRUWLQJ1DWLRQZLGH3HUPLW1DWLRQZLGH3HUPLW /HWWHURI3HUPLVVLRQ,QGLYLGXDO3HUPLW5HJLRQDO*HQHUDO3HUPLW3URJUDPPDWLF 0XQLFLSDO3HUPLWV 7KH3KDVH,0XQLFLSDO6HSDUDWH6WRUP:DWHU6\VWHP 06

3HUPLWFRYHUVPHGLXPVL]HG0XQLFLSDOLWLHV
VHUYLQJEHWZHHQDQG
SHRSOH
DQGODUJHVL]HGPXQLFLSDOLWLHV
VHUYLQJRYHUSHRSOH
7KH3KDVH,,
06SURYLGHVFRYHUDJHIRUVPDOOPXQLFLSDOLWLHVLQFOXGLQJQRQWUDGLWLRQDO6PDOO06V ZKLFKLQFOXGHPLOLWDU\EDVHVSXEOLFFDPSXVHVSULVRQVDQGKRVSLWDOV 




CVRWQCB

7UDF\$OOLDQFH3URMHFW 
6DQ-RDTXLQ&RXQW\
*HQHUDO3HUPLW
RUDQ\RWKHUIHGHUDOSHUPLW
HJ6HFWLRQRIWKH5LYHUVDQG
+DUERUV$FWRU6HFWLRQ
IURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV&RDVW*XDUG
LVUHTXLUHGIRUWKLV
SURMHFWGXHWRWKHGLVWXUEDQFHRIZDWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV VXFKDVVWUHDPVDQG

ZHWODQGV
WKHQD:DWHU4XDOLW\&HUWLILFDWLRQPXVWEHREWDLQHGIURPWKH&HQWUDO 9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGSULRUWRLQLWLDWLRQRISURMHFWDFWLYLWLHV7KHUHDUHQRZDLYHUVIRU :DWHU4XDOLW\&HUWLILFDWLRQV)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH:DWHU4XDOLW\ &HUWLILFDWLRQYLVLWWKH&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGZHEVLWHDW 
KWWSV
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYFHQWUDOYDOOH\ZDWHUBLVVXHVZDWHUBTXDOLW\BFHUWLILFDWLR Q
:DVWH'LVFKDUJH5HTXLUHPHQWV–'LVFKDUJHVWR:DWHUVRIWKH6WDWH ,I86$&(GHWHUPLQHVWKDWRQO\QRQMXULVGLFWLRQDOZDWHUVRIWKH6WDWH(i.e., “non federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed SURMHFWPD\UHTXLUHD:DVWH'LVFKDUJH5HTXLUHPHQW
:'5
SHUPLWWREHLVVXHGE\
&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUG8QGHUWKH&DOLIRUQLD3RUWHU&RORJQH:DWHU4XDOLW\ &RQWURO$FWGLVFKDUJHVWRDOOZDWHUVRIWKH6WDWHLQFOXGLQJDOOZHWODQGVDQGRWKHU ZDWHUVRIWKH6WDWHLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRLVRODWHGZHWODQGVDUHVXEMHFWWR 6WDWHUHJXODWLRQ)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH:DVWH'LVFKDUJHVWR6XUIDFH:DWHU 13'(63URJUDPDQG:'5SURFHVVHVYLVLWWKH&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGZHEVLWH DW
KWWSV
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYFHQWUDOYDOOH\ZDWHUBLVVXHVZDVWHBWRBVXUIDFHBZDW HU
3URMHFWVLQYROYLQJH[FDYDWLRQRUILOODFWLYLWLHVLPSDFWLQJOHVVWKDQDFUHRU OLQHDUIHHWRIQRQMXULVGLFWLRQDOZDWHUVRIWKHVWDWHDQGSURMHFWVLQYROYLQJGUHGJLQJ DFWLYLWLHVLPSDFWLQJOHVVWKDQFXELF\DUGVRIQRQMXULVGLFWLRQDOZDWHUVRIWKHVWDWH PD\EHHOLJLEOHIRUFRYHUDJHXQGHUWKH6WDWH:DWHU5HVRXUFHV&RQWURO%RDUG:DWHU 4XDOLW\2UGHU1R':4
*HQHUDO2UGHU
)RUPRUH
LQIRUPDWLRQRQWKH*HQHUDO2UGHUYLVLWWKH6WDWH:DWHU5HVRXUFHV &RQWURO%RDUGZHEVLWHDW

KWWSV
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYERDUGBGHFLVLRQVDGRSWHGBRUGHUVZDWHUBTXDOLW\ ZTRZTRSGI
'HZDWHULQJ3HUPLW
,IWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLQFOXGHVFRQVWUXFWLRQRUJURXQGZDWHUGHZDWHULQJWREH GLVFKDUJHGWRODQGWKHSURSRQHQWPD\DSSO\IRUFRYHUDJHXQGHU6WDWH:DWHU%RDUG *HQHUDO:DWHU4XDOLW\2UGHU
/RZ7KUHDW*HQHUDO2UGHU
RUWKH&HQWUDO
Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge 5HTXLUHPHQWV
/RZ7KUHDW:DLYHU
56PDOOWHPSRUDU\FRQVWUXFWLRQ
GHZDWHULQJSURMHFWVDUHSURMHFWVWKDWGLVFKDUJHJURXQGZDWHUWRODQGIURPH[FDYDWLRQ DFWLYLWLHVRUGHZDWHULQJRIXQGHUJURXQGXWLOLW\YDXOWV'LVFKDUJHUVVHHNLQJFRYHUDJH XQGHUWKH*HQHUDO2UGHURU:DLYHUPXVWILOHD1RWLFHRI,QWHQWZLWKWKH&HQWUDO 9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGSULRUWREHJLQQLQJGLVFKDUJH
)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJWKH/RZ7KUHDW*HQHUDO2UGHUDQGWKHDSSOLFDWLRQ SURFHVVYLVLWWKH&HQWUDO9DOOH\:DWHU%RDUGZHEVLWHDW 
KWWS
ZZZZDWHUERDUGVFDJRYERDUGBGHFLVLRQVDGRSWHGBRUGHUVZDWHUBTXDOLW\ ZTRZTRSGI

&217


CVRWQCB

Tracy Alliance Project - 5 -
San Joaquin County
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
/LPLWHG7KUHDW*HQHUDO13'(63HUPLW
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
13'(63HUPLW
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
Pete
r
Minkel



&217

CVRWQCB

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Local Agencies
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) Response to CVRWQCB-1
This comment is a brief summary of the proposed project. It does not raise any specific project- related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is needed.

Response to CVRWQCB-2
This comment provides a summary of the regulatory setting, including the Basin Plans, the federal requirements for each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, and the State’s water quality standards (including antidegradation considerations). The commenter also states that the potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality should be evaluated.

These topics were fully evaluated in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. As detailed more fully in Section 3.10, the existing hydrology and water quality setting (both surface and groundwater) and potential effects from implementation of the proposed project on the project site and its surrounding area with respect to potential construction and operation-related impacts on both surface and water quality were fully evaluated. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-3
The commenter identifies the requirements for a Construction Storm Water General Permit and development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

The comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, where these requirements were included. As noted in Section 3.10 (e.g., Impact HYD-1, Impact HYD-3, Impact HYD-5, MM HYD-1a), along with other requirements and standards, to the extent applicable, each project applicant, as part of its individual development proposal, would be required to comply with these mandates. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-4
The commenter identifies the requirements of Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits.

The comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, where these requirements are included. As noted in Section 3.10 (e.g., Impact HYD-1, Impact HYD-3, Impact HYD- 5, MM HYD-1b, MM HYD-3), along with other requirements and standards, to the extent applicable, each project applicant, as part of its individual development proposal, would be required to comply with Phase I and II MS4 permit mandates. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-5
The commenter indicates that industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit.

The comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, where these City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx requirements were included. Along with other requirements and standards, to the extent applicable, each project applicant, as part of its individual development proposal, would be required to comply with the mandates of Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-6
The commenter describes the requirement for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) if the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands. The commenter also notes the requirements for a streambed alteration agreement if the project will involve surface water drainage realignment.

The comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, where these requirements were included. As discussed in Section 3.3, a preliminary assessment of potentially jurisdictional features was conducted as part of the literature review and reconnaissance-level survey for the project site.

As described in more detail therein, there is a ditch wetland/cattail marsh located on the Zuriakat parcel along California Avenue. Development details for the Zuriakat parcel are unknown at this time. In addition, there are several irrigation/drainage channels throughout the project site, which appear to have a potential hydrological connection to the San Joaquin River, a traditional navigable water of the United States. The man-made channels on the project site have all been excavated within upland habitat for the purpose of on-site agricultural irrigation and drainage, and as explained more in Section 3.3, these features are generally not considered jurisdictional. However, if the proposed project’s construction would result in the placement of fill that would potentially result in impacts to any regulated aquatic resources, MM BIO-3 would be implemented, which requires delineation of potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources and obtaining permits pursuant to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA as well as compliance with Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (to the extent applicable). See also discussion in Impact BIO-3 for further information in this regard.

Response to CVRWQCB-7
The commenter describes the requirement for compliance with Section 401 – Water Quality certification of the CWA.

The comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, and Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, where these requirements are included. As noted in the above response, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, each project applicant would be required to comply with Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA in connection with its individual development proposal. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-8
The commenter describes the requirement for a Waste Discharge Requirement permit.

The comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, where these requirements were noted. If applicable, each project applicant would be required to comply with City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-21
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx these mandates in connection with its individual development proposal. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-9
The commenter describes the permit requirements for dewatering projects.

This comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, where these requirements are noted; however, the proposed project does not include groundwater dewatering.

No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-10
The commenter describes the general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for dewatering projects that would discharge groundwater to waters of the United States but would be considered a low or limited threat to water quality (Limited Threat General Order).

This comment is noted and acknowledged; however, the proposed project does not include groundwater dewatering. No further response is required.

Response to CVRWQCB-11
The commenter describes the requirements for an NPDES permit.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. Each project applicant, in connection with its individual development proposal, would be required to comply with applicable NPDES mandates. No further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6-&2*,QF
555 East Weber Avenue ● Stockton, CA 95202 ● (209) 235-0600 ● FAX (209) 235-0438 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation & Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) 6-06&35(63216(72/2&$/-85,6',&7,21
57/-

$'9,625<$*(1&<127,&(726-&2*,QF
7R
Victoria Lombardo, City of Tracy, Development Services Department )URP
Laurel Boyd, SJCOG, Inc. Phone: (209) 235-0574 Email: [email protected] 'DWH
April 27, 2022
/RFDO-XULVGLFWLRQ3URMHFW7LWOH
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Tracy Alliance Project $VVHVVRU3DUFHO1XPEHU
V

213-170-14, -24 to -27, -48
/RFDO-XULVGLFWLRQ3URMHFW1XPEHU
N/A
7RWDO$FUHVWREHFRQYHUWHGIURP2SHQ6SDFH8VH
Unknown
+DELWDW7\SHVWREH'LVWXUEHG
Agricultural Habitat Land
6SHFLHV,PSDFW)LQGLQJV
Findings to be determined by SJMSCP biologist.

Dear Ms. Lombardo:

SJCOG, Inc. has reviewed the project referral for the Notice of Availability of Draft Enviro nmental Impact Report for the Tracy Alliance Project. This project consists of the development of up to 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse and distribution and related development. De velopment on the two Tracy Alliance pa rcels would consists of approximately 1,849,500 square feet of warehouse and distribution space loca ted in three buildings, as well as an approximately 12.44 acre stormwater detention basin with pump station. Deve lopment plans for the Suvik Farms, LLC parcels and Zuriakat parcel are not specified at this time. For the purposes of an alysis in the DEIR, buildout fo these parcels was estimated to consist of a total of approximately 1,502,820 square feet of warehouse and distribution development.

The proposed project includes demolition of 11 existing resi dential and agricultural structures on approximately 4 acres located at the southwestern corner of the Tracy Alliance parc els, removal of all crops and some existing trees, grading of approximately 500,000 cubic yards, and the construction of the following primary components:
• Multiple warehouse buildings totaling up to 3,352,320 sq uare feet that support industrial uses and associated offices;
• An approximately 12.44 acre City owned and managed stormwater detention basin with pump station; • Ample landscaping consistent with all ap plicable City requirements; for example, in connection with the individual development proposal for the Tracy Alliance parcels, the relevant site plan reflects approximately 110,000 square feet of landscaped areas; and
• Sufficient on-site parking for both vehi cles and trailer spaces consistent with all applicable City requirements; for example, in connection with the individual development pr oposal for the Tracy Alliance parcels, the relevant site plan reflects approximately 1,134 automobile parking spaces and approximately 572 trailer parking spaces.

The project site is located at the northeast corner of Gr ant Line Road and Paradise Road, Tracy (APN: 213-170-14, -24 to -27, -48).

The City of Tracy is a signatory to San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Participation in the SJMSCP satisfies requirements of both the state and federal endangered species acts, and ensures that the impacts are mitigated below a level of significance in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measure are properly implemented and monitored and that appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP. Although participation in the SJMSCP is voluntary, Local Jurisdiction/Lead Agencies should be aware that if project applicants choose against participating in the SJMSCP, they will be required to provide alternative mitigation in an amount and kind equal to that provided in the SJMSCP.
7KLV3URMHFW LVVXEMHFWWRWKH 6-06&3. This can be up to a 30 day process and it is recommended that the project applicant contact SJMSCP staff as early as possible. It is also recommended that the project applicant obtain an information package.
http://www.sjcog.org
6-&2*
3DJHRI


_6-&2*,QF
Please contact SJMSCP staff regarding completing the following steps to satisfy SJMSCP requirements:
ƒ Schedule a SJMSCP Biologist to perform a pre-construction survey SULRUWRDQ\JURXQGGLVWXUEDQFH ƒ SJMSCP Incidental take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement:
 ,QFLGHQWDO7DNH0LQLPL]DWLRQ0HDVXUHV
,700V
ZLOOEHLVVXHGWRWKHSURMHFWDQGPXVWEHVLJQHGE\WKHSURMHFWDSSOLFDQWSULRUWRDQ\ JURXQGGLVWXUEDQFHEXWQRODWHUWKDQVL[

PRQWKVIURPUHFHLSWRIWKH,700V,I,700VDUHQRWVLJQHGZLWKLQVL[PRQWKVWKHDSSOLFDQW PXVWUHDSSO\IRU6-06&3&RYHUDJH8SRQUHFHLSWRIVLJQHG,700VIURPSURMHFWDSSOLFDQW6-&2*,QFVWDIIZLOOVLJQWKH,700V7KLV LVWKHHIIHFWLYHGDWHRIWKH,700V
 8QGHUQRFLUFXPVWDQFHVKDOOJURXQGGLVWXUEDQFHRFFXUZLWKRXWFRPSOLDQFHDQGVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH,700V  8SRQLVVXDQFHRIIXOO\H[HFXWHG,700VDQGSULRUWRDQ\JURXQGGLVWXUEDQFHWKHSURMHFWDSSOLFDQWPXVW

D 3RVWDERQGIRUSD\PHQWRIWKHDSSOLFDEOH6-06&3IHHFRYHULQJWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHSURMHFWDFUHDJHEHLQJFRYHUHG WKHERQG
VKRXOGEHYDOLGIRUQRORQJHUWKDQDPRQWKSHULRG

RU
E 3D\WKHDSSURSULDWH6-06&3IHHIRUWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHSURMHFWDFUHDJHEHLQJFRYHUHG RU
F 'HGLFDWHODQGLQOLHXRIIHHVHLWKHUDVFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWVRUIHHWLWOH RU
G 3XUFKDVHDSSURYHGPLWLJDWLRQEDQNFUHGLWV
 :LWKLQPRQWKVIURPWKHHIIHFWLYHGDWHRIWKH,700VRULVVXDQFHRIDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWZKLFKHYHURFFXUVILUVWWKHSURMHFWDSSOLFDQWPXVW 
D 3D\WKHDSSURSULDWH6-06&3IRUWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHSURMHFWDFUHDJHEHLQJFRYHUHG RU
E 'HGLFDWHODQGLQOLHXRIIHHVHLWKHUDVFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWVRUIHHWLWOH RU
F 3XUFKDVHDSSURYHGPLWLJDWLRQEDQNFUHGLWV
)DLOXUHWRVDWLVI\WKHREOLJDWLRQVRIWKHPLWLJDWLRQIHHVKDOOVXEMHFWWKHERQGWREHFDOOHG ƒ Receive your Certificate of Payment and release the required permit ,WVKRXOGEHQRWHGWKDWLIWKLVSURMHFWKDVDQ\SRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVWRZDWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV>SXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQ&OHDQ:DWHU$FW@LWZRXOGUHTXLUH WKHSURMHFWWRVHHNYROXQWDU\FRYHUDJHWKURXJKWKHXQPDSSHGSURFHVVXQGHUWKH6-06&3ZKLFKFRXOGWDNHXSWR GD\V,WPD\EHSUXGHQWWRREWDLQD
SUHOLPLQDU\ZHWODQGVPDSIURPDTXDOLILHGFRQVXOWDQW,IZDWHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDUHFRQILUPHGRQWKHSURMHFWVLWHWKH&RUSVDQGWKH5HJLRQDO:DWHU 4XDOLW\&RQWURO%RDUG
5:4&%
ZRXOGKDYHUHJXODWRU\DXWKRULW\RYHUWKRVHPDSSHGDUHDV>SXUVXDQWWR6HFWLRQDQGRIWKH&OHDQ:DWHU$FW UHVSHFWLYHO\@DQGSHUPLWVZRXOGEHUHTXLUHGIURPHDFKRIWKHVHUHVRXUFHDJHQFLHVSULRUWRJUDGLQJWKHSURMHFWVLWH If you have any questions, please call (209) 235-0600.
6-&2*
3DJHRI
2 CONT
_6-&2*,QF
6-&2*,QF
6DQ-RDTXLQ&RXQW\0XOWL6SHFLHV+DELWDW&RQVHUYDWLRQ 2SHQ6SDFH3ODQ 555 East Weber Avenue ● Stockton, CA 95202 ● (209) 235-0600 ● FAX (209) 235-0438 6-06&3+2/'
72 Local Jurisdiction: Community Development Department, Planning Department, Building Department, Engineering Department, Survey Department, Transportation Department, Other: ___________
)520
Laurel Boyd, SJCOG, Inc.













̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴̴ 



The landowner/developer for this site has requested coverage pursuant to the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). In accordance with that agreement, the Applicant has agreed to:

SJMSCP Incidental Take Minimization Measures and mitigation requirement:
,QFLGHQWDO7DNH0LQLPL]DWLRQ0HDVXUHV
,700V
ZLOOEHLVVXHGWRWKHSURMHFWDQGPXVWEHVLJQHGE\WKH SURMHFWDSSOLFDQWSULRUWRDQ\JURXQGGLVWXUEDQFHEXWQRODWHUWKDQVL[ 
PRQWKVIURPUHFHLSWRIWKH,700V
,I,700VDUHQRWVLJQHGZLWKLQVL[PRQWKVWKHDSSOLFDQWPXVWUHDSSO\IRU6-06&3&RYHUDJH8SRQUHFHLSW RIVLJQHG,700VIURPSURMHFWDSSOLFDQW6-&2*,QFVWDIIZLOOVLJQWKH,700V7KLVLVWKHHIIHFWLYHGDWH RIWKH,700V
8QGHUQRFLUFXPVWDQFHVKDOOJURXQGGLVWXUEDQFHRFFXUZLWKRXWFRPSOLDQFHDQGVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKH,700V 8SRQLVVXDQFHRIIXOO\H[HFXWHG,700VDQGSULRUWRDQ\JURXQGGLVWXUEDQFHWKHSURMHFWDSSOLFDQWPXVW

D 3RVWDERQGIRUSD\PHQWRIWKHDSSOLFDEOH6-06&3IHHFRYHULQJWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHSURMHFWDFUHDJH EHLQJFRYHUHG
WKHERQGVKRXOGEHYDOLGIRUQRORQJHUWKDQDPRQWKSHULRG

RU
E 3D\WKHDSSURSULDWH6-06&3IHHIRUWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHSURMHFWDFUHDJHEHLQJFRYHUHG RU
F 'HGLFDWHODQGLQOLHXRIIHHVHLWKHUDVFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWVRUIHHWLWOH RU
G 3XUFKDVHDSSURYHGPLWLJDWLRQEDQNFUHGLWV
:LWKLQPRQWKVIURPWKHHIIHFWLYHGDWHRIWKH,700VRULVVXDQFHRIDEXLOGLQJSHUPLWZKLFKHYHURFFXUV ILUVWWKHSURMHFWDSSOLFDQWPXVW

D 3D\WKHDSSURSULDWH6-06&3IRUWKHHQWLUHW\RIWKHSURMHFWDFUHDJHEHLQJFRYHUHG RU
E 'HGLFDWHODQGLQOLHXRIIHHVHLWKHUDVFRQVHUYDWLRQHDVHPHQWVRUIHHWLWOH RU
F 3XUFKDVHDSSURYHGPLWLJDWLRQEDQNFUHGLWV
)DLOXUHWRVDWLVI\WKHREOLJDWLRQVRIWKHPLWLJDWLRQIHHVKDOOVXEMHFWWKHERQGWREHFDOOHG Project Title: NOA of DEIR for the Tracy Alliance Project Assessor Parcel #s: WR
T _______, R______, Section(s): _____
Local Jurisdiction Contact: Victoria Lombardo
The LOCAL JURISDICTION retains responsibility for ensuring that the appropriate Incidental Take Minimization Measures are properly implemented and monitored and that
appropriate fees are paid in compliance with the SJMSCP 
6-&2*
3DJHRI
3 4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-27
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG)
Response to SJCOG-1
The letter provides introductory remarks, including a summary of the project description.

It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required.

Response to SJCOG-2
The commenter notes that the proposed project is subject to the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP); summarizes the local jurisdiction’s compliance obligations; and recommends that the project applicant contact SJMSCP staff as early as possible.

The commenter also notes the steps required to satisfy SJMSCP requirements, including a pre- construction survey by a qualified Biologist and implementation of incidental take minimization measures. It also notes that Section 404 requirements would apply if the proposed project would impact any waters of the United States.

SJMSCP requirements are detailed in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR (e.g., Section

3.4.4 (Regulatory Framework), Impact BIO-6, MM BIO-1). As analyzed more fully therein, each applicant, in connection with its individual development proposal, would be required to implement mitigation mandated under the SJMSCP and minimization measures (as identified above in Impact BIO-1) in conjunction with required compliance with the SJMSCP , which would reduce specific impacts to listed species to a less than significant level under CEQA. Pursuant to the foregoing, no permit for site clearance, grading, or construction would be issued until all requirements under applicable laws and regulations, including those of the SJMSCP , have been satisfied. See also discussion in Section 3.3 (e.g., Impact BIO-3) with respect to potential impacts to jurisdictional features.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Diana Walker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 2:14 PM
To: Victoria Lombardo <[email protected]> Subject: SJVAPCD Information Request for DEIR Tracy Alliance Project Hello Victoria,
The District is currently reviewing the DEIR for the Tracy Alliance Project. I noticed that an ambient air quality analysis and health risk assessment was completed for the project. May you please request the electronic modeling (AERMOD) and HARP2 files for both analyses from the consultant/applicant and submit them to the District as soon as possible. We will need them in order to complete our review of the DEIR.

Best regards,
Diana Walker
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Air Quality Specialist II
(559) 230- 5820
[email protected]

Valley Air District
3DJHRI

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-31
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District-1) Response to Valley Air District-1-1
The commenter states that they are reviewing the Draft EIR and requests the American Meteorological Society/United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD) and Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2) files be sent to the Valley Air District in order to complete their review.

This comment is noted and acknowledged. FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), on behalf of the City, submitted the requested files to the Valley Air District on May 10, 2022.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
June 2, 2022
Victoria Lombardo
City of Tracy
Development Services Department
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tracy Alliance Project District CEQA Reference No: 20220531
Dear Ms. Lombardo:

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Tracy Alliance Project for City of Tracy (City). Per the DEIR, the proposed project consists of the construction and operation of approximately 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse and distribution development (Project), located at the northeast corner of Grant Line Road and Paradise Road in Tracy CA.

The District offers the following comments regarding the Project:

Project Related Emissions
Project Trip Length Assumption for Operational Off-Site Heavy Heavy-Duty Truck Travel
Per Appendix B (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information) of the DEIR, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) analysis includes a 6.9-mile trip length for quantifying Project operational emissions from heavy heavy-duty (HHD) truck travel. However, warehouse development projects typically result in a high volume of HHD truck trips that generally travel further distances (e.g. trip length) for distribution. Without sufficient justification in the DEIR to support the 6.9-mile trip length, the analysis may be underestimating the Project’s operational emissions. Therefore, the District recommends the DEIR be revised to either justify the use of a 6.9-mile trip length for this Project or reflect an appropriate trip length distance that is supported 

Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 2 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
by project-specific factors and include a qualitative discussion in the DEIR for consistency.

Recommended Mitigation to Reduce Operational Air Quality Impacts Per the DEIR, specifically Table 3.3-12 (Unmitigated Annual Operational Emissions) demonstrates Project operational emissions are expected to exceed the District’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the District recommends the DEIR be revised to include a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for this Project.

A VERA is a mitigation measure by which the project proponent provides pound- for-pound mitigation of emissions increases through a process that develops, funds, and implements emission reduction projects, with the District serving a role of administrator of the emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. To implement a VERA, the project proponent and the District enter into a contractual agreement in which the project proponent agrees to mitigate project specific emissions by providing funds for the District’s incentives programs. The funds are disbursed by the District in the form of grants for projects that achieve emission reductions. Thus, project-related impacts on air quality can be mitigated. Types of emission reductio n projects that have been funded in the past include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines (such as agricultural irrigation pumps), replacing old heavy-duty trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient heavy-duty trucks, and replacement of old farm tractors.

In implementing a VERA, the District verifies the actual emission reductions that have been achieved as a result of completed grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions.

After the project is mitigated, the District certifies to the Lead Agency that the mitigation is completed, providing the Lead Agency with an enforceable mitigation measure demonstrating that project-related emissions have been mitigated. To assist the Lead Agency and project proponent in ensuring that the environmental document is compliant with CEQA, the District recommends the environmental document includes an assessment of the feasibility of implementing a VERA.

Health Risk Assessment
Per the DEIR, the Project-related health impacts are expected to exceed the District’s significance threshold of 20 in a million for cancer risk for new developments under CEQA. Therefore, the District recommends that the Project not be approved unless the DEIR is revised to include additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project-level health impacts to below the District’s significance thresholds.

&217



Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 3 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
District Rule 9510 - Indirect Source Review
The Project is subject to District Rule 9510 because it will receive a project-level discretionary approval from a public agency and will equal or exceed 25,000 square feet of light industrial space.

The purpose of District Rule 9510 is to reduce the growth in both NOx and PM emissions associated with development and transportation projects from mobile and area sources; specifically, the emissions associated with the construction and subsequent operation of development projects. The Rule encourages clean air design elements to be incorporated into the development project. In case the proposed project clean air design elements are insufficient to meet the targeted emission reductions, the rule requires developers to pay a fee to fund projects to achieve off-site emissions reductions.

Per Section 5.0 of the ISR Rule, an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application is required to be submitted no later than applying for project-level approval from a public agency. As of the date of this letter, the District has not received an AIA application for this Project. Please inform the project proponent to immediately submit an AIA application to the District to comply with District Rule 9510. One AIA application should be submitted for the entire Project. It is preferable for the applicant to submit an AIA application as early as possible in the public agency’s (City of Tracy) approval process so that proper mitigation and clean air design under ISR can be incorporated into the public agency’s analysis.

Information about how to comply with District Rule 9510 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRHome.htm.

The AIA application form can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRFormsAndApplications.htm.

District staff is available to provide assistance, and can be reached by phone at (559) 230-5900 or by email at [email protected].

Recommended Emissions Reductions Strategies to Reduce Project Air Quality Impacts
Industrial/Warehouse Emission Reduction Strategies
The District recommends the City consider the feasibility of incorporating emission reduction strategies that also reduce potential harmful health impacts, such as those listed below:


Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 4 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
• Ensure solid screen buffering trees, solid decorative walls, and/or other natural ground landscaping techniques are implemented along the property line of adjacent sensitive receptors
• Ensure all landscaping be drought tolerant
• Orient loading docks away from sensitive receptors unless physically impossible
• Locate loading docks a minimum of 300 feet away from the property line of sensitive receptor unless dock is exclusively used for electric trucks • Incorporate signage and “pavement markings” to clearly identify on-site circulation patterns to minimize unnecessary on-site vehicle travel • Locate truck entries on streets of a higher commercial classification. • Ensure all building roofs be solar-ready
• Ensure all portions of roof tops that are not covered with solar panels are constructed to have light colored roofing material with a solar reflective index of greater than 78
• Ensure rooftop solar panels are installed and operated to supply 100% of the power needed to operate all non-refrigerated portions of the development project
• Ensure power sources at loading docks for all refrigerated trucks have “plugin” capacity, which will eliminate prolonged idling while loading and unloading goods
• Incorporate bicycle racks and electric bike plug-ins
• Require the use of super-compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
• Prohibit the use of non-emergency diesel-powered generators during construction
• Inform the project proponent of the incentive programs (e.g., Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program) offered to reduce air emissions from the Project
Truck Routing
Truck routing involves the assessment of which roads HHD trucks take to and from their destination, and the emissions impact that the HHD trucks may have on residential communities and sensitive receptors.

Per the DEIR, the Project will result in increased HHD truck trips. Therefore, the District recommends the City evaluate HHD truck routing patterns for the Project, with the aim of limiting exposure of residential communities and sensitive receptors to emissions. This evaluation would consider the current truck routes, the quantity and type of each truck (e.g., Medium Heavy-Duty, HHD, etc.), the destination and origin of each trip, traffic volume correlation with the time of day or the day of the week, overall Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and associated exhaust emissions.

The truck routing evaluation would also identify alternative truck routes and their impacts on VMT and air quality.
8 7
Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 5 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
Reduce Idling of Heavy-Duty Trucks
The goal of this strategy is to limit the potential for localized PM2.5 and toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the idling of Heavy-Duty trucks. The diesel exhaust from idling has the potential to impose significant adverse health and environmental impacts.

Since the Project is expected to result in HHD truck trips, the District recommends the DEIR be revised to include measures to ensure compliance of the state anti- idling regulation (13 CCR § 2485 and 13 CCR § 2480) and discuss the importance of limiting the amount of idling, especially near sensitive receptors. In addition, the District recommends the City consider the feasibility of implementing a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction and requiring appropriate signage and enforcement of idling restrictions.

Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment
Since the Project will result in industrial development, it has the potential to result in increased use of off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts) and on-road equipment (e.g., mobile yard trucks with the ability to move materials). The District recommends that the DEIR include requirements for project proponents to utilize electric or zero emission off-road and on-road equipment.

Vegetative Barriers and Urban Greening
There are residential units located northeast and southeast of the Project. The District suggests the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening as a measure to further reduce air pollution exposure on sensitive receptors (e.g., residential units).

While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, vegetative barriers have been shown to be an additional measure to potentially reduce a population’s exposure to air pollution through the interception of airborne particles and the update of gaseous pollutants. Examples of vegetative barriers include, but are not limited to the following: trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix of these. Generally, a higher and thicker vegetative barrier with full coverage will result in greater reductions in downwind pollutant concentrations. In the same manner, urban greening is also a way to help improve air quality and public health in addition to enhancing the overall beautification of a community with drought tolerant, low-maintenance greenery.
9 0
1
Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 6 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
On-Site Solar Deployment
It is the policy of the State of California that renewable energy resources and zero- carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045. While various emission control techniques and programs exist to reduce air quality emissions from mobile and stationary sources, the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The District suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the Project.

Electric Vehicle Chargers
To support and accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging equipment and development of required infrastructure, the District offers incentives to public agencies, businesses, and property owners of multi-unit dwellings to install electric charging infrastructure (Level 2 and 3 chargers). The purpose of th e District’s Charge Up! Incentive program is to promote clean air alternative-fuel technologies and the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. The District recommends that the City and project proponents install electric vehicle chargers at project sites, and at strategic locations.

Please visit www.valleyair.org/grants/chargeup.htm for more information.

District Rules and Regulations
The District issues permits for many types of air pollution sources, and regulates some activities that do not require permits. A project subject to District rules and regulations would reduce its impacts on air quality through compliance with the District’s regulatory framework. In general, a regulation is a collection of individual rules, each of which deals with a specific topic. As an example, Regulation II (Permits) includes District Rule 2010 (Permits Required), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review), Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating Permits), and several other rules pertaining to District permitting requirements and processes.

The list of rules below is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. Current District rules can be found online at: www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. To identify other District rules or regulations that apply to future projects, or to obtain information about District permit requirements, the project proponents are strongly encouraged to contact the District’s Small Business Assistance (SBA) Office at (209) 557-6446.

District Rules 2010 and 2201 - Air Quality Permitting for Stationary Sources Stationary Source emissions include any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any affected pollutant directly or as a fugitive emission. 2
3
4
5
Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 7 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) from the District. District Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

This Project may be subject to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required) and Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) and may require District permits. Prior to construction, the Project proponent should submit to the District an application for an ATC. For further information or assistance, the project proponent may contact the District’s SBA Office at (209) 557-6446.

District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction)
The Project may be subject to District Rule 9410 (Employer Based Trip Reduction) if the project would result in employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees.

District Rule 9410 requires employers with 100 or more “eligible” employees at a worksite to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan (eTRIP) that encourages employees to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, thus reducing pollutant emissions associated with work commutes. Under an eTRIP plan, employers have the flexibility to select the options that work best for their worksites and their employees.

Information about District Rule 9410 can be found online at:
www.valleyair.org/tripreduction.htm.

For additional information, you can contact the District by phone at 559-230-6000 or by e-mail at [email protected]
District Rule 4002 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4002 since the Project will include demolition of existing structures. To protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos, this rule requires a thorough inspection for asbestos to be conducted before any regulated facility is demolished or renovated. Any asbestos present must be handled in accordance with established work practice standards and disposal requirements.

Information on how to comply with District Rule 4002 can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/asbestosbultn.htm. 5
&217
6
7
Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 8 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
District Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)
The Project will be subject to District Rule 4601 since it is expected to utilize architectural coatings. Architectural coatings are paints, varnishes, sealers, or stains that are applied to structures, portable buildings, pavements or curbs. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings. In addition, this rule specifies architectural coatings storage, cleanup and labeling requirements. Additional information on how to comply with District Rule 4601 requirements can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4601.pdf .

District Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions)
The Project will be required to submit a Construction Notification Form and submit and receive approval of a Dust Control Plan prior to commencing any earthmoving activities as described in Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 – Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities.

Since the Project will result in at least 1-acre in size, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the District at least 48 hours prior to the project proponents intent to commence any earthmoving activities pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). Also, should the project result in the disturbance of 5- acres or more, or will include moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials, the project proponent shall submit to the District a Dust Control Plan pursuant to District Rule 8021 (Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving Activities). For additional information regarding the written notification or Dust Control Plan requirements, please contact District Compliance staff at (559) 230-5950.

The application for both the Construction Notification and Dust Control Plan can be found online at:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/PM10/forms/DCP-Form.docx Information about District Regulation VIII can be found online at:
http://www.valleyair.org/busind/comply/pm10/compliance_pm10.htm Other District Rules and Regulations
The Project may also be subject to the following District rules: Rule 4102 (Nuisance) and Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations).
8
19 0
Valley Air District
3DJHRI

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Page 9 of 7 District Reference No: 20220531
June 2, 2022
District Comment Letter
The District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the Project proponent.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Diana Walker by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at (559) 230-5820.

