Tracy City Council
August 15, 2023

1 2
Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 2
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] development. Phase 1 is planned to start in 2023 and contribute to 10,962 MTCO2e; Phase 2 in 2024 with 5,964 MTCO2e; and Phase 3 in 2025 with 2,746 MTCO2e.

The City Should Require the Project to be Net-Zero
Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, including indirect emissions from offsite generation of electricity, direct emissions produced onsite, and from construction with cement and steel, amounted to 21% of global GHG emissions in 2019. (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2022, WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change, p. 9-4.) This is a very large portion of global GHG emissions. It is much less expensive to construct new building projects to be net-zero than to obtain the same level of GHG reductions by retrofitting older buildings. Climate damages will keep increasing until we reach net zero GHG emissions, and there is a California state policy requiring the state to be net-zero by 2045. It therefore makes no sense to construct new buildings that are not net-zero.

Two of the largest mixed-use development projects in the history of California, Newhall Ranch (now FivePoint Valencia), and Centennial (part of Tejon Ranch) decided, after environmental groups sued and won under CEQA, to move forward as net-zero communities.

This proves it is feasible. The Applicant for this project should do the same. We urge the City to adopt net-zero as the GHG significance threshold for this project, and require full fair-share litigation. The CARB 2017 Scoping Plan states that “achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.” (p. 101.)
Moving this Project forward as a net-zero project would be the right thing for the City to do, and would also protect the City and the Applicant from CEQA GHG litigation.

The EIR’s GHG Analysis
The City analyzed GHG significance using the Appendix G guidelines as the thresholds, determining, under the first threshold, that the Project would not contribute to any significant direct or indirect GHG emissions, given 43.3 to 44 percent reduction from business as usual.

Analyzing consistency with the 2008 and 2017 Scoping Plans under the second threshold, the DEIR concluded that the Project would not conflict with any applicable GHG-reduction plan, policy, or regulation. As discussed below, both these conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence.

Significance Finding Violates Newhall
In analyzing the Project’s GHG impacts under the first threshold, the DEIR made no attempt to reconcile the percent reduction below business-as-usual (BAU) with Statewide goals. Simply allowing a margin for error, and nothing more, is not sufficient to be compliant AENV

2 CONT
3 4
Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 3
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] with the holding in Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204 (Newhall), which held that, when using a reduction from BAU as a significance threshold, lead agencies must affirmatively provide some demonstration that the reduction is consistent with the required statewide reductions, not just that it is “likely” to be consistent, as the DEIR suggests. In fact, the DEIR suffers the same problem as in Newhall, which is that despite making a demonstration of adherence to the 40% reduction goal, there was no substantial evidence to support the claim that the statewide emissions goal of 40% would necessarily translate to the equivalent goal in the local regime.

Inconsistent with Applicable Plans
The DEIR incorrectly assumes that the only applicable plans, policies, and regulations are the CARB Scoping Plans. The Project is not only inconsistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan, but also conflicts with other applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHGs.

The EIR’s analysis of consistency with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan is highly flawed.

The threshold used in the analysis appears to be 22% below BAU. (EIR p. 3.8-34.) The BAU is the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan is called the “Reference Scenario” and represents “what GHG emissions look like if we did nothing beyond the existing policies that are required and already in place to achieve the 2020 limit. BAU includes the existing renewables requirements, advanced clean cars, the 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the SB 375 program for sustainable communities, among others.” BAU thus represents the emissions path that would occur of no new regulations were adopted after 2017. But the EIR for this Project uses a contrived BAU, apparently based on 2005 levels and the 2008 CARB Scoping Plan. Since the 2008 Scoping Plan was developed to implement AB 32, which required emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and that goal has been achieved, it is irrelevant to GHG analysis now. The Project must be consistent with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, not the 2008 CARB Scoping Plan, and a contrived BAU based on 2005 levels is not appropriate for that analysis. The portion of the EIR analyzing consistency with SB 32 and the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan should be rewritten to use the correct BAU baseline. The Project is also inconsistent with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan in several other ways.

First, the Project would be inconsistent with the emissions targets laid out by the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan, including annual emissions of 6 MTCO2e/capita by 2030, and 2 MTCO2e/capita by 2050 (CARB Scoping Plan, p. 99). Here, the Project anticipates 1,871 employees, resulting in per-capita emissions of about 10.51 MTCO2e/capita each operating year.
3 As this is nearly double the 2030 goal of 6 MTCO2e/capita, there is an inconsistency. 3 19,672 MTCO2e ÷ 1,871 people = 10.51 MTCO2e/capita
AENV

4 CONT
5 6
Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 4
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Second, the GHG significance analysis compared the Project with AB32 and the CARB 2008 Scoping Plan, but these policies cannot be applicable because the AB32 goal was for 2020 and it has already passed; the goal has been achieved, so that policy is irrelevant.

Likewise, the San Joaquin Valley Air District Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) is not applicable to the project, because the goals have been achieved.

Third, for the Project’s impacts to be insignificant, the Project must be consistent with B-55-18, because it is an applicable policy which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. As this Project requires industrial storage and transportation using large vehicles, with no plans of reducing or offsetting emissions to zero by 2045, the Project is inconsistent with B-55-18.

Since the Project is inconsistent with applicable policies to reduce GHG emissions, its GHG impacts are significant.

Fair Share Mitigation
The Project’s GHG emissions are significant and, because those emissions must be analyzed as a cumulative impact, the heightened requirement of “fair share” mitigation applies. (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 364.) For this Project, the fair share is the entirety of the Project’s emissions. The City must
Because the DEIR concluded that the Project will have less-than-significant GHG impacts, no mitigation measures were identified. Yet, once the analysis is updated according to the above comments, the agency will need to analyze all feasible mitigation to reduce to the fair share level.

Here are some ideas for feasible mitigation measures for GHG emissions: install solar panels on the entire available roof space, prohibit natural-gas appliances, install energy-efficient lighting and temperature controls, require zero-emission vehicles, purchase offsets or sponsor local-energy projects, and utilize low-GHG construction materials. There are many more options for feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s significant GHG impact.

CalEEMod Deficiencies
The criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions generated by the operational land uses on the Project site were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).

CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type, and typical equipment associated with a particular project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.

AENV

7 8
9 10
11 Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 5
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Here, the population parameter is not supported by substantial evidence. Although the Project intends to employ 1,871 people on the premises, the inputs indicate a population size of zero for all CalEEMod runs. CalEEMod should be re-run to reflect an accurate population size for the project.

Additionally, certain runs changed the default land use parameters to zero. For example, Phase 3 changed from the default of 422,967.60 square feet to a user-inputted value of 0 square feet. This parameter is not supported by substantial evidence, because the Project to be built on the Zuriakat Parcel is predicted to use 479,160 square feet of space. The model should be re- run to reflect the accurate square footage of Phase 3.

And the Project-associated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as analyzed in the DEIR is not accurately reflected in the CalEEMod parameters. The DEIR indicated a VMT of 16.9 per employee, which amounts to 11,541,263.5 annual miles of vehicle travel associated with the Project.
5 However, CalEEMod Trip Summary Information (4.2), indicates that the total VMT for all three phases amounts to 7,343,938 annual miles, or an average of 10.75 per employee.
6 This is roughly 36% less VMT than indicated in the DEIR, and no justification has been made regarding the CalEEMod parameters. Therefore, this estimate lacks substantial evidence and contributes to an underestimation of GHG significance due to the resulting reduced quantification of emissions.