Sincerely,
Brian Clements
Director of Permit Services
Mark Montelongo
Program Manager
Valley Air District
3DJH
RI

1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-43
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District-2) The following responses include discussion of new mitigation measures to address comments from the Valley Air District that the applicant has agreed to adopt. The mitigation measures are appropriately discussed in this Final EIR and are incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) because the new mitigation measures would result in further emission reductions; they would not themselves involve new significant effects or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed significant effects that would require the recirculation of the Draft EIR.

Under Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 C4th 1112 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a)(3)), when information added to the Final EIR consists of a suggested new mitigation measure, recirculation is only required if the mitigation measure meets each of the following criteria (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330):
• It is feasible;
• It is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR;
• It would clearly lessen the project's significant environmental impacts; and • It is not adopted.

These new mitigation measures are accepted by the applicant and will be adopted and implemented with the construction of the proposed project, as applicable. Therefore, recirculation is not required.

Response to Valley Air District-2-1
The commenter states that the Valley Air District has reviewed the Draft EIR for the proposed project and notes that the proposed project consists of the construction and operation of approximately 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse and distribution development.

This comment is noted and acknowledged. Because it does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

Response to Valley Air District-2-2
The commenter identifies that Appendix B of the Draft EIR includes a 6.9-mile trip length for quantifying heavy heavy-duty (HHD) truck traffic, but notes that warehouse development projects typically result in a high volume of HHD truck trips that generally travel distances further than 6.9 miles. Therefore, the commenter requests either (1) justification for the use of this metric, or (2) revisions to the analysis that reflect an appropriate trip length distance that is supported by project- specific factors and include a qualitative discussion for consistency.

The average HHD truck travel distance utilized in the CalEEMod modeling to support the Air Quality Analysis of the Draft EIR is 11.35 miles rather than the 6.9-mile distance referred to by the commenter. As shown in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) utilizes three separate travel distance metrics by default. In this case, the model’s truck City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-44 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx trips were divided, with 41 percent assigned to a “H-O or C-NW” trip type with a default distance of

6.6 miles per trip and 59 percent assigned to a “H-W or C-W” trip type with a default distance of

14.7 miles per trip. Therefore, the model’s default truck travel distance would be an average 11.35 miles per trip ((14.7 x 0.59) + (6.6 x 0.41) = 11.35).

Based on available information, the project applicants have identified three regionally located intermodal facilities as the most likely origins and destinations for much of their operations: an intermodal facility located at 1000 East Roth Road, Lathrop, California 95231, approximately 12.1 miles from the project site, an Amazon distribution center, located along East Paradise Road approximately 1 mile from the project site, and a UPS distribution center, located along West Shulte Road approximately 10.9 miles from the project site. Considering an even distribution between the three listed product origins and destinations, trucks traveling to and from the project site during operation would travel an average of 8 miles per trip. As the CalEEMod default results in an average truck travel distance of 11.35 miles, as shown in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s trucking activity was conservatively captured in the modeling contained in Appendix B of the Draft EIR and no revisions to the analysis are determined to be necessary in order to comply with CEQA.

Response to Valley Air District-2-3
The commenter recommends that the Draft EIR be revised to include a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) for the project and describes that a VERA is a contractual agreement between the project proponent and the Valley Air District.

A VERA is a voluntary recommendation, it is not a requirement. In addition, because the project would result in the development of greater than 25,000 square feet of light industrial building space, the project would be required to pay emission reduction fees associated with its Indirect Source Review application, consistent with the requirements contained in District Rule 9510. The Indirect Source Review application and fees to the Valley Air District would reduce project emissions since the Air District would direct the fees to fund other air quality improvement measures throughout the District. Although the proposed project would not include a VERA, the incorporation of Indirect Source Review application measures and payment of fees would further offset proposed project air pollutant emissions. No further response is required.

Response to Valley Air District-2-4
The commenter describes that through a VERA, the Valley Air District verifies emission reductions achieved by complete grant contracts, monitors the emission reduction projects, and ensures the enforceability of achieved reductions.

No further response is required.

Response to Valley Air District-2-5
The commenter states that the project-related health impacts are anticipated to exceed the Valley Air District’s significance threshold of 20 in one million for cancer risk for new developments under CEQA. The commenter recommends that the proposed project not be approved unless the Draft EIR is revised to include additional mitigation measures to reduce the project-level health impacts to below the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-45
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx To the extent the commenter is expressing an opinion on the merits of the proposed project, the comment will be noted and included in the administrative record for consideration by the City’s decision-makers. The City, as Lead Agency, has the authority to approve the proposed project even if significant and unavoidable impacts would occur so long as the City’s basis for doing so is supported by the required CEQA findings, including, if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As noted in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, while the final determination of whether a project would have a significant impact is within the purview of the Lead Agency pursuant to Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, in its discretion, has acted in accordance with Valley Air District’s recommendation that its quantitative air pollution thresholds be used to determine the significance of project emissions. The applicable Valley Air District thresholds and methodologies are contained under each impact statement in Section 3.3, as the City, in its discretion, has determined to utilize these thresholds and methodologies, which are based on scientific and factual data.

For purposes of conducting the health risk impact analysis, the Draft EIR’s analysis properly identified the closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project; it also noted that the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR) during each construction phase of the proposed project, which may be different since the MIR during pollutant-generating activity is influenced by the distance of that receptor to the pollutant source(s), the amount and type of pollutants generated by each source, the topography and direction of the MIR as it relates to the pollutant source(s), and the prevailing meteorological conditions. As discussed under Impact AIR-3 in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the Draft EIR analyzed the health risk impacts during operation of Phase 1 of the proposed project as that is the only phase for which project-specific information was available, such as specific local truck travel routes, possible locations of on-site vehicle and equipment idling, and general building design and orientation on the project site. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that the health risk impacts resulting from operation of Phase 1 would be generally representative of and thus adequately identify and disclose operational impacts at full buildout. As discussed under Impact AIR- 3 in Section 3.3, Air Quality, Phase 1 of the proposed project would constitute approximately 55 percent of total trucking activities for the proposed project and operation of Phase 1 would result in approximately 13.13 excess cancer cases per one million people.

Taking the above analytical approach, Phase 1 would result in approximately 55 percent of total trucking activities across the proposed project, representing the principal operational source of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Phase 1 of the proposed project could result in up to 11 excess cancer cases per one million people (i.e., 55 percent of 20 cancer cases per one million people, which is the Valley Air District’s significance threshold). As discussed under Impact AIR-3 in Section

3.3, Air Quality, the 13.13 cancer cases per one million people from Phase 1 operations would be greater than 11 cancer cases in one million people. Because Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in cancer cases that exceed 55 percent of the Valley Air District’s significance threshold, the proposed project has the potential to result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during operation at full buildout. MM AIR-1d would result in reductions to DPM from the operation of a clean truck fleet during operation of all phases of the proposed project; however, the potential DPM emission reductions resulting from implementation of MM AIR-1d cannot be quantified at this time due to unknown engine emission factors for trucks meeting the California Air City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-46 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Resources Board (ARB) low oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emission standards. Because the health risk impacts analyzed conclude that the proposed project could result in potentially significant health impacts and the efficacy of implementation of MM AIR-1d for DPM emission reductions cannot be quantified, the Draft EIR’s analysis conservatively concluded that Impact AIR-3 would be significant and unavoidable.

Nonetheless and although not required as mitigation for any impact, to further reduce potential health risk impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site (the residences and school along Grant Line Road and El Rancho Road), the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1e, which has been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR to require that trucks accessing the project site are prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata, and have been incorporated into the updated MMRP. In addition, the project applicants are willing to voluntarily implement signage along project frontage on Grant Line Road to deter trucks from traveling on Grant Line Road east of the project site, and would agree to voluntarily implement routine communications between property managers and tenants to ensure tenant understanding that trucks accessing the project site are prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval.

When information added to the Final EIR consists of an additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR; would clearly lessen the proposed project's significant environmental impacts; and is not adopted. Recirculation is required only if each of the above criteria is met. (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330). Here, the applicants have voluntarily accepted the inclusion of this mitigation measure; therefore, recirculation is not required. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP.

Response to Valley Air District-2-6
The commenter notes that the proposed project is subject to District Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review. The commenter also summarizes the purposes and requirements under District Rule 9510, including the need to prepare an Air Impact Assessment (AIA).

This comment is noted and acknowledged, and the commenter is referred to the Regulatory Framework of Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, where these requirements were noted.

Specifically, the Valley Air District’s rules and regulations that could apply to the proposed project, including District Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review, are listed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, on page

3.3-20 through 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR. Page 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR states that the proposed project would be required to comply with Rule 9510 because it would develop more than 25,000 square feet of light industrial uses, including submittal of the required AIA application. See also the Impact Discussion in Impact AIR-1. No further response is required.

Response to Valley Air District-2-7
The commenter states that the City should consider the feasibility of a list of provided measures to reduce emissions and health impacts.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-47
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx As identified in Section 3.3, Air Quality, and in accordance with the requirements under CEQA, a series of feasible mitigation measures have been identified, which would be imposed on the proposed project to reduce emissions and health risk impacts to the extent practicable. As requested by the commenter, the City and its consultants have considered the feasibility of incorporating the suggested additional measures. Those listed by the commenter, such as the inclusion of a screen buffer of trees, solid decorative walls, and/or other natural ground landscaping techniques around the project site eastern property line adjacent to sensitive receptors; ensuring all landscaping is drought tolerant; or signage/pavement markings identifying on-site circulation, would not result in sufficient reductions in emissions to ensure that emissions and subsequent health risk impacts would not exceed the District’s significance thresholds. The reason these additional mitigation measures would not reduce emissions below the Valley Air District thresholds is because the majority of operational emissions are due to the use of HHD truck fleets. Signage/pavement marking identifying on-site circulation would not reduce the number of trucks visiting the project site on any given day or substantially change or reduce the amount of time trucks would spend idling or traveling on or near the project site. However, additional mitigation measures were included in the Final EIR that would reduce the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated levels of toxic air contaminants (TACs). These measures include MM AIR-1f (idling limitation), MM AIR-1g (electric on-site off-Road and on-road equipment), and MM AIR-1h (vegetated project site buffer).

These mitigation measures align with the intent of the mitigation measures suggested by the commentor. Specifically, MM AIR-1-h requires each individual development proposal within the project site to demonstrate inclusion of a vegetative buffer.

Furthermore, a number of the measures listed by the commenter are already incorporated into the project as design features, such as providing bicycle parking consistent with City requirements, or have already been identified as mitigation; i.e., MM AIR-1b and -1c, which require during construction low volatile organic compound (VOC) architectural coating and paints which do not exceed 10 grams of reactive organic gas (ROG) per liter of paint and Zero VOC consumer products during operation.

Nevertheless, as described further below, although not required to do so, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to incorporate the following additional measures: MM AIR-1e (operational truck fleet routing), MM AIR-1f (idling limitation), MM AIR-1g (electric on-site off-road and on-road equipment), MM AIR-1h (vegetated project site buffer), and MM AIR-1i (Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle charging infrastructure). These mitigation measures have been included in this Final EIR (as shown in Section 3.1 of the Errata) as well as in the updated MMRP , and would result in additional emission reductions during project operation beyond what was identified in the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the quantified emission reductions experienced by these new mitigation measures cannot be identified at this time due to the limitations of emissions modeling, such as CalEEMod. However, such quantification is not required because as mentioned previously, the vast majority of emissions would be due to HHD truck use during operation and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Response to Valley Air District-2-8
The commenter notes that truck routing involves the assessment of which roads HHD trucks will use during project operation. The commenter indicates that the truck routing patterns can result in City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-48 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx impacts to nearby residential communities and sensitive receptors and states that truck routing for the project should be identified, with the aim of limiting exposure to emissions. The commenter then notes the recommended methodology in conducting this assessment.

As identified in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, approximately 12.51 acres of the Tracy Alliance parcel would be reserved to accommodate a portion of a planned interchange at Paradise Road and Interstate 205 (I-205) where future trucks would access the project site once built. This future interchange has been identified by the project applicant as the primary truck route for trucks accessing the project site during operation once it is constructed and the interchange is assumed to be in place as part of the cumulative conditions within the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn. As illustrated in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared for the proposed project to support the analysis under Impact AIR-3 in Section 3.3, Air Quality, accounted for all possible local arterials that could support the future trucking activities of the proposed project. This consideration in the HRA accounted for known trucking information including the possible local route network (i.e., current and future truck routes), the quantity, type, and volume of truck trips and VMT, and associated exhaust emissions.

For example, the CalEEMod operational scenarios used project-specific truck trip lengths based on applicant information of three points of origin for truck trips, which provided an accurate representation of the potential exhaust emissions associated with operations. Nonetheless, and although not required as mitigation for any impact, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1e, which has been added to this Final EIR to prohibit trucks that are accessing the project site from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. This mitigation When information added to the Final EIR consists of an additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR; would clearly lessen the proposed project's significant environmental impacts; and is not adopted. Recirculation is required only if each of the above criteria is met. (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330). Here, the applicants have voluntarily accepted the inclusion of this mitigation measure; therefore, recirculation is not required. These changes can be seen in Section

3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP .

Response to Valley Air District-2-9
The commenter summarizes the goal of the idling reduction strategy. The commenter then notes that because of the volume of truck traffic anticipated for the proposed project, and recommends that the Draft EIR be revised to include measures to ensure compliance with the State anti-idling regulation; to discuss the importance of limiting idling near sensitive receptors; and to include a more stringent 3-minute idling restriction for on-site trucks accessing the site (along with related signage and enforcement) to reduce associated exhaust emissions.

Consistent with the comment, Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR addresses the State anti-idling regulation as well as the impacts of idling on sensitive receptors absent restrictions (see, e.g., pages

3.3-16 and 3.3-47 through -49).

In addition, although not required as mitigation for any impact, in response to this comment, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1f, which City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-49
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx would restrict on-site vehicle idling to no greater than 3 minutes. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP. When information added to the Final EIR consists of an additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR; would clearly lessen the proposed project's significant environmental impacts; and is not adopted. Recirculation is required only if each of the above criteria is met. (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330). Here, the applicants have voluntarily accepted the inclusion of this mitigation measure; therefore, recirculation is not required.

These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP.

Response to Valley Air District-2-10
Because of the industrial nature of the proposed project, the commenter notes that it has the potential to result in increased use of on-site and off-road equipment. Therefore, the commenter recommends the use of on-site on- and off-road equipment (e.g., forklifts, pallet jacks) be limited to only electric equipment and vehicles.

Consistent with the comment, Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential impact of project operations in terms of DPM emissions due to HHD trucks and passenger vehicles.

Although the Draft EIR did not specifically evaluate the impacts of the use of on-site and off-road equipment; the Draft EIR discusses the primary source of DPM and TAC emissions from the project operation, which is the use of HHD trucks.

In addition, although not required as mitigation for any impact, in response to this comment, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1g, which would require the use of electric on-site and on- and off-road equipment in place of non-electric alternatives. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP.

When information added to the Final EIR consists of an additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR; would clearly lessen the proposed project's significant environmental impacts; and is not adopted. Recirculation is required only if each of the above criteria is met. (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330). Here, the applicants have voluntarily accepted the inclusion of this mitigation measure; therefore, recirculation is not required. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP.

Response to Valley Air District-2-11
Because of the industrial nature of the proposed project and its proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, the commenter suggests that the City consider the feasibility of incorporating vegetative barriers and urban greening around the project site to further reduce air pollution exposure to sensitive receptors. The commenter also notes the purpose of these measures.

Consistent with the comment, Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR evaluates the potential impact of project operations on sensitive receptors; see, page 3.3-47.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-50 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx In addition, although not required as mitigation for any impact, in response to this comment, MM AIR-1h has been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR to require the installation of a vegetative barrier at the eastern boundary of the project site, between I-205 and Grant Line Road.

These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP. When information added to the Final EIR consists of an additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR; would clearly lessen the proposed project's significant environmental impacts; and is not adopted. Recirculation is required only if each of the above criteria is met. (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th 316, 330). Here, the applicants have voluntarily accepted the inclusion of this mitigation measure; therefore, recirculation is not required. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP.

Response to Valley Air District-2-12
The commenter states that it is the policy of the State of California to increase renewable and zero- carbon energy resources in the procurement of electricity sold in-state to reach 100 percent by December 31, 2045, and notes that the production of solar energy is contributing to improving air quality and public health. The commenter suggests that the City consider incorporating solar power systems as an emission reduction strategy for the proposed project.

Consistent with the comment, as discussed in the Draft EIR (see, Chapter 3-6 Energy and 3-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the proposed project would be required to be designed in compliance with the applicable California Building Standards Code (CBC), which reflect some of the most stringent requirements in the nation. Currently, the CBC requires that nonresidential projects construct their roofs to be solar-ready to accommodate the future installation of solar panels. The proposed project would be required to comply with the foregoing, thereby contributing to improved air quality and public health through the production of solar energy.

Response to Valley Air District-2-13
The commenter states that the Valley Air District offers a Charge Up! Incentive program to public agencies, businesses, and property owners to install electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and recommends that the City and project proponents install EV chargers at project sites and at strategic locations.

Although not required as mitigation for any impact, in response to this comment, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1i, which would require the installation of EV charging stations which meet the Tier 2 standards set forth in Section A5.106.5.3 of Appendix A5–Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) of the 2019 CBC. The inclusion, and acceptance of this additional measure by the project applicants, would further reduce emissions through support for the use of electric vehicles. When information added to the Final EIR consists of an additional mitigation measure, recirculation is required only if the new mitigation measure is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the Draft EIR; would clearly lessen the proposed project's significant environmental impacts; and is not adopted. Recirculation is required only if each of the above criteria is met. (South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 CA4th City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-51
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx 316, 330). Here, the applicant has voluntarily accepted the inclusion of this mitigation measure; therefore, recirculation is not required. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as the updated MMRP.

Response to Valley Air District-2-14
The commenter notes that the District issues permits for many different types of air pollution sources, and indicates that such projects may be subject to a variety of District rules and regulations including, for example, Regulation II, Rules 2010, 2201, and 2520.

The comment is noted. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is needed.