Additionally, the various assumptions, user-inputted values, and modifications in the CalEEMod simulation should be explained such that a decision-makers and the public can adequately assess the environmental impact, because without such analysis, the CalEEMod summaries are confusing and misleading.

Air Quality Significance Analysis
The DEIR concluded that the Project may have potentially significant air-quality impacts, and identifies four mitigation measures. The EIR states that the Project may have significant and unavoidable air quality impacts even after mitigation, because there are no guarantees that the identified air quality mitigation measures will be implemented due to technical or financial feasibility (DEIR ES-4). But these are not the only feasible mitigation measures, so the conclusion that the air quality impact would be unavoidable is without merit.

There are several mitigation strategies, in addition to the ones proposed, that could ensure air quality emissions reductions regarding the Project operations, which the lead agency should consider adopting as part of its mitigation efforts to reduce air quality significance. 5 16.9 × 1,871 employees × 365 days = 11,541,263.5 annual miles 6 2,483,351 (Phase 1) + 2,510,413 (Phase 2) + 2,350,174 (Phase 3) = 7,343,944 annual VMT AENV

11 CONT
12 13
14 15
Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 6
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] First, the Project could require that any machinery (including but not limited to: forklifts, dock equipment, conveyors, and carousels) to be used during the operation of the Project is powered by rechargeable battery or otherwise powered by electricity. Second, the Project could encourage future tenants to adopt incentives for carpools and alternative transportation such as public transport, bicycling, and zero emission vehicles, to reduce the amount of vehicle trips per person, and likewise reduce the associated air quality pollutants that are emitted by conventional vehicles. Third, the Project could require and enforce a strict no-idling policy on the premises.

Fourth, the Project could require future tenants’ vehicle fleet to be maintained with zero- emission or hybrid vehicles to the extent feasible, as zero-emission and hybrid heavy-duty vehicles and semi-trucks are already available for consumer purchase and use.

The DEIR also contemplates a scenario in which all three project phases were constructed concurrently, in which case the impact would exceed significant levels even with all mitigation incorporated (DEIR ES-4). Therefore, to avoid this consequence, one mitigation measure could be the implementation of a plan which specifically precludes the development of multiple project phases simultaneously.

Agriculture Resources
The City adopted Appendix G guidelines to determine whether agricultural and forestry impact was significant. Threshold a asks whether the Project would Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Threshold b asks whether the Project would conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. The DEIR concluded significant unavoidable impact as to agricultural resources, based on significant impact under Threshold a, despite a finding of insignificance as to Threshold b. This analysis is inaccurate because the Project would be significant under Threshold b, and there are feasible mitigation strategies beyond those identified to reduce the significant impact of conversion of agricultural land.

Inconsistent with the Williamson Act Contract
The EIR concluded the Project would have a less than significant impact under Threshold b, although Agricultural and Forestry Resources in its entirety was deemed to have a significant and unavoidable impact. 46.61 acres of land located on the three Suvik Farms parcels are currently under Williamson Act contracts (DEIR p. 3.2-3). In 2017, Suvik Farms landowners initiated a Notice of Nonrenewal 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 (DEIR 3.2-10). Yet, “since the contract term automatically renews AENV

15 CONT
16 17
18 Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 7
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] annually, the actual term is essentially indefinite” (DEIR p. 3.2-2). The DEIR made no showing that the process for expiring the contract guarantees that the contract will expire in 2026.

Even if it will expire in 2026, the Project anticipates that the Suvik parcels will be developed before the term is set to expire: “Phase 2 is the Suvik Farms parcels, with construction assumed to occur in 2023 through 2024 and operation assumed to begin in 2024.” (DEIR 3.8-35). The Williamson Act Contract provides that the covered land is not to be used for non-agricultural purposes for “the duration of the contract” (Gov. Code Section 51243 (a).) Further, the existing contract remains in effect for the entire period after the notice of intent to not renew (Gov. Code Section 51246 (a).) Thus, if the plan to develop the Suvik Farms parcels is carried out before the Williamson Act contract expiration date, it would amount to a material breach of the Williamson Act Contract pursuant to Gov. Code Section 51250.

The lead agency argues that the applicant can avoid such a breach by requesting cancellation of the contract if they are to build it before the contract ends; but the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is inconsistent with the Williamson Act if the “objectives to be served by cancellation should have been predicted and served by nonrenewal at an earlier time” (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 840, 855.) This is the precise situation here, because the objectives served by cancellation (i.e., the development of projects such as this one), was anticipated in 2017, which is when the landowners initiated a Notice of Nonrenewal for the Suvik Farms Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, it is not appropriate here for an applicant to request cancellation of contract simply because they want to develop the land before the contractual term is scheduled to end. Therefore, the Project, if carried out as set forth in the EIR, would violate the Williamson Act and therefore be inconsistent with it, demonstrating significant impact under Threshold b.

Mitigation to Reduce Agricultural Impact to Less Than Significant There are three mitigation strategies that could reduce the significance of agricultural impact. First, the Project should modify its plans so that Phase 2 (involving the development of the Suvik Farms parcels) is not initiated until after the Williamson Act contract expires.

Second, in addition to the proposed agricultural mitigation fee program, the Project could develop a plan to restore agricultural land after the lifespan of the Project, which was upheld as a valid mitigation measure (e.g., King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 876.) Third, the Project could limit the size of the warehouse to reduce the amount of conversion of agricultural land.

Inadequate Discussion of Alternatives
To be compliant with CEQA, “the EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” AENV

18 CONT
19 20
Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 8
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 (c)). Here the City discussed two alternatives, the No Project Alternative and the Agricultural Protection Alternative, which proposes preserving 11 acres of farmland. Here, the range of alternatives is unreasonable, and there are several suggestions for alternatives to analyze.

Range of Alternatives Is Unreasonable
The DEIR did not include a reasonable range of feasible alternatives. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 407; CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)). The standard for determining reasonability is “whether the alternatives discussion encourages informed decision-making and public participation” (Cal.

Oak Found. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 227, 276).

The DEIR contemplated two project alternatives, including a “No Project Alternative” and an “Agricultural Protection Alternative,” would result in protecting 11 acres of prime agricultural land. This is insufficient because there are other feasible alternatives that would be able to achieve certain project goals while also reducing the impact on the environment.

Particularly, several unique resources exist on the site which are identified but not accounted for to the feasible extent in the range of alternatives, including wetland habitat and prime farmland, discussed below.

Wetland Preservation Alternative
There is a 0.07 acre ditch wetland/cattail marsh that supports Northern Pacific tree frogs. The alternatives discussion should include an alternative that aims to preserve wetland and riparian habitat, to the extent feasible. Most project objectives could still be met in an alternative that aimed to achieve habitat preservation goals or otherwise avoided to develop on the wetland portions of the Project site. Not only would this reduce biological impact, potentially below significant impact, it could also reduce GHG impact because healthy wetlands have the ability to sequester GHGs.

Farmland Preservation Alternative
The Project would result in the loss of 188 acres of Prime Farmland. The DEIR concluded that this was a significant and unavoidable impact, but this does not necessarily mean that an alternative is infeasible. Given this unique environmental resource, and the vast extent of Prime Farmland on the Project Site, it would be reasonable and feasible to have more than one alternative that accounts for the loss of farmland, especially because the only alternative proposed, Agricultural Protection Alternative, only sets aside about 5% of farmland. The Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative was deemed infeasible but this infeasibility determination lacks substantial evidence because it would be reasonable to analyze another AENV

20 CONT
21 Comment Letter to the City of Tracy Page 9
Tracy Alliance Project August 16, 2022
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] Farmland Preservation Alternative which could propose to reserve more farmland, perhaps by reducing the Project size, to ensure that the Project is contributing to California’s long-term agricultural production and soil health stability, as well as consistency with the General Plan’s goal of preserving and protecting significant agricultural resources.

Conclusion
To conclude, the DEIR should be updated to reflect a finding of significant GHG impact, and mitigated to the “fair share” extent (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 364). Please put Advocates for the Environment on the list of interested parties to receive updates about the progress of this potential project approval.

Sincerely,
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law
Executive Director, Advocates for the Environment
AENV

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-129
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
Advocates for the Environment (AENV)
Response to AENV-1
This comment summarizes the proposed project and provides introductory statements.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. The commenter does not raise any project-specific issues related to CEQA, and therefore no further response is required.

Response to AENV-2
This comment describes the proposed project’s estimated employees and amount of GHGs that would be generated.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. The commenter does not raise any project-specific issues related to CEQA, and therefore no further response is required.

Response to AENV-3
This comment describes the benefits of net-zero construction and states that the proposed project should be built to result in net-zero GHG emissions. The commenter cites two Southern California projects that have purportedly implemented “net-zero communities” as a basis for the commenter’s claim of feasibility.

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. Imposing an obligation to be “net-zero” would not be permitted under the law. Therefore, no further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR robustly evaluates the proposed project’s GHG impacts, both from a quantitative and qualitative perspective. Section 3.8.4 describes the significance criteria, assumptions and methodologies used by the City, in its discretion, to conduct this impact analysis. CEQA does not require the City to utilize achieving net-zero GHG emissions as a significance threshold to evaluate the proposed project. Moreover, as described in the ARB 2017 Scoping Plan, "achieving net-zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net-zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA. Lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with this Scoping Plan, the State’s long-term GHG goals, and climate change science.”
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-130 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 As discussed in Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, under CEQA and as held in the California Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, GHG impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Conflict with a compliant GHG Reduction Plan if adopted by the lead agency; • Exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) GHG Reduction Threshold; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.

These thresholds are consistent with the Appendix G Environmental Checklist questions of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Tracy does not currently have a formal GHG emissions reduction plan or recommended emissions thresholds for determining significance associated with GHG emissions from development projects. Therefore, the Draft EIR used the most appropriate thresholds to evaluate GHG impacts as determined by the City in its discretion. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to AENV-4
This comment states the Draft EIR’s significance determination related to GHGs and that these conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. This comment states that the Draft EIR did not analyze the proposed project’s GHG emissions against the percent reduction below BAU consistent with Statewide goals. This comment further states that the Draft EIR did not provide substantial evidence that the Statewide emissions goal of 40 percent would translate to the equivalent local goal.

As discussed in Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, under CEQA and as held in the California Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (the “Newhall Ranch” decision) GHG impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Conflict with a compliant GHG Reduction Plan if adopted by the lead agency; • Exceed the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) GHG Reduction Threshold; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.

These thresholds are consistent with the Appendix G Environmental Checklist questions of the CEQA Guidelines. The City of Tracy does not currently have a formal GHG emissions reduction plan or recommended emissions thresholds for determining significance associated with GHG emissions from development projects. Therefore, the first impact criterion, “conflict with a compliant GHG Reduction Plan if adopted by the lead agency,” cannot be applied to the proposed project. Moreover, the other two impact criteria presented closely align with the two Appendix G Environmental Checklist questions for GHG emissions. Therefore, the City, in its discretion and consistent with the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-131
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 Newhall Ranch decision, is utilizing Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines as thresholds for the proposed project.

The City of Tracy has not adopted its own GHG thresholds or prepared a Climate Action Plan that can be used as a basis for determining project significance, although it has adopted a Sustainability Action Plan, which is a non-qualifying GHG Reduction Plan. The Valley Air District Guidance for Valley Land use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA includes thresholds based on whether the project would reduce or mitigate GHG levels by 29 percent from BAU levels compared with 2005 levels. This level of GHG reduction is based on the target established by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, approved in 2008.

Consistent with the Newhall Ranch court decision and as further detailed in the robust analysis set forth in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, a project BAU analysis based on substantial evidence in the record was prepared for the proposed project, which assesses “consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or part by looking to compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from particular activities.” Therefore, the Draft EIR evaluated project GHG emissions against an appropriate threshold that also evaluates consistency with Statewide GHG emissions reduction goals. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to AENV-5
This comment states that the Draft EIR did not analyze consistency with the correct applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to GHG emissions, and in addition it criticizes the analysis with the 2017 ARB Scoping Plan as being flawed. The comment also states that the Draft EIR used an incorrect threshold of 22 percent below BAU, consistent with the 2008 ARB Scoping Plan, which the commenter states is incorrect and instead the Draft EIR should have utilized the 2017 ARB Scoping Plan.

See Response to AENV-4. As explained in more detail in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is expected to become operational in phases beginning in 2023 and assumes full buildout in 2025, which is beyond the AB 32 target year. As a result, until a new threshold is identified for projects constructed after-2020, the only threshold to address significance is based on making continued progress toward the SB 32 2030 goal.

As discussed more fully in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Valley Air District “Guidance for Valley Land use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA,” includes thresholds based on whether the project will reduce or mitigate GHG levels by 29 percent from BAU levels compared with 2005 levels. This level of GHG reduction is based on the target established by ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, which was approved in 2008. The ARB recognizes that AB 32 establishes an emissions reduction trajectory that will allow California to achieve the more stringent 2050 target: “These [greenhouse gas emission reduction] measures also put the State on a path to meet the long-term 2050 goal of reducing California’s GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.” The Valley Air District guidance recommends using emissions in 2002–2004 in the baseline scenario to represent conditions— as if regulations had not been adopted— to allow the effect of projected growth on achieving reduction targets to be clearly defined. Thus, the BAU scenario is based on 2005 levels.

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

3-132 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 Draft EIR analyzed the proposed project’s consistency with SB 32 and the 2017 ARB Scoping Plan as described in the impact analysis for Impact GHG-1 and GHG-2. As described in Impact GHG-2, Executive Order B-30-15 establishes an interim goal to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2030 goal was codified under SB 32 and is now addressed by the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

With respect to the 21.7 percent reduction threshold referenced by the commenter, as explained more fully in Section 3.8.4, the 2010 Cap and Trade Inventory Update provided revised inventory projections to reflect slower growth in emissions during the recession and lower future year projections. The State’s 2020 BAU inventory was reduced from 596 million metric tons (MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2e) to 545 MMT CO2e. The new GHG reduction level for the State to reach 1990 emission levels by 2020 is 21.7 percent from BAU in 2020. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan confirmed that the State is on track to achieve the 2020 target and to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32. In addition, the State has reported that the 2016 greenhouse gas inventory was below the 2020 target for the first time.

Furthermore, the 2017 Scoping Plan states that California is on track to achieve the 2020 target.