Response to Valley Air District-2-15
The commenter summarizes the definition of stationary source emissions, notes relevant District Rules 2010 and 2201, and states that the proposed project may be subject to these rules; the commenter also recommends that the project applicant should submit an application for an Authority to Construct (ATC) prior to construction.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the Valley Air District’s authority to regulate air pollution sources, and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. See, e.g., page 3.3-25; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1. For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the Valley Air District’s Regulation II, Rules 2010 and 2201 have been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-20 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata.

Response to Valley Air District-2-16
The commenter states that the proposed project may be subject to Valley Air District Rule 9410.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the Valley Air District’s authority to regulate air pollution sources, and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. See, e.g., page 3.3-20; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1. For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the Valley Air District’s Rule 9410 has been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section 3.1 of the Errata.

Response to Valley Air District-2-17
The commenter states that the proposed project will be subject to Valley Air District’s Rule 4002.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the Valley Air District’s authority to regulate air pollution sources, and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. In particular, the analysis considers impacts associated with the proposed demolition. See the discussion for Impact AIR-1 and -2. For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the Valley Air District’s Rule 4002 has been added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, page 3.3-20 of the Draft EIR, and corresponding edits are reflected in Section

3.1 of the Errata.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-52 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Response to Valley Air District-2-18
The commenter notes that the proposed project would be subject to Valley Air District Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the Valley Air District’s authority to regulate air pollution sources, and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations, including, among others, District Rule 4601. It also confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with Rule 4601. See, e.g., pages

3.3-20 through 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1. states Response to Valley Air District-2-19
The commenter notes that the proposed project would be subject to Valley Air District Regulation VIII, specifically Rule 8021 (Fugitive PM
10 Prohibitions), and summarizes the requirements for same.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the Valley Air District’s authority to regulate air pollution sources, and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations, including, among others, Regulation VIII. It also confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with Regulation VIII. See, e.g., pages 3.3-20 through 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1.

Response to Valley Air District-2-20
The commenter notes that the proposed project may be subject to Valley Air District Rules 4102 (Nuisance) and 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt). This comment is noted.

Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR discusses at length the Valley Air District’s authority to regulate air pollution sources, and confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable District rules and regulations, including, among others, Rules 4102 and 4641. It also confirms that the proposed project would be required to comply with District Rules 4102 and 4641. See, e.g., pages 3.3-20 through 3.3-21 of the Draft EIR; see also discussion for Impact AIR-1.

Response to Valley Air District-2-21
The commenter states that the Valley Air District recommends that a copy of the District’s comments be provided to the project proponent.

The Valley Air District’s comments have been provided to the project applicants.

2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
June 1, 2022
Gary Ho
Blum Collins LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 4880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on t he Tracy Alliance Project (SCH No. 2020080524) Dear Mr. Ho,
We have reviewed the April 2022 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Tracy Alliance Project (“Project”) located in the City of Tracy (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 3,352,320- square-feet (“SF”) of warehouse and distribution space, consisting of 1,792,500-SF of warehouse space, 57,000-SF of office space, and 1,502,820-SF of light industrial space, as well as 1,706 parking spaces, on the 191.18-acre site.

Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Failure to Implement All Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Emissions The DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a significant-and-unavoidable air quality impact.

Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the Project’s daily ROG emissions associated with Project construction exceed the applicable San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (“SJVAPCD”) threshold of 100 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see excerpt below) (p. 3.3-36 – 3.3-37, Table 3.3-9). *6(-$
3DJHRI
29 0
1
2 Furthermore, the DEIR estimates that the Project’s annual ROG and NOX emissions associated with Project operation exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of 10 tons per year (“tons/year”) (see excerpt below) (p. 3.3-39 – 3.3-40, Table 3.3-12).
*6(-$
3DJHRI
1
&217
3 Finally, the DEIR estimates that the Project’s daily NOX emissions associated with Project operation exceed the applicable SJVAPCD threshold of 100 lbs/day (see excerpt below) (p. 3.3-41 – 3.3-42, Table

3.3-14).
*6(-$
3DJHRI
1
&217
4 As a result, the DEIR concludes that the Project’s construction-related and operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be significant-and-unavoidable (p. 3.3-36 – 3.3-42). However, while we agree that the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would result in a significant air quality impact, the DEIR’s conclusion that these impacts are “significant and unavoidable” is incorrect. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
As you can see, an impact can only be labeled as significant and unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. Here, while the DEIR includes Mitigation Measures (“MM(s)”) AIR-1a through AIR-1d, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation (p. ES-10 – ES-13). Therefore, the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project’s air quality impacts are significant-and-unavoidable is unsubstantiated. To reduce the Project’s air quality impacts to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” Thus, the Project should not be approved until an updated EIR is prepared, incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would result in a significant-and-unavoidable health risk impact after the implementation of MM AIR-1d (p. 33-49). Specifically, the DEIR states:
“As shown above in Table 3.3-19, the proposed project’s operational DPM emissions during Phase I would not exceed the Valley Air District’s cancer risk or chronic non-cancer hazard index thresholds of significance at the maximum impacted receptor for any of the sensitive receptors analyzed. As displayed in Chapter 2, Project Description, Table 2-2, Proposed Development Summary, Phase I of the proposed project would involve the development of approximately 1,849,500 square feet out of a total approximately 3,352,320 square feet across all three project phases, representing approximately 46 percent of the total proposed building space. In addition, as displayed in Table 3.3-10, Phase 1 of the proposed project would generate an estimated 2,611 daily vehicle trips out of the total 4,715 daily trips across all three project phases, representing approximately 55 percent of the total proposed operational vehicle activity.

Moreover, the potential emission reductions to DPM from the application of MM AIR-1d, which would require the operation of a clean truck fleet during operation of all phases of the proposed project, was not represented in the cancer risk values during Phase I operation in Table 3.3-19.

Because of a lack in operational information for Phases 2 and 3 of the proposed project, such as freight product origin, local truck circulation, or other details necessary to preform a site-specific health risk assessment, Phase 1 of the proposed project was the only project phase modeled for health risk and chronic non-cancer hazard impacts. As Phase 1 represents approximately 55 percent of the potential operational trucking impact, although operation of Phase 1 (Tracy *6(-$
3DJHRI
1
CONT
2
5 Alliance) would not result in a significant impact in this regard, operation at full buildout of the proposed project could have a potentially significant health impact on nearby sensitive receptors, particularly the residential MIRs.

The implementation of MM AIR-1d would contribute to the minimization of DPM emissions generated from trucking emissions; however, full implementation of MM AIR-1d cannot be guaranteed. As a result, this impact would be significant and unavoidable after the incorporation of mitigation” (p. 3.3-49).

However, while we agree that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact, the DEIR’s conclusion that this impact is “significant and unavoidable” is incorrect. As previously discussed, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.”
As demonstrated above, an impact can only be labeled as significant-and-unavoidable after all available, feasible mitigation is considered. Here, while the DEIR implements MM AIR-1d, the DEIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation (p. ES-12 – ES-14). Thus, consistent with the Project’s incorrect air quality analysis, the DEIR fails to comply with CEQA, and the significant-and-unavoidable impact conclusion should not be relied upon. To reduce the Project’s health risk impact to the maximum extent possible, additional feasible mitigation measures should be incorporated, such as those suggested in the section of this letter titled “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” Thus, the Project should not be approved until an updated EIR is prepared, incorporating all feasible mitigation to reduce emissions to less-than-significant levels.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The DEIR concludes a less-than-significant greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impact, stating:
“As shown in Tables 3.8-6 through 3.8-8, Phase 1 would achieve a reduction of 49.7 percent from BAU by the year 2023 with regulations and design features incorporated, Phase 2 would achieve a 48.7 percent reduction by 2024, and Phase 3 would achieve a 31.6 percent reduction by 2025. Each phase would achieve more than the 29 percent reduction required by the Valley Air District threshold, and also more than the 21.7 percent average reduction from all sources of GHG emissions now required to achieve AB 32 targets” (p. 3.8-42).

As demonstrated above, the DEIR estimates that the Project would achieve emissions reductions beyond the ARB 2020 21.7% target and the SJVAPCD 29% reduction from business-as-usual (“BAU”) emissions requirements. Specifically, the DEIR accounts for reductions from the following regulations (see excerpt below) (p. 3.8-29 – 3.8-30, Table 3.8-5).
*6(-$
3DJHRI
2
&217
3
6 However, due to the sheer size of the proposed warehouse development, we recommend that the DEIR incorporate additional project design features (“PDFs”) or formal mitigation measures to address the Project’s expected GHG emissions. Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end- use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating a solar power system into the Project design. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions, the DEIR should not be approved.

Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions The DEIR’s analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in significant air quality and health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. Furthermore, our updated analysis indicates that the Project would result in a significant health risk impact. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.1 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
1 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice. *6(-$
3DJHRI
3
&217
4
7 • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled. • Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, *6(-$
3DJH
RI
4
&217
8 and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single- occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. • Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

Furthermore, to reduce the Project’s criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ- 1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 2 2 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 – *6(-$
3DJHRI
4
&217
35 9
SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. s) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
t) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. *6(-$
3DJHRI
5
&217
10 u) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
v) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. w) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 to tal days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 tota l days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and genera tors on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and addre ss, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the fi rst and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) x) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
- Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. - Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
i. Marked crosswalks
*6(-$
3DJHRI
5
&217
11 ii. Count-down signal timers
iii. Curb extensions iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised intersections
vi. Median islands
vii. Tight corner radii
viii. Roundabouts or mini-circles
ix. On-street parking
x. Chicanes/chokers
- Create urban non-motorized zones
- Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects - Dedicate land for bike trails
- Limit parking supply through:
i. Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements ii. Creation of maximum parking requirements
iii. Provision of shared parking
- Require residential area parking permit.
- Provide ride-sharing programs
i. Designate a certain percentage of pa rking spacing for ride sharing vehicles ii. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
iii. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides iv. Permanent transportation management asso ciation membership and finding requirement.

Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficie nt vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or ne ar zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce ener gy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near cons truction projects where feasible; and *6(-$
3DJHRI
5
&217
12 xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above. e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capaci ty on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicl e trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride- matching services;
iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, su ch as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, en courage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from soli d waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
*6(-$
3DJHRI
5
&217
13 l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip re duction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
o) Implement preferential parking permit program
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
*6(-$
3DJHRI
5
&217
36 37
14 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
*6(-$
3DJHRI
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

Professional Certifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003); ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and
negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and
geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks an
d implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

M
att served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy-making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later

listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 20 05. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2 004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Ha gemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2 003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F. , 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F. , 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F.,
2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F.,
2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F. , 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F.
, 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F. , 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F.
, 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7 Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwat er. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F ., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F . 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F ., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021

Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H
2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist

Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48

Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342

Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science , 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds , 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021

Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. ( 1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. ( 1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E ., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water .

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E . (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting . Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P . (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment fa cilities in the Un ited States. Breb bia, C.A. and P opov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23
rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant . The 23 rd Annual International
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 O ctober 20 21
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water . Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006 . Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021

Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annu al Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic En vironment. Inte rnational Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and B iosolids Manag ement Confere nce Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Ore gon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of gen etically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awa rded to constru ct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993

Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021

In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021

In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021

In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019

In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021

In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018

In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112
th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017

In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017

In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020

In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018

In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021

In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017

In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015

In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015

In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015

In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015

In the Circuit Court of the 17
th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014

In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012

In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011

In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010

In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-79
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Organization
Blum Collins and Ho, Attorneys at Law (on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance [GSEJA])
Response to GSEJA-1
The commenter provides introductory statements and requests to be added to the public interest list. The City will include GSEJA on the public interest list for notification purposes.

It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-2
The commenter describes the proposed project objectives, design, and background information such as anticipated approvals.

It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-3
The commenter states that the Draft EIR did not include an analysis of the Environmental Justice impacts to nearby communities such as unincorporated Banta, which are overly burdened by and especially burdened by existing sources of pollution as identified by CalEnvironScreen, California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA’s) screening tool. Additionally, the commenter states that the project’s census tract and the census tracts adjacent to the project site are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities, which is not discussed or presented for analysis in the Draft EIR.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. CEQA does not require consideration of Environmental Justice considerations in this Draft EIR. Of relevance here, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds be adjusted for Environmental Justice considerations, and thus neither entity recommends the evaluation of same as part of the CEQA process. As discussed in more detail in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, it utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project in accordance with the mandates of CEQA. The Draft EIR evaluated potential impacts to the Banta community in Section 3.3, Air Quality, through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR-3. The Draft EIR acknowledged that the project site is adjacent to the existing sensitive receptors identified by the commenter, and therefore the Draft EIR identifies the potential health risk impacts that could occur as a result of project construction and operation and includes feasible mitigation to reduce these impacts.

For purposes of conducting the health risk impact analysis, the Draft EIR’s analysis properly identified the closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project in the dispersion modeling; it also identified the MIR during each construction phase of the proposed project, which may be different since the MIR during pollutant-generating activity is influenced by the distance of that receptor to the pollutant source(s), the amount and type of pollutants generated by each source, the topography and direction of the MIR as it relates to the pollutant source(s), and the prevailing City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-80 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx meteorological conditions. As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, using the Valley Air District’s threshold of 20 cancer cases per one million people, Phase I of the project representing approximately 55 percent of total trucking activities could result in up to 11 excess cancer cases per one million people (i.e., 55 percent of 20 cancer cases per one million people). The Draft EIR recognized the foregoing as representative of and thus adequately identifying and disclosing operational impacts at full buildout. It conservatively analyzed and disclosed the potential health risks associated with the proposed project by identifying up to 13.13 excess cancer cases per one million people from Phase 1, and concluded that the proposed project has the potential to result in significant health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors during project operation (see Impact AIR-3 in Section 3.3, Air Quality). Because the health risk impacts analyzed for Phase 1 of the proposed project illustrate that the whole proposed project could result in potentially significant health impacts and the efficacy of implementation of MM AIR-1d for DPM emission reductions cannot be quantified, Impact AIR-3 of the Draft EIR was determined to be significant and unavoidable. See also Response to Valley Air District-2-5. Nonetheless, to further reduce potential health impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors to the project site (the residences and school along Grant Line Road and El Rancho Road), the City has agreed to adopt and the applicants have agreed to implement a new MM AIR-1e, which was added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR to require that trucks accessing the project site be prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata.

Response to GSEJA-4
The commenter notes that the State of California lists three approved energy compliance modeling software for nonresidential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE, and that CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The commenter also states that the spreadsheet-based and CalEEMod modeling in Appendix E do not comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under reports the project’s potentially significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and Energy impacts to the public and decision-makers. The commenter states that because the Draft EIR did not utilize an approved energy compliance modeling software, and that the GHG emissions and energy impacts in the Draft EIR are invalid, a revised EIR with modeling in one of the approved software types is required. Furthermore, the commenter states that Draft EIR Appendix E is incorrectly titled Sunnyvale FCII Project Energy Use Summary.

As detailed more fully in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the City, in its discretion, has determined to utilize the applicable Valley Air District thresholds and methodologies, which are contained under each impact statement in Section 3.3 and which are based on scientific and factual data. As discussed therein, the Draft EIR utilized an approved emissions estimating model in CalEEMod based on the Valley Air District guidance contained in Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI). The GAMAQI provides technical guidance for the review of air quality impacts from proposed projects within the boundaries of the Valley Air District. the Valley Air District has not explicitly approved the use of the CBECC-Com, Energy-Pro, or IES VE, for CEQA analysis of projects within the GAMAQI; furthermore, these models are not alternatives to CalEEMod for estimating emissions and would not be appropriate to estimate GHG or energy impacts. The Draft EIR reflects a robust Air Quality Analysis in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, and no revised modeling is necessary.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-81
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx The energy calculation summary page in Appendix E has been edited in Section 4.1 of the Errata to correctly show the proposed project title. Contrary to the commenter’s statement, this minor typographical error does not impair the Draft EIR as an informational document. As shown in Appendix E, the correct CalEEMod modeling files were used to estimate project energy consumption; a revised EIR is not warranted.

Response to GSEJA-5
The commenter states that the City is not listed as a jurisdiction with local energy standards approved by the California Energy Commission (CEC). The commenter notes that for this reason, compliance with the City’s General Plan and/or Sustainability Action Plan does not comply with CEC standards or AB 32/SB 32, and a revised EIR must be prepared. The CEC approves local energy standards in the following circumstances: when a local jurisdiction wishes to enforce a locally adopted energy standard that is more stringent than Statewide Energy Code requirements. CEC approval is not required in order for local jurisdictions to adopt local standards consistent with CEC energy standards. The City has adopted by reference the State energy code as part of Municipal Code Chapter 9.64–Energy Code. Moreover, the fact that the City is not listed as a jurisdiction with local energy standards approved by the CEC does not preclude a project from being consistent with applicable CEC standards or Assembly Bill (AB) 32/SB 32. As stated in Section 3.6 Energy, proposed project buildings would be required to be designed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations including the provisions of Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings and Title 24, Green Building Code Standards. As stated on the CEC website, 5 the CEC regularly updates the building energy efficiency standards (for example, Title 24) and as such, compliance with then-current Title 24 and Green Building Code standards ensures compliance with CEC standards and AB 32/SB 32. As described in Impact ENER-2, these standards are some of the most stringent in the nation and include minimum energy efficiency for which the proposed project must comply, and ensure the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable State plans and policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Response to GSEJA-6
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not provide any consistency analysis with the SJCOG- adopted 2018 RTP/SCS and is not consistent with several strategies set forth in the SJCOG adopted 2018 RTP/SCS. The commenter then concludes that the Draft EIR must be revised to include accurate Air Quality/HRA modeling results, energy, and GHG impact analyses and to provide an analysis of potential inconsistency with the 2018 RTP/SCS document.

For a discussion of modeling and modeling results, please see Responses to GSEJA-4, GSEJA-30, and GSEJA-31 through GSEJA-36.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an EIR to discuss “any inconsistencies” with plans; no analysis is required if the project is consistent. The Draft EIR discusses consistency with the RTP/SCS as part of the impact analysis in Chapter 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and summarizes that compliance with VMT targets adopted by the City to comply with SB 375 and the RTP/SCS would adequately address GHG emissions from passenger cars and light-duty trucks. In addition, Chapter

5 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy- efficiency-standards. Accessed July 14, 2022.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-82 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx

3.6 also discusses the relationship between SB 375 and the RTP/SCS in the context of consistency with California’s post 2020 GHG reduction targets. The Draft EIR describes that the RTP/SCS implements the goals of SB 375 and anticipates an increase in development density that would result in shorter vehicle, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian trips.