In summary, the project analysis also addresses consistency with the SB 32 targets and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update with an assessment of the project’s reduction from BAU levels based on emissions in 2030 compared with the 21.7 percent reduction. The Valley Air District’s Guidance for Valley Land use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under CEQA includes thresholds based on whether the project will reduce or mitigate GHG levels by 29 percent from BAU levels compared with 2005 levels.

In conclusion, each of the project phases would achieve reductions beyond the ARB 2020 21.7 percent target and the Valley Air District 29 percent reduction from BAU requirements from adopted regulations in their respective operational years. The emission estimates presented in Table 3.8-9 through 3.8-11 demonstrate that the proposed project would achieve greater reductions than the Valley Air District-established threshold of 29 percent, resulting in annual reductions ranging from

43.3 to 44 percent. Based on this progress and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and would make a reasonable fair share contribution to achieving the 2030 target. Furthermore, Table 3.8-12 describes how the proposed project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. The GHG analysis in the Draft EIR complies with CEQA, and therefore no revisions are required.

Response to AENV-6
This comment states that the Draft EIR should use the 2017 ARB Scoping Plan threshold of 6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e)/capita by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e/capita by 2050. The comment states that the proposed project would result in an estimate 10.51 MT CO2e/capita each operating year and would conflict with the 2017 ARB Scoping Plan.

The thresholds that the commenter is suggesting are intended for Plan-level Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction goals, such as a Climate Action Plan, not project-specific thresholds. As such, this threshold would not apply to the proposed project. See Responses to AENV-4 and AEVN-5 for City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-133
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 additional discussion as to the methodologies used in, and the adequacy of, the GHG impact analysis.

Response to AENV-7
This comment states that the Draft EIR incorrectly compared the project with AB 32, the 2008 Scoping Plan, and the San Joaquin Valley Air District Climate Change Action Plan, because the goals of these policies have already been achieved.

As described in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the proposed project is assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans: the 2008 Scoping Plan and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. In addition, See Responses to AENV-4 and AENV-5.

Response to AENV-8
This comment states that the proposed project would not be consistent with B-55-18 because the proposed project would not plan to reduce or offset emissions to zero by 2045 and impacts would be significant.

As described in Response to AENV-3, CEQA does not require an evaluation of impacts against a threshold that requires net-zero GHG emissions. The Draft EIR evaluated GHG impacts against the appropriate threshold as required by CEQA. See Responses to AENV-4 and AENV-5. Moreover, as detailed in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, each of the project phases would achieve reductions beyond the ARB 2020 21.7 percent target and the Valley Air District 29 percent reduction from BAU requirements from adopted regulations in their respective operational years. The emission estimates presented in Tables 3.8-9 through 3.8-11 demonstrate that the proposed project would achieve greater reductions than the Valley Air District-established threshold of 29 percent, resulting in annual reductions ranging from 43.3 to 44 percent. Based on this progress and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and would make a reasonable fair share contribution to achieving the 2030 target.

Furthermore, Table 3.8-12 describes how the proposed project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. Therefore, the City has properly determined that the proposed project would not prohibit or prevent the State of California from achieving the goals set in Executive Order B-55-18 because it would not result in barriers to achieving net-zero emissions.

Response to AENV-9
This comment states that the proposed project GHG emissions are significant and must be mitigated with fair share mitigation consistent with the findings of Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 364.

As described in Section 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as shown in Tables 3.8-6 through 3.8-8, Phase 1 of the proposed project would achieve a reduction in GHG emissions 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 GHG emission reductions 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. Therefore, the Draft EIR demonstrates that the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-134 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 proposed project would not exceed applicable thresholds set by the Valley Air District and mitigation would not be required. 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.

See also Responses to AENV-4 and AENV-5.

Response to AENV-10
This comment presents potential mitigation measures to include in the Draft EIR with the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The commenter suggested the following GHG reduction measures: install solar panels on the entire available roof space, prohibit natural gas appliances, install energy- efficient lighting and temperature controls, require zero-emission vehicles, purchase offsets or sponsor local energy projects, and utilize low-GHG construction materials.

As described in Response to AENV-9, the Draft EIR describes that the proposed project would not exceed GHG emission thresholds set by the Valley Air District and mitigation would not be required.

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. The commenter’s proposed mitigation measures are discussed below along with why each of them would not be feasible or result in significant GHG emissions reductions.

The proposed project would comply with existing City and Title 24 requirements to include solar- ready rooftop infrastructure, which would allow for the future installation of solar panels. The proposed project would not preclude the use of natural gas appliances, but the overall GHG emissions during project operation from energy sources, such as natural gas appliance, would be very minimal. The proposed project would include the use of energy-efficient lighting and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems consistent with City building code and Title 24 standards. As part of MM AIR-1i, the proposed project would include EV charging infrastructure consistent with Tier 2 CALGreen requirements, which would allow for future EV vehicles to use the site for vehicle recharging. The proposed project would not exceed GHG threshold set by the applicable Air District, the San Joaquin Valley Air District, and as such would not need to purchase carbon offsets or fund local energy projects. The proposed project’s construction activity would not need to utilize low GHG construction materials, because no significant impact would occur during construction. Furthermore, as described in Section 4: Errata, the proposed project would include MM AIR-1a, -1f, and -1g that would require a clean truck fleet, limit truck idling, and zero-emission on-site equipment. These mitigation measures, while not intended to reduce GHG emissions, would substantially reduce GHG emissions because they would address the primary project source of GHG emissions, HHD trucks and on-site off-road equipment that utilize diesel fuel.

No further response is required. Also, see Response to AENV-15 for a description of mitigation measures the Draft EIR includes that reduce GHG emissions.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-135
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 AENV-11
This comment states the purpose of CalEEMod and how default values can be replaced by project- specific information. No further response is required.

This comment describes that the population parameter in CalEEMod was changed to 0 but the total project population would be 1,871 employees and should be changed to the total project buildout population. Therefore, the commenter asserts that CalEEMod should be re-run to reflect an accurate population size for the project.

The Draft EIR’s modeling is accurate for the purposes of this analysis. The population parameter is associated with permanent residents that would inhabit residential land uses, such as apartments.

As described in the CalEEMod Guidance Manual Appendix D, the population data is used to estimate emissions associated with solid waste generation for residential land uses. However, the population parameter is not appropriate for this proposed project’s modeling because it would not include residential uses. Therefore, no changes to the modeling approach or evaluation are required.

Response to AENV-12
This comment states that certain CalEEMod modeling files had the default land use parameters changed to 0 but should be changed to show the project land use sizes. In particular, the comment points to the Phase 3 CalEEMod operational model.

The Draft EIR’s modeling is accurate for the purposes of this analysis. The CalEEMod Notes Document contained in Appendix B of the Draft EIR explains the adjustments made to the CalEEMod modeling files. The operational runs were adjusted to include the following two land uses:

Commercial > User Defined Commercial > 1 x User Defined Metric and Industrial > User Defined Industrial > 4 x User Defined Metric. The reason the operational runs include these land uses with 0 square feet of building space is to separately model the mobile emissions associated with the use of passenger vehicles and HHD trucks. CalEEMod emissions results do not identify the source of emissions except for general sources such as Area, Energy, and Mobile. By modeling the two types of mobile sources separately it allows the City’s technical consultant to better differentiate types of mobile sources from the building sources of emissions (Area, Energy, Waste, and Water).

Furthermore, as shown in the CalEEMod Notes Document, the correct land use parameters were included in the CalEEMod modeling runs. Therefore, no changes to the modeling approach or evaluation are required.

Response to AENV-13
This comment states that the operational CalEEMod results show a reduction in VMT compared to the VMT estimated in the Draft EIR. The comment states that the Draft EIR indicated a VMT of 16.9 per employee with a total VMT of 11,541,263 whereas the CalEEMod file indicated a total VMT of 7,343,938 and an average employee VMT of 10.75.

The Draft EIR’s modeling is accurate for the purposes of this analysis. As explained in the CalEEMod Notes Document, Note 7, Kimley-Horn and Associates produced a TIA for the proposed project (Appendix J of the Draft EIR), that analyzes the trip generation rates for the proposed project. As contained therein, Project Phase 1 (Tracy Alliance Parcel) would generate an estimated 1,775 daily passenger vehicle trips and 836 daily truck trips. Project Phase 2 (Suvik Farms Parcels) would City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-136 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 generate an estimated 974 daily passenger vehicle trips and 459 daily truck trips. Project Phase 3 (Zuriakat Parcels) would generate an estimated 456 daily passenger vehicle trips and 215 daily truck trips. Therefore, the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project were adjusted in the operational models to match the estimated daily vehicle trips disclosed in the TIA.

As shown in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, each of the three phases of development would result in a total of 19,529,323 VMT. See Section 4.2 in Phase 1 Unmitigated 2023 Passenger Vehicle Mobile Emissions; Phase 1 Unmitigated 2023 Truck Mobile Emissions; Phase 2 Unmitigated 2024 Passenger Vehicle Mobile Emissions; Phase 2 Unmitigated 2024 Truck Mobile Emissions; Phase 3 Unmitigated 2025 Passenger Vehicle Mobile Emissions; and Phase 3 Unmitigated 2025 Truck Mobile Emissions.

The VMT that the commenter identified is from the Phase 1 Passenger Vehicles Only results file shown on page B-506. As a result, the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the Draft EIR overestimates the VMT generated by the proposed project and presents a conservative analysis. Therefore, the adjustments made to the CalEEMod operational modeling files were based on substantial evidence and the estimated VMT is consistent. Thus, no changes to the modeling approach or evaluation are required.

Response to AENV-14
This comment states that the adjustments to the default CalEEMod values are not explained adequately.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. The CalEEMod Notes Document contained in Appendix B of the Draft EIR explains the adjustments made to the CalEEMod modeling files.

Response to AENV-15
This comment states that the Air Quality Analysis did not fully consider all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

This comment states that the Draft EIR should include new mitigation such as: requiring on-site machinery be all-electric, encourage tenants to incentivize carpools and alternative transportation, require a no-idling vehicle policy, and require future tenants’ vehicle fleet be zero-emission.

As discussed in more detail in Section 3.4, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, there are numerous mitigation measures that would be imposed on the proposed project. In addition, as described in Response to GSEJA-31, the City has agreed to adopt, and the project applicants have agreed to implement, additional mitigation measures, such as, among others, MM AIR-1g that requires all on- site off-road equipment and on-road equipment be electric powered. This equipment includes types of equipment the commenter mentions, such as forklifts. Furthermore, as described in Section 3.14 Transportation, the Draft EIR includes MM TRANS-1a, which requires the implementation of TDM measures to reduce operational vehicle trips. The first such measure requires future tenants to communicate information and strategies to employees about reducing vehicle trips. MM TRANS-1a also includes the encouragement of telecommuting for administrative staff, as well as the provision of designated parking spaces for carpool vehicles, a transit stop along the project frontage with Grant Line Road, bicycle lanes and sidewalks along the project frontages, and on-site bicycle racks City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-137
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 showers for employees to use. MM TRANS-1a already includes measures that the commenter requests, such as incentivizing carpools.

As described in Section 3.3 Air Quality, the Draft EIR includes MM AIR-1d, which requires the use of a clean truck fleet that meets the ARB’s adopted 2013 Optional Low-NOX Standard of 0.02 gram of nitrogen oxide (NOX) per brake horsepower-hour for all heavy-duty trucks during operation of the proposed project. Moreover, existing regulations already govern idling restrictions for heavy-duty vehicles. For example, the ARB On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program would require heavy-duty truck owners to limit idling to five minutes. In addition, the new ARB Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations Resolution 22-12 would require new gasoline powered cars purchased in the State to be zero-emission, which would lead to future tenants’ vehicle fleets containing some zero-emission vehicles. See also Response to AENV-3 regarding the commenter’s proposed net-zero emissions requirement. Therefore, the Draft EIR includes many of the mitigation measures the author is calling for and provides the most feasible and applicable mitigation. In addition, the City has agreed to adopt, and the project applicants have agreed to implement, additional mitigation measures that would further reduce emissions in this regard. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to AENV-16
This comment suggests mitigation that limits the amount of construction that could occur at one time to just one phase of the project to limit air quality emission impacts.

As described in Section 3.4, Air Quality, the analysis presents a reasonable worst-case scenario where all development occurs concurrently and overlaps; this is consistent with the project description and related project objectives, and is particularly necessary and relevant here given there are three different property owners/applicants, each of which would develop its respective specific individual development proposal with timing based on numerous considerations. Restricting other property owners from developing their respective portions of the project site in the manner suggested by the commenter would not be feasible, practically, economically or legally.

Response to AENV-17
This comment opines that the impact conclusions in Impact AG-1 and Impact AG-2 are inconsistent and then states that the proposed project would have significant impacts related to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract (Impact AG-2).

Impacts related to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract were thoroughly analyzed in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, Impact AG-2. See Response to AENV-18.

No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Response to AENV-18
This comment claims the proposed project would violate the Williamson Act Contract and would therefore result in significant and unavoidable impacts. This is based on the assertion that although the Notice of Nonrenewal of Suvik Farm parcels’ Williamson Act Contract was initiated in 2017, since the contract term automatically renews annually, the actual term is essentially indefinite. The comment then states that even if the contract expires in 2026, the Suvik Farm parcels would be developed by 2024, before contract expiration, which would violate the Williamson Act Contract.

Lastly, the comment states that requesting to cancel the Williamson Act Contract would be City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-138 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 inconsistent with the Williamson Act if the “objectives to be served by cancellation should have been predicted and served by nonrenewal at an earlier time.” The Draft EIR’s analysis of impacts to agricultural resources, including any potential conflicts with Williamson Act Contracts, is discussed at length in Section 3.2 and the Draft EIR’s modeling is accurate for purposes of this analysis. The comment cited selected texts from Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, out of context. As presented in Section 3.2, a Notice of Nonrenewal was initiated in 2017, and the contract will expire on August 21, 2026. The nonrenewal process is provided for under the enabling statute for the Williamson Act.

Section 3.2 also presents analysis that, should development of the Suvik Farms parcels be pursued prior to the Williamson Act Contract expiration date, then pursuant to applicable provisions of the Williamson Act, the applicant for the development of the Suvik Farms parcels would be required to take specific steps to cancel the contract (rather than waiting for the contract to expire as a result of the nonrenewal) to petition the City Council for cancellation consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 51282(a), or agree to the imposition of a condition of approval such that no permit for development on the Suvik Farms parcels would be issued prior to the August 21, 2026 expiration date. Accordingly, because the Suvik Farms parcels applicant would be required to follow applicable provisions of State law related to Williamson Act Contracts, the proposed project would not result in any conflicts with the Williamson Act Contract and impacts would be less than significant.