With respect to the 2018 RTP/SCS, significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and VMT do not necessarily equate to the proposed project conflicting with the policies and strategies outlined in the 2018 RTP/SCS. Furthermore, the policies and strategies listed by the commenter would only be possible for the City of Tracy and other cities within San Joaquin County to initiate and complete, and are not possible for an individual development project to do so. However, the proposed project would support these policies and strategies to the maximum extent feasible at the project level. For example, Strategy 1 is to enhance the environment for existing and future generations and conserve energy. The Draft EIR evaluates the proposed project’s impacts on the environment and provides feasible mitigation to address identified significant impacts. As analyzed in Section 3.6, Energy, the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation (Impact ENER-1) or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy of energy efficiency (Impact ENER-2). Strategy 3 is to improve air quality by reducing transportation-related emissions. Though the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality and VMT, the project would be required to implement feasible mitigation (MM AIR-1d, MM AIR-1e, MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1i, MM TRANS-1a, MM TRANS-1b), which would reduce transportation-related emissions to the maximum extent feasible thereby improving air quality, consistent with Strategy 3. Strategy 4 is to improve the regional transportation system efficiency. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and throughout the Draft EIR, among other things, the proposed project would set aside approximately

12.51 acres in the northwest corner of the project site, which would be sufficient to accommodate improvements to the City’s expressway system, as well as a future I-205/Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange as shown in Exhibit 2-7c in Chapter 2, Project Description of the Draft EIR, consistent with the City of Tracy TMP. The TMP provides a comprehensive review of the City’s transportation system and serves as a blueprint that can be utilized to identify and implement required improvements to the existing roadway system, as well as expand upon the system to accommodate future development consistent with the General Plan. 6 As an interstate, I-205 serves
the region, and, therefore, the future I-205/Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange would improve the regional transportation system and support Strategy 4. Similarly, Strategy 8 requires the improvement of major transportation corridors to minimize impacts on rural roads. While the interchange project is not part of the proposed project, the 12.51 acres of land set aside would facilitate opportunities for the City and Caltrans to move forward with these planned improvements to the City’s expressway system and the future I-205/Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange would result in such improvements, by providing regionally-focused infrastructure for automobiles and trucks entering and exiting the site and the vicinity. For clarification purposes, the above text

6 City of Tracy. 2022. Citywide Roadway and Transportation Master Plan. Website:
https://www.cityoftracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13757. Accessed September 6, 2022.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-83
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx and discussions regarding project consistency with the RTP/SCS have been added to Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Impact GHG-2 of the Draft EIR, see Section 4, Errata of this document.

Response to GSEJA-7
The commenter states that the Draft EIR should have included the City of Tracy Municipal Services Review (MSR) as an attachment for public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(f) and not simply have incorporated this document by reference, and for this reason, the commenter concludes that the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR includes a footnote reference to the MSR that no longer is valid. Pursuant to applicable provisions of LAFCo law, in 2019, the City prepared and San Joaquin LAFCo approved the MSR, which is a comprehensive study designed to better inform LAFCo, the City, other local agencies, and the community about the provision of municipal services. MSRs attempt to capture and analyze information about the governance structures and efficiencies of service providers, and to identify opportunities for greater coordination and cooperation between providers.7 The City of Tracy MSR covers all lands within its municipal boundaries as well as its sphere of influence. Similar to other planning documents, the MSR is a long, technical document that provides general background information regarding the foregoing topics. Therefore, it is appropriate for the MSR to be incorporated by reference. The Draft EIR briefly described the MSR and its relationship to the analysis contained in the Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15150(c). CEQA requires that all documents incorporated by reference in an EIR be available for inspection together with the EIR; Section 15148 does not contain such a requirement for documents that are cited in an EIR. Section

1.5 of Chapter 1, Introduction, indicates a number of documents incorporated by reference, and also confirms where the incorporated documents will be available for inspection. While the MSR was not expressly referenced in Section 1.5, it, along with other documents incorporated by reference, have been and will continue to be available for inspection. In addition, the MSR is easily accessible to the public online at the following link: https://www.sjgov.org/commission/lafco/municipal-service under “Cities.” For purposes of clarification, Section 4, Errata, updates the footnote and provides a live link to the MSR. No revision to or recirculation of the Draft EIR is required under CEQA.

Response to GSEJA-8
The commenter asserts that Table 3.11-3 in the Draft EIR contains a misleading consistency analysis and includes Objective LU-8.1, Policy 3 as an example. For this reason, the commenter states that a revised EIR should be prepared.

The law gives deference to the City’s interpretation of its General Plan. The City and its consultants, based on substantial evidence in the record, provided a thoughtful and robust consistency analysis, as set forth in detail in Impact LAND-2. As explained therein, the site is designated as A/UR by San Joaquin County, which is designed to identify existing agricultural land intended for future urban development, and therefore the proposed project is consistent in this regard. In addition, this is consistent with the existing City of Tracy General Plan land use designation of Industrial for the project site; this reflects the long-planned urban development vision for the project site, which contemplates a variety of light industrial uses including warehousing and distribution. Once the site

7 California Association of Local Agency Formation Commission (CalLAFCo). What are Municipal Service Reviews? Website:
https://calafco.org/lafco-law/faq/what-are-municipal-service- reviews#:~:text=Service%20reviews%20attempt%20to%20capture,coordination%20and%20cooperation%20between%20providers.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-84 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx is annexed into the City of Tracy upon the required Local Agency Formation Commission approval, the current San Joaquin County General Plan designation would no longer apply to the site as described in Chapter 2, Project Description. One of the factors LAFCo must consider when reviewing a proposal for reorganization is the effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code Section 56016. Although the proposed project would result in a reduction of agricultural land, it is consistent with the City of Tracy General Plan land use designation of Industrial for the project site and reflects the planned urban development vision for the project site as set forth in both the City’s and County’s respective General Plans.

Response to GSEJA-9
The commenter describes analysis from Table 3.11-3 related to Goal AQ1 and how the analysis is incorrect because the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to a cumulatively considerable increase in ROGs and carbon monoxide (CO) during construction.

The law gives deference to the City’s interpretation of its General Plan. The City and its consultants, based on substantial evidence in the record, provided a thoughtful and robust consistency analysis, as set forth in detail in Impact LAND-2. As explained therein, the proposed project would be subject to applicable regulatory measures adopted to ensure ambient air quality standards are met to the extent feasible. The proposed project would be required to implement MMs AIR-1a through AIR-1i to directly reduce pollutant emissions, such as ROG and CO generated during construction and operation to the extent feasible. The proposed project would not be a source of significant toxic or hazardous air pollutants and odors and was not found to have a significant impact with respect to GHG. Refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality and Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas, of the Draft EIR, and Section 4, Errata of this Final EIR for further discussion.

Response to GSEJA-10
The commenter states that a revised EIR must be prepared to address the inconsistencies identified in Table 3.11-3.

See Response to GSEJA-9.

Response to GSEJA-11
The commenter lists other General Plan goals and policies that the Draft EIR did not evaluate in the project’s consistency analysis.

The law gives deference to the City’s interpretation of its General Plan, which often involves a balancing of competing interests. The City and its consultants, based on substantial evidence in the record, provided a thoughtful and robust consistency analysis, as set forth in detail in Impact LAND-

2. This is sufficient for purposes of satisfying CEQA. For purposes of further clarifying and amplifying the analysis, the following provides additional information as to the City’s determination of the proposed project’s consistency with the goals, objectives, and action items noted by the commenter .

The
following discussion has been added to Section 4, Errata.

AQ-1.2 P3 Developers shall implement best management practices to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects:

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-85
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Consistent Section 3.3, Air Quality, in the Draft EIR and Section 4, Errata, include mitigation measures that the proposed project would be required to implement to reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. In addition, as described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the proposed project would adhere to the applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations, which include BMPs to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project.

AQ-1.2 P6 Installation of solar voltaic panels on new homes and businesses shall be encouraged.

Consistent The installation of solar voltaic panels is not a City of Tracy requirement for industrial development. As described in Chapter 6 Energy page 24, the proposed project would be required to design the proposed buildings according to Subchapter 6, Part 6 of the Title 24 standards, to structurally accommodate future installation of a rooftop solar system. As such, the design of the proposed project would facilitate the future commitment to renewable energy resources. The Draft EIR was prepared based on Valley Air District guidance and, with the implementation of BMPs and MMs AIR-1a through 1i, the proposed project would reduce air quality and GHG emissions to the maximum amount feasible.

AQ-1.2 P12 New sources of toxic air pollutants shall prepare a Health Risk Assessment as required under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act and based on the results of the Assessment, establish appropriate land use buffer zones around those areas posing substantial health risks.

Consistent A Health Risk Assessment is provided in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s (Valley Air District’s) significance thresholds, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. However, with the implementation of BMPs and MMs AIR-1a through 1i, the proposed project would reduce air quality and GHG emissions to the maximum amount feasible. For purposes of clarification and amplification, in terms of a land use buffer zone, MM AIR-1h, as provided in Section 4, Errata of the Final EIR, requires a vegetated project site buffer in the area of the sensitive receptors in compliance with this policy. The City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement this additional mitigation measure.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-86 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx AQ-1.2 P13 Dust control measures consistent with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District rules shall be required as a condition of approval for subdivision maps, site plans, and grading permits.

Consistent Valley Air District Rule 8021 includes basic dust control measures as noted in Section 3.3, Air Quality in the Draft EIR. In compliance with this policy, these measures would be included as an enforceable condition of approval for the proposed project.

AQ-1.2 P14 Developments that significantly impact air quality shall only be approved if all feasible mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or offset the impact are implemented.

Consistent As described in Section 3,3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR there are several significant, unavoidable air quality impacts. However, the proposed project would be required to implement all feasible MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1i. The basis for these determinations is detailed more fully in Section 3.3, Air Quality.

AQ-1.2 P15 Encourage businesses to electrify loading docks or implement idling-reduction systems so that trucks transporting refrigerated goods can continue to power cab cooling elements during loading, layovers, and rest periods.

Consistent The proposed project would not include refrigerated units.

Therefore, no trucks transporting refrigerated goods would be accessing the site. In addition, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1f, which would restrict on-site vehicle idling in any event to no greater than 3 minutes.

Response to GSEJA-12
The commenter states that due to errors in the modeling and the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and VMT, the proposed project would conflict with the listed General Plan goals and policies. The commenter requests that a revised EIR include a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals, policies, and objectives.

The commenter does not present specific errors in the modeling; see also Response to GSEJA-4.

Additionally, the fact that there may be significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA does not necessarily result in a local agency’s finding of General Plan inconsistency. As described in Responses to GSEJA-8, GSEJA-9, GSEJA-10, and GSEJA-11, the law provides the City with substantial deference in making consistency determinations. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the City’s determination that the proposed project would be consistent with relevant General Plan provisions.

No revision to the Draft EIR or recirculation is required.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-87
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Response to GSEJA-13
The commenter states that the NEI Specific Plan analysis contained in the Draft EIR does not analyze the Project Description statement that the project requires an amendment to the NEI Specific Plan boundaries in order to incorporate the proposed project. The commenter states that the Draft EIR must be revised to detail the project's proposed development standards, the applicable standards within the NEI SP , and amendments proposed to the NEI SP in order to accommodate the proposed project.

Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR provides a detailed project description, and confirms that an NEI Specific Plan Amendment is being requested (see Section 2.5). As described on page

3.11-29 of the Draft EIR, when a project seeks a plan amendment as a component of the project itself, to rectify inconsistency with the existing designation or other provisions therein, or in this case the boundary of the NEI Specific Plan as well as other conforming revisions, the amendment necessitates a legislative policy decision by the City and does not signify a potential environmental effect. As such, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and pre-zoning, if approved, constitute a self-mitigating aspect of the proposed project that would serve to correct what would otherwise be a conflict.

In addition, the proposed project has been designed to be fully consistent with all applicable development standards and design guidelines in the NEI Specific Plan, and would be required to comply with these provisions. This information has been fully analyzed in the Draft EIR. For example, as described in Section 3.11, Land Use, of the Draft EIR, each individual development proposal for the project site would be required to adhere to the following development standards: a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5; a maximum height of 60 feet; and a minimum setback of 10 feet. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to GSEJA-14
The commenter states that footnote 5 and the methodology used to determine the number of employees the proposed project would generate is not adequate, accurate or reliable. The commenter also asserts it was improper not to provide the conversations with City staff for public review. The commenter notes an alternative method to calculate the number of employees during operations, and asserts that the Draft EIR must be revised to utilize the commenter’s methodology.

The City, in its discretion as the Lead Agency, has the authority in the context of an EIR to choose the methodologies and assumptions to be utilized in the analysis, as well as to choose which experts it will rely upon in conducting the CEQA review, so long as these decisions are based on substantial evidence in the record. The City, as Lead Agency, has discretion to determine the appropriate method to analyze environmental impacts in an EIR. Disagreements with an EIR’s impact analysis will be resolved in favor of the Lead Agency if there is any substantial evidence in the record supporting the approach used. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376, 409; City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of Cal. State Univ. (2015) 242 CA4th 833, 840; Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 CA4th 899; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 CA4th 357, 372; State Water Resources Control Bd.

Cases (2006) 136 CA4th 674, 795; Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 CA4th 1173.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-88 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Here, the City utilized a methodology which determined that the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 1,871 employees during operations. The estimated employment was calculated using the employment amount of these existing industrial and their building square footage data. This figure is used consistently throughout the Draft EIR as the most accurate employee projection based on the best available data. As described in the Project Description and as otherwise reflected in the administrative record, the City of Tracy determined reasonable assumptions as to the estimated employment that would be generated by the proposed project by surveying various industrial businesses, including warehousing, manufacturing, and distribution centers. The Draft EIR used the appropriate employment generation factor based on project-specific characteristics and assumed one employee for every 1,792 square feet resulting in 1,871 employees at buildout.

For the purpose of transportation analysis, the City has adopted the TMP and the associated City travel demand model that contain employee generation factors to analyze transportation impacts, which does not account for project-specific characteristics such as the type of industrial uses.

Therefore, the transportation analysis and technical analyses that rely on the transportation report utilized a different set of employee generation factor in accordance with the TMP guidelines, and represents a more conservative estimation of impacts. Based on data provided by the City, the Draft EIR clarifies these assumptions to provide the most accurate evaluation of environmental impacts.

Therefore, the analysis provided in the Draft EIR is internally consistent.

Response to GSEJA-15
The commenter states that the proposed project’s employment would exceed the amount planned for in the 10-year horizon from the MSR. The commenter requests that this information be discussed in a revised EIR, and that a finding of significance be made in this regard.

As discussed in Response to GSEJA-14, it is anticipated that the proposed project would employ a total of approximately 1,871 employees at buildout. Therefore, the anticipated employment projections associated with the proposed project are within the projections provided in Table 2-7 of the MSR for 2029 to 2049. The commenter notes the construction schedule provided in the Draft EIR assumes project operation in 2025. However, this schedule was utilized to provide a conservative analysis, and, given that demolition has not occurred by April 28, 2022 as provided in the schedule, it is unlikely that the proposed project would be operational by 2025. Moreover, see Response to GSEJA-7, which explains the purpose of the MSR (which relates to LAFCo decisions about boundary changes). For example, there is a note included under Table 2-7 that states “this table is intended to demonstrate the potential pace of growth in the City and Sphere of Influence (SOI) and is not intended to place limitations on growth or otherwise be used to control the rate, type, or location of growth.”
The Draft EIR properly evaluated the potential impacts of this growth utilizing the planning and land use assumptions reflected in the City’s General Plan. As discussed in more detail in Section 4, Effects Found not to be Significant, of the Draft EIR, the industrial uses on the project site were anticipated by the City in the General Plan, and thus, the City anticipated this number of employees needed for such a project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant, unplanned change to the population of the City.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-89
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Response to GSEJA-16
The commenter states that the proposed project’s estimate of 3,354 employees exceeds the capacity of the 2019 MSR, which indicates that the proposed project would result in a significant, unplanned change to the population of the City resulting in a significant and potentially cumulatively significant impact. For this reason, the commenter states that the Draft EIR must be revised. See Responses to GSEJA-14 and GSEJA-15. The City, in its discretion as the Lead Agency, utilized 1,871 employees consistently throughout the Draft EIR as the most accurate employee projection based on the best available data, and as explained in GSEJA-15, the proposed project would not result in unplanned growth. Though the proposed project would generate employment, as explained in Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant, the proposed project is industrial in nature (consistent with the long-planned vision for the project site and vicinity as reflected in the Industrial land use designation) and would not develop single-family or multi-family residential uses, and no direct population growth would be expected. With respect to indirect population growth, the project would create substantial employment opportunities, and therefore, could lead to indirect growth inducement. As discussed in Section 4 of the Draft EIR, according to the U.S. Census data, it is estimated that approximately 45,000 of the City’s labor force is employed.8 In addition, the average travel time to work for Tracy’s employed residents is 44.5 minutes, which strongly suggests that most residents travel a significant distance out of the City to work.

As detailed more fully in Section 4 of the Draft EIR, the General Plan assumes employment growth to improve the jobs-to-housing balance and provide more employment opportunities for the City’s residents. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that many of the employees of the project would come from the labor pool within Tracy, and the proposed project would not induce unplanned indirect population growth.