The landowners of the Suvik Farm parcels properly initiated a Notice of Nonrenewal in 2017, anticipating future development of the parcels. Because a Notice of Nonrenewal was already initiated, if the landowners need to request cancellation in advance of the contract’s expiration date (August 21, 2026), the cancellation request would be consistent with the Williamson Act.

As demonstrated thoroughly in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, the proposed project would comply with all relevant Williamson Act regulations related to nonrenewal cancellation, and impacts related to Williamson Act Contract would be less than significant. Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s conclusions were accurate and no revisions are required.

Response to AENV-19
This comment includes three mitigation strategies the commenter suggests would reduce impacts to agricultural resources: (1) modify development plans so that development of the Suvik Farm parcels would not occur until after the Williamson Act Contract expires, (2) restore the agricultural land after the lifespan of the project, and (3) limit the size of the warehouses to reduce the amount of agricultural land conversion.

Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, contains a detailed discussion of impacts and feasible mitigation, as required under CEQA. In terms of the mitigation measures suggested by the commenter:

1. As discussed in Impact AG-2 of the Draft EIR, in order for development of the Suvik Farms parcels to occur prior to the August 21, 2026, expiration date of the Williamson Act Contract, the applicant would be required to petition the City Council for cancellation, or agree to the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-139
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 imposition of a condition of approval such that no permit for development on the Suvik Farms parcels would be issued prior to the August 21, 2026, expiration date. These requirements would ensure consistency with the Williamson Act Contract and would avoid related project impacts. Satisfaction of these requirements would be assured by the applicable statutory and regulatory framework. Therefore, the suggested mitigation of modifying development plans to delay development of the Suvik Farms parcels is not necessary and would not clearly result in a lessening of significant impacts.

2. Regarding the suggestion that agricultural use of the land be required to be restored after the lifespan of the project, as a general matter, nothing prevents this transition from occurring (at least in theory). The court in King and Gardiner Farms v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Ca.App.5th 814, 876-77, found that restoration of farmland to productive use could be mitigation; however, as suggested by the court in its discussion, such a mitigation measure is feasible when the project is temporary or has an identified lifespan. For a large industrial project such as the one at hand, which involves significant economic investment from the property owners/applicants to develop and operate substantial public and private infrastructure and improvements with no inherent lifespans, the commenter’s suggested mitigation measure is not feasible. There is no specified end date for the industrial land uses that would be approved in the requested entitlements that would provide the basis for this type of restoration measure; moreover, given the intensity of proposed urban industrial uses, an ability to restore the project site to Important Farmland appears speculative at best.

3. Reduction of the proposed development in order to reduce agriculture impacts was analyzed as one of the project alternatives. The Draft EIR provided two alternatives (aside from the No Project Alternative) that would meet at least some of the basic objectives of the proposed project while lessening impacts to agricultural land conversion, including 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 15126I(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 meet the project objectives to the same extent of the proposed project; e.g., it would not achieve the project objective of improving local and regional employment opportunities by taking advantage of the project site’s high level of accessibility to the same degree as the proposed project. Nor would this alternative allow for the expansion of the City’s economic base and help improve the jobs/housing balance to the same degree. (The proposed project quantifiably achieves the City’s project objectives by developing a maximum of 3,352,210 square feet of employment- generating industrial uses.) This alternative 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 or reduce the commute for regional residents.

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

3-140 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 Prior to approving the proposed project, the City, as the Lead Agency, would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration explaining its reasoning to approve the proposed project.

Response to AENV-20
This comment claims that the Draft EIR did not analyze a range of reasonable alternatives.

See Response to GSEJA-27.

Response to AENV-21
This comment states the Draft EIR should include an alternative with the aim of preserving the on- site cattail marsh.

Impacts related to riparian habitat were thoroughly analyzed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Impacts to potentially jurisdictional features were found to be less than significant with the implementation of MM BIO-3 (Conduct Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources [Channels and Wetlands]). Therefore, it is not necessary to analyze a project alternative that would reduce such impacts. See also Response to GSEJA-27.

This comment claims that the Draft EIR only analyzed one project alternative (aside from the No Project Alternative) that would reduce agricultural land impacts. The comment claims that the Draft EIR found the Outside Storage Allowable Use to be infeasible without providing justification.

The Draft EIR provided two alternatives (aside from the No Project Alternative) that meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed project while lessening impacts to agricultural land conversion, including the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative and the Agricultural Protection Alternative.

It should be noted that both alternatives include a reduction in building footprint. Contrary to the commenter’s claims, the Draft EIR fully analyzed the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative and determined it to be 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.

As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative would have a lower level of impacts for aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. Overall, the impacts would be reduced due to a smaller square footage of the buildings and the reduced number of employees. However, the proposed project’s mitigation measures would still be required under this alternative. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet quantitative objectives for employment-generating industrial uses, and would also not meet the other project objectives at all and/or to the same degree as the proposed project, and would therefore not meet the project objectives related to employment opportunities.

Therefore, the Draft EIR evaluated a reasonable range of project alternatives that would reduce agricultural impacts. Even then, impacts to agricultural land conversion are still found to be significant and unavoidable.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-141
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 See also Response to GSEJA-27.

Response to AENV-22
This comment claims that the Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the author’s finding of a significant GHG impact and mitigated as such. The commenter provides closing statements.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. Because no project-specific CEQA issues were raised, no further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 February 22, 2023
Tracy City Council
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, California
Via e-mail
Re: Additional Comments on Tracy Alliance warehouse project and Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Tracy City Council:

The Sierra Club submitted extensive comments on the Tracy Alliance warehouse project and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) in our letter of February 9, 2023.

Since then, we have met with a representative of the Tracy Alliance Group (Dermody Properties) and have upcoming meetings with individual members of the Tracy City Council.

We also expect to meet with Mike Souza who is representing the Suvik Farms parcels, which are approximately 47 acres of the total 191 acres of the proposed annexation project (see attached exhibit).

We are attempting to negotiate a successful outcome so that this project can move forward without our strong objections and possible litigation.

We have heard that this item is scheduled for the March 7 Tracy City Council meeting.

We respectfully request that the hearing be opened and testimony taken but that the matter be continued for one month so that we can continue our negotiations with the applicants and with the City.

New Concerns about the Final EIR and Future Approvals for Unknown Building on the Suvik and Zuriakat Parcels: Will There be Further CEQA Analysis and Public Hearings? After we have more closely studied the Final EIR we have discovered the following major issues regarding future approvals of the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels.

The Final EIR studies the impacts due to development of the Tracy Alliance parcels (122 acres).in detail. The Tracy Alliance Group has provided conceptual site designs and SIERRA-1

1 2
2 infrastructure plans of three separate buildings. The applicant has also shared with us plans of truck circulation improvements at the main driveway and Grant Line Road, ensuring that trucks entering and exiting that portion of the site are prohibited from turning left (eastward) onto Grant Line Road, which is a major issue for the Banta community. The applicant is considering whether to agree with our specific additional measures and conditions, summarized below and in our previous letter.