Response to GSEJA-17
The commenter requests that the Draft EIR should provide an analysis of the projects approved since 2020 and in the pipeline to determine consistency with the SJCOG employment growth forecast. The commenter then provides examples of planned projects as of May 2022 and requests that a revised EIR determine whether the proposed project employees would exceed growth forecasts in the General Plan or NEI Specific Plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, Environmental Setting, requires that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project site viewed from a “local and regional perspective.” This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency measures the changes to the environment that would result from a project and for determining whether those environmental effects would be significant. The purpose of this requirement is to give the public and the decision- makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-term impacts. In general, consistency in the description of the environmental setting is critical to ensure an accurate evaluation of environmental impacts. In other words, to provide the impact assessment that is a fundamental purpose of an EIR, the EIR must delineate environmental conditions absent the project, thereby defining a “baseline” against which predicted effects can be described and quantified.
9 An EIR’s description of this environmental setting should

8 United States Census. 2020. Tracy, CA, Employment Data. Accessed: September 15, 2022. 9 See, e.g., Neighbors For Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Constr. Auth. (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 447.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-90 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx be sufficiently comprehensive to allow the project’s significant impacts “to be considered in the full environmental context” (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(c)). However, the description should be no longer than necessary to provide an understanding of the significant effects of the project and of the alternatives analyzed in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)). CEQA provides the lead agency with significant discretion in determining the appropriate “existing conditions” baseline.10 As indicated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1), generally, the lead agency should describe the physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. This is consistent with the related CEQA provision addressing the evaluation of a project’s environmental effects. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), in assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.

The Draft EIR is consistent with the foregoing requirements. The Draft EIR’s notice of preparation was published on August 28, 2020, and thus the environmental setting reflected in the Draft EIR includes a sufficiently comprehensive description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as of August 28, 2020.

See also Responses to GSEJA-14 through GSEJA-16.

The commenter also notes that the cumulative analysis discussion should determine whether the proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative development, would exceed SJCOG’s employment growth forecasts for the City. As explained in the MSR, the SJCOG projection for jobs within the City is well below the City’s employment levels and below the U.S. Census jobs data for the City. As the governing body, the City’s General Plan provides the most accurate assessment and for purposes of this proposed project, and the population projections in the General Plan are used in the analysis.

The General Plan is the City’s basic planning document and establishes the blueprint for development. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court has held the General Plan to be “the constitution for all future development.” (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540.) Other land use documents, such as zoning ordinances, tentative maps, and development agreements are all subordinate to the General Plan.

Response to GSEJA-18
The commenter states that the proposed project in combination with current pipeline industrial development as of May 2022 exceeds SJCOG’s projected employment growth for the City, utilizing the commenter’s methodology in calculating employees, and would account for a significant portion of the City’s population growth, which warrants the preparation of a revised EIR.

See Response to GSEJA-17 regarding the proper point in time to be used for purposes of conducting the analysis.

See also Responses to GSEJA-14 through GSEJA-16. No further response is required. 10 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 336.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-91
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx For informational purposes, the following is noted.

As described in Response to GSEJA-14, the proposed project would employ approximately 1,871 people. Therefore, the proposed project would represent approximately 30 percent of the employment growth between 2020-2045. As shown in Response to GSEJA-16, the amount of employment within the City of Tracy for the proposed project would be well below the amount anticipated in the General Plan and would help improve the jobs-to-housing ratio within the City.

The commenter states that the proposed project represents 7.8 percent of the City’s population growth from 2020-2045. However, this assumes that the proposed project would result in direct population growth and that 100 percent of the employees for the project would originate from outside the City of Tracy. As described in Response to GSEJA-16, the proposed project would not result in direct population growth and would not induce unplanned indirect population growth.

The commenter states that the cumulative projects included in the May 2022 Industrial and Commercial Development Pipeline Report in conjunction with the proposed project would vastly exceed the City’s projected employment growth and a significant portion of its population growth.

The commenter’s calculations do not accurately reflect the project-specific characteristics of the proposed project. For the reasons described in GSEJA-17, the proposed project, in combination with the current industrial development pipeline would be within the City employment projections as included in the General Plan.

Response to GSEJA-19
The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIR’s assertion that the proposed project would be staffed primarily by local employees and states that a revised EIR should be prepared to provide demographic and geographic information about the prospective workers such as the local population's interest or qualifications to work in the industrial sector.

As described in Response to GSEJA-14, the proposed project would employ approximately 1,871 people, representing approximately 30 percent of the employment growth between 2020-2045.

Further, as explained in Response to GSEJA-16, the proposed project’s contribution to employment in the City is consistent with the forecasted employment anticipated in the General Plan.

The City has the discretion, under CEQA, to weigh the evidence relating to the accuracy and sufficiency of the information in the Draft EIR and to decide whether to accept it. The City may adopt the environmental conclusions reached by the experts who prepared the Draft EIR even though others may disagree with the underlying data, analysis, or conclusions. (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 C3d 376, 408; State Water Resources Control Board Cases (2006) 136 CA4th 674, 795). Disagreements or discrepancies in results arising from different methods for assessing environmental issues do not undermine the validity of the Draft EIR's analysis as long as a reasonable explanation supporting the Draft EIR's analysis is provided. (Planning and Conserv. League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 CA4th 210, 243). The commenter’s implication that local employees would not be sufficient to staff the proposed project is not based on a different method for assessing impacts. It is conclusory and not supported by any evidence. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-92 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Response to GSEJA-20
The commenter claims that the proposed project would exacerbate an oversupply of jobs within the City, utilizing the commenter’s proposed method of calculating the number of employees. The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR should be revised accordingly.

See Responses to GSEJA-14 and GSEJA-16.

As discussed in Chapter 4, Effects Found not to be Significant, of the Draft EIR, the City has a jobs-to- housing ratio goal of 1.5 but currently only has a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.3. This means there are not enough jobs within the City to meet the jobs-to-housing ratio goal of 1.5. Therefore, many employees must commute outside of the City for employment, which is further supported by the average commute time for the City’s employed residents of over 40 minutes. The proposed project would generate approximately 1,871 jobs within the City and would help the City achieve its jobs-to- housing ratio goal.

Contrary to the assertion this is “nonsensical,” the Draft EIR was correct in its conclusion that the proposed project would help provide more jobs for the employed residents of the City and thus assist the City in meeting its goal with respect to the jobs-housing balance.

Response to GSEJA-21
The commenter states that the VMT analysis mischaracterizes the term “automobiles” by not including medium/heavy-duty trucks and freight trips; asserts that the City should not rely on OPR guidance on this point characterizing it as “purely advisory” and its interpretation being “speculative,” and asserts that a revised EIR and VMT analysis should be prepared that include all trucks, tractor trailers, and freight activity.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. However, the State of California’s guidance specifically specifies the term “automobile” used in CEQA Section 15063.2, subdivision (a) as on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks.
11 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1), CEQA directed the OPR to propose revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to reflect the goals of SB 743. The criteria to be used by the OPR “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In developing the criteria, [OPR] shall recommend potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. [OPR] may also establish criteria for models used to analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this section.” As noted in the comment, the OPR guidance states that, “the purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter Lead Agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA.” This means that the City of Tracy has discretion in setting VMT analysis methodologies and in

11 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. April. Website: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2023.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-93
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx this instance, the City has chosen in its draft guidelines to exclude heavy vehicles, consistent with OPR’s guidance in this regard. In addition, consistent with the guidance and the industry standard methodology for analyzing VMT, there is a like-for-like comparison between industrial uses for both threshold setting and project analysis.

It should be noted that while heavy vehicles are excluded from a VMT analysis for CEQA purposes, this does not preclude the City from considering heavy vehicles when reviewing potential non-CEQA operational deficiencies to the surrounding roadway network. Moreover, while medium/heavy trucks/freight trips are not considered in the VMT analysis, they are not excluded from consideration from an environmental perspective with respect to their potential impacts on air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to GSEJA-22
The commenter states that the inclusion of the I-205 interchange in the Cumulative Condition is not appropriate because there is no “meaningful evidence” that the improvement will be completed by the date of the cumulative conditions analysis. Therefore, the commenter asserts that this results in an erroneous and misleading representative of the transportation impacts of the proposed project and the Draft EIR must be revised. The Paradise Road/I-205 Interchange is a planned improvement in SJCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan; therefore, it is both reasonable and customary based on industry standards to include Regional Transportation Plan improvements in the Cumulative Conditions scenario for CEQA purposes. Also, LOS is no longer a CEQA transportation impact evaluation metric. The VMT analysis is based on existing vehicle-miles traveled thresholds and using the existing road network; therefore, the future implementation of the Paradise Road/I-205 Interchange does not affect the proposed project’s VMT analysis. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to GSEJA-23
The commenter states that a revised EIR should be prepared because the conclusions set forth in the Other CEQA Considerations section of the Draft EIR are incorrect because the proposed project would exceed 10-year horizon growth projections considered by the MSR, is inconsistent with the General Plan and NEI Specific Plan, and would negatively exacerbate the existing jobs/housing balance by adding to the oversupply of jobs. The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR must be revised to provide this information for analysis and include a finding of significance. With respect to assertions related to purported inconsistencies with the growth projections included the MSR, please refer to Response to GSEJA-15. With respect to issues related to the jobs/housing balance, please refer to GSEJA-20; regarding claims of inconsistency with the General Plan, please refer to Response to GSEJA-11. With respect to inconsistency with the NEI Specific Plan, please see Response to GSEJA-13.

Response to GSEJA-24
The commenter repeats its prior comment regarding how the proposed project would not exacerbate the oversupply of jobs and states that a revised EIR must be prepared.

Please refer to Response to GSEJA-20.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-94 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Response to GSEJA-25
The commenter repeats its prior comment regarding the need to modify the cumulative analysis to reflect additional cumulative developments because the commenter asserts that a significant cumulative impact would occur due to employment increases and population growth.

With respect to a cumulative analysis in Chapter 5, Other CEQA, please see Responses to GSEJA-17 and GSEJA-18.

Response to GSEJA-26
The commenter repeats its prior comment regarding the need to revise the Draft EIR to analyze the cumulatively significant impacts to Agriculture, Air Quality, and Transportation, especially with respect to nearby disadvantaged communities.

For discussions related to disadvantaged communities and sensitive receptors, please see Responses to GSEJA-3 and MCINTOSH-3-3.

It is also noted that as set forth in Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, the analysis discloses that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to the following:
• Project-level conversion of Prime Farmland.
• Cumulative conversion of Prime Farmland.
• Project-level impact related to Implementation of the applicable Air Quality Plan. • Project-level impact related to cumulatively considerable net increase of ROG and CO during construction, and ROG and NOX during operation.
• Project-level impact related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• Cumulative air quality impact.
• Project-level VMT impact.
• Cumulative VMT impact.

Those significant and unavoidable impacts are discussed in further detail in the applicable topical sections in the Draft EIR and related appendices. As discussed in Response to GSEJA-3, neither the ARB nor the Valley Air District has recommended significance thresholds adjusted for Environmental Justice considerations; therefore, the Draft EIR utilized the currently recommended Valley Air District significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project. The City, in its authority as Lead Agency, is utilizing the questions in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines to establish thresholds of significance for the proposed project. There are no recommended significance thresholds for these analyses with respect to Environmental Justice.

Therefore, the Draft EIR correctly evaluated the proposed project based on existing thresholds.

As described in Section 3.1, Air Quality, the development of the Air Quality Plan (AQP) is based in part on the land use General Plan projections of the various cities and counties that constitute the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-95
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Air Basin. The City’s General Plan designates the project site as Industrial, which is intended to accommodate flex/office space, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and ancillary uses for workers’ needs. Therefore, the proposed project, which involves the development of light industrial, warehouse and distribution and related uses is considered consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and its traffic would be included in volumes projected for analysis of the General Plan. Therefore, the inconsistency with the AQP is not due to unplanned growth.

As part of the certification of the Draft EIR and prior to approval of the proposed project, the City would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies the benefits of the proposed project that outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks.

Response to GSEJA-27
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives because it did not include an alternative that meets all the project objectives and eliminates all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The comment states that a revised EIR should be prepared to address this alternative.

The commenter states that the alternatives analysis only provides two alternatives beyond the no project alternatives. However, the alternatives analysis includes an initial consideration of two other alternatives (including a maximum decreased intensity reduction and alternative location), which were both eliminated from further consideration for the reasons described in Chapter 6, Alternatives in the Draft EIR.

The commenter also states that the alternatives analysis should include an alternative that meets all of the project objectives and also eliminates all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.

While the commenter incorrectly posits that such an alternative exists, it does not provide such an alternative. There is no evidence in the record that such a feasible alternative satisfying both of the foregoing criteria exists. For example, the maximum decreased intensity reduction was initially considered to reduce air quality impacts to less than significant levels. However, to result in less than significant air quality impacts, an extreme reduction in NO X emissions during operation would be
required, from a maximum 35.83 annual tons to a level below the applicable threshold of 10 annual tons, which would require a building square footage reduction of 72.9 percent. Given the substantial decrease in intensity, such an alternative would not be feasible, would not accomplish any of the project objectives, and was therefore rejected from further consideration.

As described in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, analysis of alternatives to the proposed project provides full disclosure and allows decision-makers to consider the proposed project in light of hypothetical alternative development scenarios. This analysis is guided by the following considerations set forth under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6:
• An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. • An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-96 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx • Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
- Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; - Infeasibility; or
- Inability to avoid significant environmental effects.

Consistent with the foregoing requirements, the Draft EIR evaluates two alternatives (aside from the No Project Alternative) that meet at least some of the basic objectives of the proposed project while lessening one or more of its significant impacts, consisting of the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative and the Agricultural Protection Alternative. It should be noted that both alternatives include a reduction in building footprint. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), a Draft EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative aside from the No Project Alternative. The Draft EIR identifies the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative because it has the potential to yield the greatest reductions in the severity of the proposed significant and unavoidable impacts because it would preserve approximately 48 acres of the existing agricultural operations including Prime Farmland. However, this alternative would not achieve the project objective of developing approximately 3.3 million square feet of employment- generating industrial uses. It also would not: be as effective at achieving the employment-generating opportunity objective, as it would not provide as many local and regional employment opportunities and take advantage of the proposed project area’s high level of accessibility; allow for the expansion of the City’s economic base; help improve the jobs/housing balance; or reduce the commute for regional residents.

Response to GSEJA-28
The commenter (as reflected in a report attached to the comment letter prepared by a consultant, SWAPE) provides conclusionary statements and reaffirms the request to be added to the public interest list.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. See Response to GSEJA-1. No further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-29
The commenter provides introductory statements and describes the project. It does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response if required.

Response to GSEJA-30
The commenter states that a revised EIR should be prepared because the Draft EIR did not adequately evaluate the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts of the proposed project.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. Because it is conclusory in nature and does not identify any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted.

The Air Quality, GHG, and Energy analyses in the Draft EIR were prepared according to the City of Tracy and Valley Air District requirements and followed the guidance described in the GAMAQI, the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-97
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Valley Air District’s recommended set of modeling, and analysis guidance for CEQA land use projects.

This comment does not specifically indicate how the Draft EIR underrepresents emissions and health risk impacts. In addition, as shown in Responses to Valley Air District-1 through Valley Air District-21, and as presented in the Errata, the proposed project would include additional mitigation measures requested by the Valley Air District aimed at reducing air pollutant emissions and associated health risks.

Response to GSEJA-31
The commenter presents Table 3.3-9, Table 3.3-12, and Table 3.3-14 from the Draft EIR and summarizes the Draft EIR impacts related to construction ROG emissions, annual operational ROG and NOX emissions, and daily operational NOX emissions, respectively. The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s conclusion that air quality impacts associated with construction-related ROG emissions and operational-related ROG and NOx emissions cannot be fully mitigated is inadequate because it did not consider all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts from construction ROG emissions, annual operational ROG and NOX emissions, and daily operational NOX emissions.

The commenter suggests additional mitigation measures as provided in GSEJA-34.

As detailed more fully in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the Draft EIR has considered all feasible mitigation based on project proponent-provided information and in some cases already includes some of the mitigation measures suggested by the commenter. See the table below for a comparison of which mitigation measures the commenter suggests, which mitigation measures the proposed project’s EIR includes, and reasons for why commenter-suggested mitigation would not be able to be feasibly implemented and/or would not clearly lessen any identified significant impact, as applicable. See also Errata.

Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
Prohibiting off-road diesel-
powered equipment from being in
the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.

None. This measure would not result in
overall construction emissions
reductions. Should the
construction contractor be limited
to utilizing equipment for only 10
hours per day, that contractor
could instead rent multiple pieces
of equipment for concurrent
operation or lengthened
construction schedules and times,
resulting in the same or greater
construction emissions than was
analyzed. The suggested mitigation
would not clearly lessen any
significant environmental impact.

Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul
trucks to be model year 2010 or
newer if diesel-fueled.

None. On-road heavy-duty haul trucks are
regulated under the California
State On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Program. As described in Section

3.3, Air Quality, by January 1, 2023,
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-98 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
nearly all trucks and buses will
need to have 2010 model year
engines or equivalent. The
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts.

Providing electrical hook ups to the
power grid, rather than use of
diesel-fueled generators, for
electric construction tools, such as
saws, drills and compressors, and
using electric tools whenever
feasible.

MM AIR-1a. MM AIR-1a regulates the use of
diesel-powered generators and
limits the use of such generators.

The suggested mitigation would
not clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts, nor is the
suggested mitigation considerably
different from the mitigation
measure already evaluated in the
Draft EIR.

Limiting the amount of daily
grading disturbance area.

None. This measure is not specific enough
to include as a MM in the Draft EIR,
and as such would not be feasible.

In addition, limiting the daily
grading area would not reduce
overall emissions. This measure
would only limit the progress of
construction on a daily basis and
extend the construction period,
resulting in air quality impacts over
a longer period.

Prohibiting grading on days with an
Air Quality Index forecast of
greater than 100 for particulates or
ozone for the project area.

MM AIR-1b. MM AIR-1b would significantly
reduce the generation of ozone
precursor pollutants, such as ROGs,
during project construction. In
addition, the incorporation of MM
AIR-1a would reduce another
ozone precursor pollutant, NO
X,
generated during construction.

These two measures combined
would significantly prevent the
generation of particulates or ozone
generating pollutants. Moreover,
as illustrated in Section 3.3, Air
Quality, project construction would
not result in an exceedance of
particulate emissions. The
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts, nor is the
suggested mitigation considerably
different from the mitigation
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-99
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
measure already evaluated in the
Draft EIR.

Forbidding idling of heavy
equipment for more than two
minutes.

MM AIR-1f. MM AIR-1f would require on-site
trucks to limit idling to no greater
than 3 minutes. The suggested
mitigation would not clearly lessen
any significant environmental
impacts, nor is the suggested
mitigation considerably different
from the additional mitigation
measure already incorporated in
the Final EIR (see Errata).

Keeping on-site and furnishing to
the Lead Agency or other
regulators upon request, all
equipment maintenance records
and data sheets, including design
specifications and emission control
tier classifications.

MM AIR-1a. MM AIR-1 would require the
construction contractor to
maintain equipment records for
the construction fleet utilized for
project construction. The
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts, nor is the
suggested mitigation considerably
different from the mitigation
measure already evaluated in the
Draft EIR.

Conducting an on-site inspection to
verify compliance with
construction mitigation and to
identify other opportunities to
further reduce construction
impacts.

MMs AIR-1 and AIR-1b. This would be required by the Lead Agency prior to issuance of grading
permits. The suggested mitigation
is not considerably different from
the mitigation measure already
evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Providing information on transit
and ridesharing programs and
services to construction
employees.

None. The information that the
commenter is referencing is
available on the City of Tracy’s
website. Moreover, as it would be
difficult to assess the effectiveness
of this type of temporary TDM
measure or confirm any
quantifiable emission reductions
that could reasonably be expected
to occur, the suggested mitigation
would not clearly lessen any
significant environmental impacts.

Moreover, the feasibility of
effectively implementing this type
of temporary TDM measure is
questionable.

Requiring that all facility-owned
and operated fleet equipment with
None. On-road heavy-duty trucks are
regulated under the California
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-100 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 14,000 pounds
accessing the site meet or exceed
2010 model year emissions
equivalent engine standards as
currently defined in California
Code of Regulations Title 13,
Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5,
Section 2025. Facility operators
shall maintain records on-site
demonstrating compliance with
this requirement and shall make
records available for inspection by
the local jurisdiction, air district,
and State upon request.

State On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle
Program. As described in Section

3.3 Air Quality, by January 1, 2023,
nearly all trucks and buses will
need to have 2010 model year
engines or equivalent. The
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts.

Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles
entering or operated on the
project site to be zero-emission
beginning in 2030.

MMs AIR-1g and AIR-1i. MM AIR-1g would require future
on-site on- and off-road equipment
to be electric powered, and MM
AIR-1i would require the
installation of Tier 2 EV charging
infrastructure, facilitating the
future use of electric trucks and
vehicles. Because of the volume of
trucks anticipated to access the
site, practical limitations on the
owner’s ability to regulate this
item, and the current cost and
availability of electric trucks, the
suggested mitigation is not
feasible.

Requiring on-site equipment, such
as forklifts and yard trucks, to be
electric with the necessary
electrical charging stations
provided.

MM AIR-1g. MM AIR-1g would require all on-
site off-road and on-road
equipment to be electric powered,
including but not limited to
forklifts and pallet jacks. The
suggested mitigation is not
considerably different from the
additional mitigation measure
already incorporated in the Final
EIR (see Errata).

Requiring tenants to use zero-
emission light- and medium-duty
vehicles as part of business
operations.

MMs AIR-1g. MM AIR-1g would require future
on-site on- and off-road equipment
to be electric powered. The
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any environmental
impacts, nor is the suggested
mitigation considerably different
from the mitigation measure
already evaluated in the Draft EIR.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-101
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
Finally, given the volume of light-
and medium-duty vehicles that
would be involved as part of the
tenants’ business operations,
practical limitations on the owner’s
ability to regulate this item, and
the current cost and availability of
electric vehicles, the suggested
mitigation is not feasible.

Forbidding trucks from idling for
more than two minutes and
requiring operators to turn off
engines when not in use.

MM AIR-1f. MM AIR-1f would require on-site
trucks to limit idling to no greater
than 3 minutes. The suggested
mitigation would not clearly lessen
any significant environmental
impacts, nor is the suggested
mitigation considerably different
from the additional mitigation
measure already incorporated in
the Final EIR (see Errata).

Posting both interior- and exterior-
facing signs, including signs
directed at all dock and delivery
areas, identifying idling restrictions
and contact information to report
violations to California Air
Resources Board (ARB), the air
district, and the building manager.

MM AIR-1f. MM AIR-1f would require on-site
trucks to limit idling to no greater
than 3 minutes and would require
the installation of signage
throughout the site regarding the
idling limitation. The suggested
mitigation would not clearly lessen
any significant environmental
impacts, nor is the suggested
mitigation considerably different
from the additional mitigation
measure already incorporated in
the Final EIR (see Errata).

Installing and maintaining, at the
manufacturer’s recommended
maintenance intervals, air filtration
systems at sensitive receptors
within a certain radius of facility
for the life of the project.

None. The operations of private homes
surrounding the project site are
not under the purview of the
owner or operator of the proposed
project; therefore, there is no
mechanism available to ensure
that filtration systems would be
installed and maintained at
sensitive receptor locations near
the project site. In addition, the
effectiveness of air filtration
systems heavily relies on continued
maintenance and replacing filters.

The suggested mitigation is not
feasible.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-102 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
Installing and maintaining, at the
manufacturer’s recommended
maintenance intervals, an air
monitoring station proximate to
sensitive receptors and the facility
for the life of the project, and
making the resulting data publicly
available in real time. While air
monitoring does not mitigate the
air quality or greenhouse gas
impacts of a facility, it nonetheless
benefits the affected community
by providing information that can
be used to improve air quality or
avoid exposure to unhealthy air.

None. Monitoring air quality at or near
the project site would not result in
any emissions reductions resulting
from implementation of the
proposed project. The suggested
mitigation would not clearly lessen
any significant environmental
impact.

Constructing electric truck charging
stations proportional to the
number of dock doors at the
project.

MM AIR-1i. MM AIR-1i would require the
installation of EV chargers to
support the future use of electric
trucks and vehicles. The suggested
mitigation is not considerably
different from the additional
mitigation measure already
incorporated in the Final EIR (see
Errata).

Constructing electric plugs for
electric transport refrigeration
units at every dock door, if the
warehouse use could include
refrigeration.

None. The proposed project would not
include cold storage uses;
therefore, the suggested
mitigation is not applicable and
would not clearly lessen any
significant environmental impact.

Constructing electric light-duty
vehicle charging stations
proportional to the number of
parking spaces at the project.

MM AIR-1i. MM AIR-1i would require the
installation of EV chargers to
support the future use of electric
trucks and vehicles. The suggested
mitigation is not considerably
different from the additional
mitigation measure already
incorporated in the Final EIR (see
Errata).

Installing solar photovoltaic
systems on the project site of a
specified electrical generation
capacity, such as equal to the
building’s projected energy needs.

None. Energy source emissions in the Air
Quality Analysis (see Section 3.3 of
the Draft EIR) are limited to those
generated from the on-site
combustion of natural gas due to
the inter-regional relationship
between land use development
projects and the facility generating
the electricity. As such, the
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-103
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
consideration of electricity-related
energy source emissions is limited
to GHGs. Moreover, the proposed
project would not result in any
significant impact related to GHG
emissions, as discussed in Section

3.8 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impact.

Requiring all stand-by emergency
generators to be powered by a
non-diesel fuel.

None. The proposed project would not
include stand-by emergency
generators. Accordingly, the
proposed mitigation is not
applicable and would not clearly
lessen any significant
environmental impact.

Requiring facility operators to train
managers and employees on
efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate
unnecessary queueing and idling of
trucks.

None. It is reasonable to assume that in
the ordinary course of business,
tenant managers would need to
train facility operators to minimize
queueing, to the extent feasible, as
part of running a successful
business, which would financially
incentivize the efficient scheduling
and loading of goods. The
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts.

Requiring operators to establish
and promote a rideshare program
that discourages single-occupancy
vehicle trips and provides financial
incentives for alternate modes of
transportation, including
carpooling, public transit, and
biking.

MM TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b. MM TRANS-1a and TRANS-1b of
the Draft EIR would establish a
TDM plan, which would establish
similar measures that the
commenter is requesting. The
suggested mitigation is not
considerably different from the
mitigation measures already
evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Meeting CALGreen Tier 2 green
building standards, including all
provisions related to designated
parking for clean air vehicles, EV
charging, and bicycle parking.

MM AIR-1i. MM AIR-1i would require the
installation of EV chargers to
support the future use of electric
trucks and vehicles
, consistent with
Tier 2 voluntary CALGreen
standards. The suggested
mitigation is not considerably
different from the additional
mitigation measure already
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-104 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
incorporated in the Final EIR (see
Errata).

Achieving certification of
compliance with LEED® green
building standards.

None. The suggested mitigation would
not clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts.

Furthermore, the proposed project
would adhere to existing Green
Building Code requirements
contained in City of Tracy
Municipal Code Article 6.

Providing meal options on-site or
shuttles between the facility and
nearby meal destinations.

None. The suggested mitigation would
not clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts. In
addition, the proposed project’s
TDM program as part of MM
TRANS-1a would reduce passenger
vehicle trips during operation.

Posting signs at every truck exit
driveway providing directional
information to the truck route.

MM AIR-1e The suggested mitigation would be
included as part of MM AIR-1e
Operational Truck Fleet Routing
contained in Section 4: Errata. MM
AIR-1e would prohibit trucks from
accessing Grant Line Road east of
the project site. In addition, the
project applicants have agreed to
voluntarily implement a signage
program along project frontage on
Grant Line Road to deter trucks
from accessing Grant Line Road
east of the project site.

Improving and maintaining
vegetation and tree canopy for
residents in and around the project
area.

MM AIR-1h. The suggested mitigation would
not lessen any significant
environmental impacts. However,
the proposed project includes MM
AIR-1h-Vegetated Project Site
Buffer which would include a
vegetative buffer along the project
boundary to the east. The addition
of MM AIR-1h can be seen in
Section 3.1 of the Errata as well as
the updated MMRP.

Requiring that every tenant train
its staff in charge of keeping
vehicle records in diesel
technologies and compliance with
ARB regulations, by attending ARB-
approved courses. Also require
facility operators to maintain
None. As discussed at length in Section

3.3, the project applicants would
be required to adhere to all
applicable laws and regulations,
including those set forth by ARB
and Valley Air District. The
suggested mitigation would not
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-105
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Commenter-Suggested Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR Mitigation Measure
addresses the Commenter’s request? Explanation
records on-site demonstrating
compliance and make records
available for inspection by the local
jurisdiction, air district, and State
upon request.
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts.

Requiring tenants to enroll in the
EPA’s SmartWay program, and
requiring tenants to use carriers
that are SmartWay carriers.

None. The suggested mitigation would
not clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts.

Providing tenants with information
on incentive programs, such as the
Carl Moyer Program and Voucher
Incentive Program, to upgrade
their fleets.

None. Providing tenants with information
on incentive programs with goals
to reduce emissions from heavy-
duty trucks would not ensure that
the tenants could or would apply
for any of the programs, as
applying for programs would be a
voluntary action. In addition, the
information would not be relevant
to tenants that use third-party
carriers, further limiting the
potential benefit of including this
suggestion mitigation. The
suggested mitigation would not
clearly lessen any significant
environmental impacts.

Response to GSEJA-32
The commenter disagrees with the Draft EIR’s determination that impacts related to a significant health risk impact, specifically DPM emissions, would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the commenter asserts that additional mitigation measures should be incorporated and the Draft EIR be revised accordingly. The comment is noted and acknowledged. The Draft EIR considered potential mitigation measures when the analysis was prepared; however, based on known project information, many of these measures would be neither feasible nor enforceable, such as, for example, the use of a zero-emission trucking fleet. Furthermore, as described in the Response to GSEJA-31, the proposed project includes additional new mitigation measures that would further reduce DPM emissions; these new measures are substantially similar to or the same as many of the measures noted in the list shown in the comment letter.

Response to GSEJA-33
The commenter asserts that due to the large size of the proposed project, the Draft EIR should incorporate additional project design features that reduce GHG emissions, such as the use of zero- carbon resource electricity supplies and an on-site renewable energy production system, such as solar. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered to reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions, the commenter claims that the Draft EIR should not be approved.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-106 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx The comment is noted and acknowledged. The commenter does not question the GHG impact analysis or less than significant conclusions referenced in its comment letter. The City is not permitted under CEQA to impose mitigation measures or require applicants to incorporate project design features for impacts that have been determined to be less than significant. Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Draft EIR sets forth a detailed description of the proposed project. Evaluating the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is not required under CEQA. No further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. The Draft EIR was prepared based on Valley Air District guidance and as such, by achieving a 29 percent reduction from Business as Usual (BAU) threshold and the ARB 2020 21.7 percent threshold, the Draft EIR’s determination is valid. In additon, the inclusion of new MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, and MM AIR-1i (for which the City has agreed to adopt and the applicants have agreed to implement) would further reduce GHG emissions by reducing truck idling, requiring all-electric on-site equipment, and installing EV charging stations consistent with the voluntary Tier 2 CALGreen standards.

Response to GSEJA-34
The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s analysis related to air quality and health risk impacts should be mitigated and suggests certain mitigation measures from the California Department of Justice Warehouse Best Practices document (see pgs. 6-8 of the comment letter).

See Responses to GSEJA-31 and -GSEJA-32.

Response to GSEJA-35
The commenter recommends the Draft EIR consider the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR Air Quality-level mitigation measures and greenhouse gas project-level mitigation measures.

See Responses to GSEJA-31, -GSEJA-32, and GSEJA-36.

Response to GSEJA-36
The commenter states that SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR Air Quality-level mitigation measures and GHG project-level mitigation measures would be a feasible way to reduce the proposed project’s pollutant and GHG emissions. The commenter states that a revised EIR should be provided that demonstrates the inclusion of these measures.

As described in Response to GSEJA-31, the Draft EIR already includes mitigation similar to measures that are presented in this comment. See also the Table below for further discussion in this regard with respect to SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR measures. Moreover, the Draft EIR now includes new mitigation measures recommended by Valley Air District in its comment letter. This new mitigation, as shown in Section 4, Errata, includes measures identical or similar to measures that the commenter presents. For example, new MM AIR-1f and -1g require signage to be posted limiting idling times to 3 minutes or less and the use of all-electric on-road and off-road equipment. See also Response to GSEJA-33 related to the less than significant GHG impacts. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-107
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR GHG Project Level Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR
Mitigation
Measure
addresses the
Commenter’s
request? Explanation
PMM GHG-1: In accordance with provisions of sections
15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should
consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial
adverse effects related to greenhouse gas emissions.

Such measures may include the following or other
comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Integrate green building measures consistent with
CA
LGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local
bui
lding codes and other applicable laws, into project
design including:
i) Use energy-efficient materials in building design,
construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit.
ii) Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, a
nd
co
oling systems (cogeneration); water heaters;
appliances; equipment; and control systems.
iii) Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by
t
aking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for
shade, and sunlight.
iv) Incorporate passive environmental control
systems that account for the characteristics of
the natural environment.
v) Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices.
vi) Incorporate passive solar design.
vii) Use high-reflectivity building materials and
multiple glazing.
viii) Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance
equipment.
ix) Install electric vehicle charging stations.
x) Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces.
xi) Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at
residential developments.
b) R educe emissions resulting from projects through
implementation of project features, project design, or
other measures, such as those described in Appendix
F of the State CEQA Guidelines
c) I nclude off-site measures to mitigate a project’s
emissions.
d) M
easures that consider incorporation of Best
Av
ailable Control Technology (BACT) during design,
construction and operation of projects to minimize
GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i) Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and
equipment;
ii) Deployment of zero- and/or near zero-emission
technologies;
MM AIR-1e
through -1i
The proposed project would be
designed according to CALGreen
standards as well as the City of
Tracy Building Code standards,
which is required for all
development projects. Project
design features such as drought
tolerant landscaping and bicycle
parking would further ensure the
proposed project would reduce
operational GHG emissions. In
addition, MM AIR-1e through -1i,
while not required to reduce a
GHG impact, would provide a co-
benefit of reducing operational
GHG emissions. For example, the
inclusion of EV charging
infrastructure consistent with Tier
2 CALGreen standards would
facilitate the use of EVs and reduce
the use of fossil fuel-powered
vehicles. Furthermore, the MM
AIR-1g would require zero-
emission on-site equipment, which
would be consistent with the SCAG
measure. In conclusion, the
adherence to Title 24 and existing
City standards along with project
design features and mitigation
measures would ensure the
proposed project would be
consistent with SCAG PEIR project-
level mitigation measure PMM
GHG-1.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-108 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR GHG Project Level Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR
Mitigation
Measure
addresses the
Commenter’s
request? Explanation
iii) Use lighting systems that are energy-efficient,
such as LED technology;
iv) Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-
emitting construction materials;
v) Use cement blended with the maximum feasible
amount of flash or other materials that reduce
GHG emissions from cement production;
vi) Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG
emissions from solid waste management through
encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii) Incorporate design measures to reduce energy
consumption and increase use of renewable
energy;
viii) Incorporate design measures to reduce water
consumption;
ix) Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x) Recycle construction debris to maximum extent
feasible;
xi) Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and
xii) Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling,
bike-share and car-share programs, active
transportation, and parking strategies, including, but
not limited to the following:
i) Promote transit-active transportation
coordinated strategies;
ii) Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and
rail vehicles;
iii) Improve or increase access to transit;
iv) Increase access to common goods and services,
such as groceries, schools, and day care;
v) Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi) Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle
network;
vii) Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities;
viii) Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or
transit service;
ix) Provide traffic calming measures;
x) Provide bicycle parking;
xi) Limit or eliminate park supply; xii) Unbundle
parking costs;
xiii) Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv) Implement or provide access to commute
reduction program;
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-109
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR GHG Project Level Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR
Mitigation
Measure
addresses the
Commenter’s
request? Explanation
f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into
project designs, maintaining these facilities, and
providing amenities incentivizing their use; and
planning for and building local bicycle projects that
connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by
incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle
service to transit stations; and
h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to
reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool
programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and
telecommuting programs including but not limited to
measures that:
i) Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ridesharing
programs;
ii) Provide transit passes;
iii) Shift single-occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride-
matching services;
iv) Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy
vehicle;
v) Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such
as priority parking for carpools and vanpools,
secure bike parking, and showers and locker
rooms;
vi) Provide employee transportation coordinators at
employment sites;
vii) Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users
of non-auto modes.
i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for
ridesharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and
provide adequate passenger loading and unloading
for those vehicles;
j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce
GHG emissions, including:
i) Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii) Building compact and mixed-use developments
near transit;
iii) Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation,
and planting new canopy trees;
iv) Measures that increase vehicle efficiency,
encourage use of zero and low emissions
vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels,
including constructing or encouraging
construction of electric vehicle charging stations
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-110 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR GHG Project Level Mitigation
Measure
Which EIR
Mitigation
Measure
addresses the
Commenter’s
request? Explanation
or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or
charging for electric bicycles; and
v) Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid
waste management through encouraging solid
waste recycling and reuse

Response to GSEJA-37
The commenter provides legal and conclusionary statements.