However, a major shortcoming of his Final EIR is that there is NO similar project description information for the 69 acres known as the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels, which make up roughly 45% of the assumed development potential of the entire annexation area The Final EIR contains NO discussion of how this FEIR is to be used in assessing impacts and leading to approvals for future buildings on these parcels. This future analysis and recommended detailed mitigation measures are key since the Suvik parcel is closer to the main Banta community (and Banta Elementary School) than the Tracy Alliance parcels.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows for the preparation of “program”-level and “project”–level impact reports (see Sections 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines). However, a document that is being approved as a “program” level assessment (or a hybrid EIR that is being prepared as a “program” level analysis for part of the project and a “project” level document for another part) must clearly specify and describe this in the project description.

This Final EIR contains no such discussion and so we and the residents of Banta are left with the following question:

Will the City Council require the applicants for the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels to submit detailed development plans to the community that will be subject to CEQA review, e.g. a project level EIR, followed by public hearings scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council? Or will the City Council allow city staff to administratively approve site and building plans with no further environmental review and public hearings?
To clarify this issue, we request that the following condition of approval be added to any approval for the annexation project:

The applicants for future development of the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels shall be required to submit detailed development plans to the community that will be subject to CEQA review, e.g. a project level EIR, followed by public hearings scheduled before the Planning Commission and City Council
The Final EIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project’s Air Quality Impacts Air pollution from significant activities in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin includes a variety of industrial-based sources as well as on- and off-road mobile sources. These sources, coupled with geographical and meteorological conditions unique to the area, stimulate the formation of SIERRA-1

2 CONT
3 3
unhealthy air. San Joaquin County is in non-attainment of Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 State air quality standards. Breathing in particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and ground-level ozone can trigger a variety of health problems. Heavy-duty trucks are key sources of diesel pollution and toxic air contaminants (TACs) and are therefore a focus of air quality impacts. Diesel trucks emit large volumes of particulate matter (a.k.a. diesel particulate matter, or DPM), therefore contributing to health problems that include cardiovascular problems, cancer, asthma, decreased lung function and capacity, reproductive health problems, and premature death.1 The public health risks associated with these pollutants are severe. As the Draft EIR for the pending Costco warehouse project states:

The reactivity of O3 causes health problems because it damages lung tissue, reduces lung function and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants. Scientific evidence indicates that ambient levels of O3 not only affect people with impaired respiratory systems, such as asthmatics, but healthy adults and children as well. Exposure to O3 for several hours at relatively low concentrations has been found to significantly reduce lung function and induce respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people during exercise. This decrease in lung function generally is accompanied by symptoms including chest pain, coughing, sneezing and pulmonary congestion. (Costco DEIR page 3.3-4) Also from the Costco warehouse Draft EIR:

Some studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs listed above. A 10- year research program demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. In addition to increasing the risk of lung cancer, exposure to diesel exhaust can have other health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of fine particulate pollution as well, and studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Costco DEIR page 3.3-22)
Given these existing air quality problems and severe public health consequences, the City needs to do everything in its power to ensure new development does not exacerbate the problem. Unfortunately, the DEIR does not adequately analyze or mitigate this project’s impacts.
1 Storing Harm: the Health and Community Impacts of Goods Movement Warehousing and Logistics, January 2012, available at: https://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Storing-Harm.pdf; accessed June 2, 2021.

SIERRA-1

3 CONT
4 The Final EIR’s evaluation of potential mitigation measures is deeply flawed. CEQA requires that (1) a project’s significant impacts be fully disclosed in detail, (2) mitigation be fully enforceable and not improperly deferred, (3) the City adopt all feasible mitigation to mitigate a project’s impacts, and (4) the Final EIR provide for an adequate mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Here, Tracy’s General Plan provides sound guidance as well: Developments that significantly impact air quality shall only be approved if all feasible mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or offset the impact are implemented.” (General Plan Policy AQ-1.2-P14). And to confirm conformity with the Air District’s Air Quality Attainment Plan, the California Air Resources Board requires that any new project “contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures.”
Summary of Our Requested Additional Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval As we noted in our previous letter, we are requesting that the Council not approve this large warehouse project unless the following specific air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, project setback, circulation, and other measures are included in the project’s conditions of approval.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires lead agencies to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts of a development project, even if the environmental analysis finds that the impacts are “significant and unavoidable.” These conditions have been recommended by the State Attorney General as well as other State agencies such as the California Air Resources Board:
• construct sufficient solar panels on each building to provide power for the project, to be completed prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for the building • utilize a "clean fleet" of light vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 6) as part of business operations for all buildings
• The property owners/tenants/lessees shall ensure that all heavy-duty trucks (Class 7 and 8) domiciled on the project site are model year 2014 or later from start of operations and shall expedite a transition to zero-emission vehicles, with the fleet fully zero-emission by December 31, 2025 or when commercially available for the intended application, whichever date is later.
• At all times during project operation, owners, operators or tenants shall be required to provide electric charging facilities on the project site sufficient to charge all electric trucks domiciled on the site and such facilities shall be made available for all electric trucks that use the project site.
• design the project to include a setback of at least 1,000 feet from the nearest homes • provide a community benefits fund to assist Banta residents and the Banta elementary school in upgrading air ventilation systems
SIERRA-1

4 5
6 5
• provide funding to install large signs along Grant Line Road in multiple locations that state trucks are prohibited on the road east of the project site, and design all phases of the project to prohibit left turns on to Grant Line Road In our December 6 letter we attached the executed Settlement Agreement between the Sierra Club, the City of Stockton, and Greenlaw Development, LLC (developer of the 203-acre Mariposa Industrial Park in the South Stockton area which will be occupied by Walmart).

In addition, the State Attorney General (AG) signed a separate Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Stockton and the developer which includes the same measures that were included in the Sierra Club settlement.

We have also recently commented to the City on the pending Costco warehouse project and DEIR. We incorporate by reference our two letters on the Costco project and DEIR, as they are very germane and applicable to this Tracy Alliance project and FEIR.

We also incorporate by reference the comments submitted on the Tracy Alliance Draft EIR by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

Th City Must Require Setbacks from the Nearest Residences for All Phases of the Project The issue of requiring adequate mitigation for local distribution warehouse projects has recently come to the attention of the State Attorney General’s Office (AG). The office has recently published a very helpful guide, updated in 2022, called “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act” (Attachment B to this letter).

The Guidelines recommend the following regarding setbacks between planned warehouse projects and the nearest “sensitive receptors” (defined by the State as collections of residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, hospitals, retirement homes, senior centers, and other sensitive land uses):

Examples of best practices when siting and designing warehouse facilities include:

Per California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance, siting warehouse facilities so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the nearest sensitive receptor (footnote) (pages 5-6 of the Guidelines, emphasis added) The footnote to this guidance cites the CARB documents and states:

CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005), at ES-1. CARB staff has released draft updates to this siting and design guidance which suggests a greater distance may be warranted in some scenarios. CARB, Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook (December 2019), available at SIERRA-1

6 CONT
7 8
6 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/2019.12.12%20- %20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf (last accessed September 18, 2022).