The commenter does not raise any project-specific CEQA issues, and therefore no further response is required.

From: Genna McIntosh <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:03 PM
To: Victoria Lombardo <[email protected]> Subject: DEIR comment
I believe the amount of farmland that would be lost to this project is too great to justify continuing. I noticed that Tracy‘s logo has an agricultural aspect to it, I would assume that the City of Tracy highly values it’s agricultural community and will do whatever It can to support it. And taking away almost 191 acres of farmland doesn’t seem to be in line with those views. Our farmland is precious resource, especially California farmland, and we should be doing everything we can to maintain these resources, this project seems to unnecessarily take away from that.

The air quality impacts are also greatly concerning, especially for the people who live on California Avenue. We already have the freeway behind us and all the air quality issues that come with that. To put warehouses on the other side of our homes would significantly and negatively change the air quality. In addition to the homes, there is a school less than a mile away where children play outside daily, those children do not deserve to have their air quality reduced.

The traffic is also a major concern, the small community of Banta has so much traffic from commuters and warehouse employees already, in addition to the large trucks that pass through illegally. This community does not deserve to have all of that increased.

Something that I didn’t notice on the DEIR is the amount of water that would be used. As I’m sure we all know, California is in a drought, we have our governor talking about aggressive water conservation, how much water would be used on the construction of this project?
These issues are too great to ignore and do not justify moving forward with this project, and I strongly encourage the City of Tracy to consider the impacts of this project, and negative strongly outnumber any benefit this would bring.

Thank you,
Genna McIntosh
0&,1726+
3DJHRI






THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-113
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Individuals
Genna McIntosh (MCINTOSH)
Response to MCINTOSH-1
This comment is related to the loss of 191 acres of farmland, and the commenter states that the City should support and maintain agricultural uses and thus not approve the conversion of these 191 acres.

The comment sets forth a personal opinion on the merits of the proposed project. The commenter’s opinion is noted and will be included in the administrative record for consideration by the City decision-makers. No further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is provided. The proposed project’s potential impacts on agricultural resources are discussed at length in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft EIR. Among other things, Section 3.2 acknowledges that the project site contains approximately 188 acres of Prime Farmland and approximately 4 acres of Semi-Agricultural and Rural Commercial Land, as classified by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The Draft EIR details in the Regulatory Framework the relevant laws and regulations, including relevant City General Plan goals and policies, the City’s local Agricultural Mitigation Fee Program, as well as those under LAFCo law. The analysis also analyzes the impacts of the proposed conversion of Important Farmland to industrial uses. As detailed more fully therein, the conversion of the project site from agricultural land to industrial uses is consistent with the City’s long-term planning vision.

The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the General Plan and conversion of the project site to industrial use was envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan. Nevertheless, for purposes of a conservative analysis, this Draft EIR acknowledges that the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of its conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses, and discloses this as a significant and unavoidable impact. The City addresses the need to balance agricultural resource and open space preservation goals with urban development needs by focusing industrial development in the NEI Specific Plan area, for which the project site is adjacent. In so doing, this helps to ensure the preservation of other agricultural resources and open space. In addition, in accordance with Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code, Agricultural Mitigation Fee, the developers of the Suvik Farms, Zuriakat, and Tracy Alliance parcels would each be required to pay applicable Agricultural Mitigation fees in connection with their respective individual development proposals, as implemented by MM AG-1. In addition, the SJMSCP works at a regional level to promote the permanent preservation of agricultural lands in San Joaquin County. The SJMSCP calls for the preservation of about 100,000 acres, including 57,000 agricultural acres, over a 50-year period for the protection of a variety of biological species. Most agricultural conservation easements in the County are the product of the SJMSCP . The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the SJMSCP (see Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR for more information), which may include payment of development fees for conversion of lands. See also Section 3.2.6 for the Draft EIR’s cumulative analysis with respect to agricultural resources.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-114 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Response to MCINTOSH-2
The comment is related to air quality impacts, especially to residents who live on California Avenue, adjacent to an existing air pollution source, like I-205. The commenter states that the proposed project would further impact air quality of nearby sensitive land uses including homes and a school that is less than a mile away.

The comment sets forth a personal opinion on the merits of the proposed project. The commenter ’s opinion is noted and will be included in the administrative record for consideration by the City decision-makers. No further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is provided. The Draft EIR fully analyzed the potential air quality and health risk impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project, which was performed consistent with the guidance and methodologies provided by the Valley Air District’s GAMAQI. Potential impacts on sensitive uses, including nearby homes and Banta Elementary School, were specifically evaluated (see, e.g., Impact AIR-3). As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the project site has been long planned for industrial uses and is located adjacent to the NEI Specific Plan area. The proposed project would be required to incorporate technically and financially feasible mitigation measures (MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1d) to reduce emissions generated during project construction and operation. In addition, the project applicants have agreed to incorporate additional measures (see MM AIR-1e, MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, MM AIR- 1h, and MM AIR-1i), which have been included in the Final EIR and which would result in additional emission reductions during project operation. See Response to Response to Valley Air District-2-5 for additional information in this regard.

Response to MCINTOSH-3
This comment is related to project traffic impacts to the Banta community, which currently experiences traffic impacts from commuters, warehouse employees, and illegal truck traffic.

The comment sets forth a personal opinion on the merits of the proposed project. The commenter’s opinion is noted and will be included in the administrative record for consideration by the City decision-makers. No further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is provided. Section 3.14, Transportation, of the Draft EIR evaluates the proposed project’s potential transportation-related impacts as required under CEQA.

As detailed more fully therein, the analysis considers and discloses any potentially significant impacts with respect to VMT; any conflicts relating to alternative transportation, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and transit facilities; any design hazard features; and any impairment on emergency access.

The Draft EIR also identifies feasible mitigation measures to reduce identified impacts (i.e., MM TRANS-1a, MM TRANS-1b). In addition, the Draft EIR includes (for informational purposes) a non- CEQA operational analysis, utilizing a level-of-service evaluation of the study area identified by the City.

Specifically, with respect to truck traffic during operations, the Draft EIR evaluated this issue and acknowledged that the proposed project would result in new truck trips both to and from the project site. The Draft EIR discussed the relevance of Section 3.08.290 of the Tracy Municipal Code, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-115
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx which establishes truck routes throughout the City, restricting vehicle routes within the City for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 5 tons or more or that are licensed commercially as a truck in the state of origin and used for carrying goods for pickup and delivery. Vehicles meeting this requirement would be restricted to specific truck routes and designated streets, except when necessary for egress and ingress by direct route to and from restricted streets for the purpose of loading or unloading. The Draft EIR also detailed the findings of a relevant STAA truck route study.

Specifically, an NEI Truck Route Map defines STAA truck routing (both interim and ultimate) and identifies new improvements (e.g., truck route signage, conversion of existing roads to STAA routes), which would further improve roadway safety by providing appropriate and adequate roadway infrastructure for the trucks that would access the project site. As a result, existing and planned roadways would be able to support proposed STAA trucks that would access the project site consistent with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. Therefore, trucks trips during operation would result in less than significant impacts.

Furthermore, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1e to require that trucks accessing the project site are prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. See Section 3, Errata.

Nevertheless and although not required as mitigation for any impact, in an effort to further address concerns about truck traffic through the Banta community, the project applicants are willing to voluntarily implement signage along project frontage on Grant Line Road to deter trucks from traveling on Grant Line Road east of the project site, and voluntarily implement routine communications between property managers and tenants to ensure tenant understanding that trucks accessing the project site are prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site.

These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval.

Response to MCINTOSH-4
The commenter notes that California is in a drought and questions the amount of water use during construction.

The comment sets forth a personal opinion on the merits of the proposed project but does not raise any specific significant environmental issues. The commenter’s opinion is noted and will be included in the administrative record for consideration by the City decision-makers. No further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is provided. Section 3.16 of the Draft EIR contains the water impact analysis required under CEQA (see, e.g., Impacts UTIL-1, UTIL-2, MM UTIL-1a). In connection therewith and pursuant to SB 610, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA), consistent with the City’s recently adopted 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), was prepared for the proposed project (Appendix K of the Draft EIR). The WSA evaluates the adequacy of the total project water supplies of the City (as the water purveyor to the proposed project), including existing water supplies and future planned water supplies, to meet the City’s existing and projected future water demands, including those future water demands associated with the proposed project, under all hydrological conditions (Normal Years, Single Dry Years, and Multiple Dry Years). As detailed more fully therein, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the proposed project, as well as other City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-116 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx existing and reasonably foreseeable future uses, during normal, dry, and multiple dry year scenarios with reliance on existing and additional supplies from future planned projects, including Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program Expansion, Recycled Water Distribution Network and Exchange Program for additional Central Valley Project water supplies, and recycled water distribution for non- potable use. The Draft EIR also considered construction-related impacts on water supply.

Construction of the proposed project would result in a relatively nominal amount of water use for dust control, mixing concrete, washing equipment and vehicles, and other activities, such as personal consumption. Because construction would require a minimal, limited quantity of water, it is reasonable to conclude that the City would have adequate water supply capacity to serve construction demands in addition to its other existing commitments, and new or expanded entitlements would not be necessary. Therefore, construction impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Response to MCINTOSH-5
The commenter states that the City should consider the issues reflected in the comment letter, and states an opinion that such issues outnumber any benefits of the proposed project.

The comment sets forth a personal opinion on the merits of the proposed project but does not raise any specific significant environmental issues. The commenter’s opinion is noted and will be included in the administrative record for consideration by the City decision-makers. No further response is required.

Comments provided at public hearing held May 25, 2022
MCINTOSH-2
Response to MCINTOSH-2-1
The commenter resides on California Avenue and expressed concern about project impacts such as air pollution, light, traffic, and loss of farmland. The commenter noted that the Draft EIR is very large and that there did not seem to be enough time to allow for review. The commenter also noted that there is a school very close to the project site, and that many properties already exist for industrial warehouses. The commenter stated that there are many Tesla and Amazon (industrial) jobs nearby, and does not think there is a need for more jobs. The commenter is concerned about farmland impacts.

The comments are noted and acknowledged. To the extent the commenter is expressing an opinion on the merits of the proposed project, the comment will be noted and included in the administrative record for consideration by the City’s decision-makers.

The City published a Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR on April 20, 2022.

The 45-day public comment period extended from April 20, 2022 to June 3, 2022. In addition, although not required to do so under the law, the City accepted late comment letters, including one submitted more than two months after the close of the comment period the commenter, and responded to those comments. (See Responses to MCINTOSH-3-1 through MCINTOSH 3-5.) The Draft EIR included a careful analysis of the proposed project’s potential effects related to Air Quality (Section 3.3, Air Quality), Light pollution (Section 3.1, Aesthetics), traffic (Section 3.14, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-117
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx Transportation), and farmland (Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources). Chapter ES, Executive Summary, provides an abbreviated summary of all of the potential impacts of the proposed project along with the recommended mitigation measures.

Regarding air quality, as discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would incorporate technically and financially feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions generated during project operation. In addition, MM AIR-1e, MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, MM AIR-1h, and MM AIR-1i have been added to the Draft EIR and would result in additional emission reductions during project operation beyond what was identified in the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the quantified emission reductions from these new mitigation measures cannot be identified with certainty at this time. Therefore, the impact conclusions of Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR remain appropriate under CEQA.

Regarding light pollution, as discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, light and glare during the construction phase would be temporary and limited to the duration of construction. The proposed project would be required to comply with Section 4.12.820 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activities to the 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays or between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and federal holidays.

The Draft EIR discloses that the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare on the project site. However, the light fixtures used for the proposed project would be required to meet all applicable standards pursuant to the latest adopted edition of the California Building Code and all applicable development standards and design guidelines provided in the NEI Specific Plan to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting.

Any window glare would be partially obscured by landscaping. Glare may also occur from on-site vehicles; however, such glare would be transient. Because of the proposed project’s location adjacent to other existing urban development, the proposed project would not be adding significant nighttime lighting or glare in an area with no existing lighting impacts. As such and as detailed more fully in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, project impacts related to light and glare were found to be less than significant.

Regarding transportation, the Draft EIR contains a detailed analysis of the proposed project’s potential transportation-related impacts and identified feasible mitigation measures. As discussed therein, the proposed project is anticipated to add approximately 96 passenger cars during the morning peak-hour and approximately 142 passenger cars during the evening peak-hour along Grant Line Road through Banta. All trucks would be directed to use the existing or future truck route to the west of the proposed project and not east on Grant Line Road. Furthermore, the City has agreed to adopt and the applicants have agreed to implement MM AIR-1e, which would require that trucks accessing the project site be prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. See Section 3, Errata. Nevertheless and although not required as mitigation for any identified impact, in an effort to further address concerns about truck traffic through the Banta community, the project applicants are willing to voluntarily implement signage along project frontage on Grant Line Road to deter trucks from traveling on Grant Line Road east of the project site, and voluntarily implement routine communications between property managers and tenants to ensure tenant understanding City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-118 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/EIR/3 - Final EIR/17260011 Sec03-00 Responses to Comments.docx that trucks accessing the project site are prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval. Finally, the City of Tracy is currently implementing STAA truck routes in the NEI Specific Plan area that connect to the I-205 and MacArthur Interchange. The City of Tracy is actively coordinating with the SJCOG and the County of San Joaquin on truck route planning.

Regarding loss of farmland, the Draft EIR contains a detailed analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts to agricultural resources as well as identified mitigation measures. As discussed therein, conversion of the project site to industrial use has long been envisioned by the City as part of buildout under the General Plan and evaluated and disclosed under the General Plan EIR; this is reflected in the project site’s existing Industrial General Plan land use designation. Nevertheless, for purposes of a comprehensive conservative analysis, the Draft EIR acknowledged that the proposed project would result in the loss of Important Farmland as a result of its conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses. On June 7, 2005, the City Council adopted Chapter 13.28 Agricultural Mitigation Fee to its Municipal Code. In addition, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Central Valley Farmland Trust as a qualifying agency to receive funds for purposes of preserving identified areas of Important Farmland. This program serves as mitigation to the extent feasible for the conversion of Prime Farmland. In accordance with Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code, Agricultural Mitigation Fee, the developers of the Suvik Farms, Zuriakat, and Tracy Alliance parcels would each be required to pay applicable Agricultural Mitigation fees in connection with individual development proposals as implemented by MM AG-1. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the SJMSCP . Even with the payment of City mitigation fees and adherence to the SJMSCP , the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Farmland as identified by the FMMP mapping to nonagricultural use, since the foregoing would not fully avoid the impacts of this conversion (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-8–9).

Late Comments
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the City of Tracy was legally required to provide a 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR. The public comment period for the Draft EIR began on April 20, 2022, and ended on June 3, 2022. All comment letters received after expiration of the public review and comment period ending on June 3, 2022 are considered late comments.

A lead agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (PRC § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines § 15088). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period; however, a lead agency does not have an obligation to respond (PRC § 21091(d)(1); PRC § 21092.5(c)).

Accordingly, the City of Tracy is not required to provide a written response to late comment letters, including the letter from Advocates for the Environment received on August 16, 2022, and the letter from Genna McIntosh on August 29, 2022 (See CEQA Guidelines § 15088(a)).

Accordingly, the following comment letters are considered late letters that do not require a written response. Nonetheless, for information purposes, the City of Tracy has elected to respond to these late letters, but without waiving its position that written responses to late comment letters are not required by law.
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] August 16, 2022
Victoria Lombardo, Planner
City of Tracy
Development Services Department
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
Via U.S. Mail and email to [email protected] re: Comments on Tracy Alliance Project, SCH Number 2020080524 Dear Ms. Lombardo:

Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Comments on Tracy Alliance Project (Project). The Project site is located on undeveloped prime farmland, but it is zoned for industrial development and located at the northeast corner of Grant Line Road and Paradise Road. The site is within unincorporated San Joaquin County, adjacent to the northeastern city limits and within the City of Tracy’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The project site is directly east of the City’s NEI Specific Plan boundary. The site is bound by I-205 to the north, California Avenue to the northeast, Grant Line Road to the south, and Paradise Road to the west. The Project proposes to construct up to 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse and distribution and related uses on a total of approximately 191.18 acres, 98% of which would be converted farmland.
1 Advocates for the Environment is a public interest law firm and advocacy organization with the mission to educate the public about the law as it pertains to the environment and provide legal services in support of environmental causes. Therefore, it is within the scope of Advocates for the Environment’s mission to provide comments on the development of this project, especially because the DEIR reflects potential issues of non-compliance with CEQA.

Greenhouse Gases
The Project anticipates employing 1,871 people and creating operational emissions of 19,672 MTCO2e annually, starting in the year 2030.2 The DEIR quantified greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in three phases, corresponding to the three Phases of the Project 1 188 acres of farmland ÷191.18 acres of Project = 0.9834 = approximately 98% 2 Total Emissions Estimates taken from DEIR P. 3.8-43 to 3.8-45 10,962 MTCO2e (Phase 1) + 5,964 MTCO2e (Phase 2) + 2,746 MTCO2e (Phase 3) = 19,672 MTCO2e Advocates for the Environment
A non-profit public-interest law firm
and environmental advocacy organization
AENV