The Tracy Alliance Final EIR notes on page 3.3-42 that the closest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences and Banta Elementary School. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are located at the following distances:
• Residences as close as 145 feet west of the project site across Paradise Road; • Residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the east along Grant Line Road; • Residences as close as 120 feet south of the project site across Grant Line Road; • Residences as close as 60 feet north of the project site across California Avenue; and • Banta Elementary School approximately 1,500 feet to the east at its closest outside area.

The Final EIR must include the following mitigation measure, which is available and feasible:

The site plans for all phases of the project shall ensure a minimum setback from the nearest residence of at least 1,000 feet. The setback area shall be landscaped with an earthen berm and mature trees and shrubs
Adopt a Warehouse Ordinance
In addition to the above measures, the Sierra Club is requesting that the City of Tracy draft and consider a comprehensive Warehouse Sustainability Ordinance for future projects that establishes development standards for the construction of industrial warehousing and distribution facilities that exceed 100,000 square feet before December 31, 2023. The City of Stockton has agreed to this timeline.

Conclusion
We are formally requesting that the above mitigation measures be included as part of the Tracy Alliance project approval.

As we noted in our previous letter, the Sierra Club will continue to monitor and comment on every proposed warehouse project in the City of Tracy (as well as in the Cities of Manteca, Lathrop, Stockton, and San Joaquin County). If future projects fail to incorporate the measures as recommended by the Attorney General and CARB, the Sierra Club will consider litigation to enforce inclusion of these measures in project approvals.

The City of Tracy, along with the other jurisdictions in San Joaquin County, must address the very serious health, air pollution, and energy impacts of the rapidly growing distribution SIERRA-1

8 CONT
9 10
11 12
7 warehouse development in our communities. Applicants must do all that is possible to minimize the very real environmental impacts that warehouse development projects pose.

We are available to meet with your staff and applicants at any time to further discuss the programs that may be implemented to achieve our mutual goals.

If you have any questions about these comments, you may contact Eric Parfrey at [email protected] or (209) 641-3380.

Sincerely,
s/s Margo Praus, Chair
Delta-Sierra Group, Sierra Club
cc: Scott Lichtig, California Attorney General’s Office Stanley Armstrong, California Air Resources Board
Patia Siong and Harout Sagherian, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Heather Minner and Winter King, Shute, Mihaly, Weinberger Aaron Isherwood and Harrison Beck, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program Manteca City Council
Lathrop City Council
Dermody Properties
Mike Souza
Attachment A: Tracy Alliance exhibit
Attachment B: Attorney General’s report “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act” SIERRA-1

12 CONT

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-151
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 Sierra Club (SIERRA-1)
Response to SIERRA-1-1
The commenter references a separate comment letter on the proposed project and Final EIR, dated February 9, 2023. The commenter noted a meeting with one of applicant teams (Dermody) had already occurred, referenced upcoming meetings with individual Council Members and a representative from another applicant team (Suvik), and requested that the hearing be opened and testimony be taken but the matter be continued for 1 month.

The comment is noted and acknowledged. CEQA comments raised in the referenced February 9 letter are addressed in Responses to SIERRA-2-1 through Responses to SIERRA-2-11, below.

This comment does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, and therefore no further response is required. For informational purposes, it is noted that the proposed project is scheduled for consideration by the City Council at its hearing on April 4, 2023.

Response to SIERRA-1-2
The commenter claims that the proposed project’s Final EIR does not contain discussion of how the EIR is to be used in assessing impacts and leading to approvals for future buildings on the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels because there is no “conceptual site plan and infrastructure plans” that are specific to the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels, unlike the Tracy Alliance parcels. In addition, the commenter refers to CEQA requirements related to EIRs that involve program-level and project-level review, and requests “future analysis and recommended detailed mitigation measures” (particularly given the proximity of the Suvik parcels to the Banta community). The commenter requests that a condition of approval be added to require CEQA review for the individual development proposal on the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels to ensure these parcels submit detailed development plans that will be subject to CEQA review.

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the commenter concedes that the “Final EIR studies the impacts due to development of the Tracy Alliance parcels (122 acres)… in detail.” However, the commenter takes issue with the fact that unlike the Tracy Alliance portion of the proposed project, which included a description of a conceptual site plan and related features, the Draft EIR does not include a similarly detailed project description for the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the assumed development parameters, the basis for those assumptions, and the related impact conclusions for these portions of the proposed project were discussed in detail through the Draft EIR.

The methodology, approach to analysis, and process of evaluating the potential impacts of future development on the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels were thoroughly discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of the Draft EIR.

Specifically, Chapter 1.2, Environmental Review Process, of the Draft EIR states:

This Draft EIR provides a project-level analysis for the proposed project. For the purposes of analysis in this Draft EIR, because the applicant for the Tracy Alliance parcels has submitted an individual development proposal for these parcels, this City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-152 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 Draft EIR evaluates, as required under CEQA, the specific aspects of that proposal.

With respect to the remaining portions of the project site, individual development proposals have not yet been submitted. Accordingly, this Draft EIR evaluates at a project-level full buildout of the project site as contemplated under the proposed project, based on information that is reasonably available and reflects reasonable assumptions of maximum development potential that could occur on the remaining parcels (Suvik Farms and Zuriakat). This is estimated to consist of up to 1,502,820 square feet of warehouse and distribution development, consistent with the maximum allowable density per acre identified in the NEI Specific Plan (see Table 2-2 in the Project Description for a summary of the proposed development). The level of analysis for Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels reflects the level of detail available at the time of preparation of this Draft EIR. The environmental impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in the Draft EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146.

Therefore, impacts from future development of Suvik and Zuriakat parcels in accordance with all applicable City development standards and design guidelines are appropriately analyzed and disclosed throughout the Draft EIR and Final EIR, based on the best information available at this time. Future development of Suvik and Zuriakat parcels would be subject to all mitigation measures identified in the MMRP , except certain measures that expressly apply only to the Tracy Alliance parcels as noted in the MMRP . All mitigation measures would be imposed as enforceable conditions of approval on all individual specific development proposals for the proposed project that are submitted to the City, including those for the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels. All parcels within the project site would be required to submit and obtain approval of site-specific applications pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code and the City’s standard entitlement process, including Development Review, which is a discretionary process, including a public hearing before the appropriate decision maker and subject to appeal. Therefore, at such time as the owners of the Suvik and/or Zuriakat parcels apply to the City for Development Review Permits (as they must before any development can occur on those parcels), the City would evaluate those application(s) and determine, in accordance with all applicable CEQA requirements, the required form of CEQA compliance, as it does with all Development Review Permit applications.

Other procedural requirements related to the City’s Development Review Permit process (as well as other potential subsequent approvals) are set forth in detail in the City’s Municipal Code and other applicable laws and regulations. All future individual development proposals for the proposed project, including those for the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels, would be required to adhere to these and all other applicable legal mandates in connection with the subsequent entitlement process.

Based on the foregoing, and further because only legislative approvals (i.e., prezoning, NEI Specific Plan Amendment) are currently being considered, there is no basis for imposing the condition of approval requested by the commenter.

No further response is required.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-153
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 SIERRA-1-3
The commenter states that significant sources of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin include industrial type land uses which operate with on- and off-road mobile vehicles. The commenter lists the pollutants in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin that are in nonattainment and states that the primary source of TACs are from the operation of heavy-duty trucks because they emit a large volume of DPM. The commenter lists the health risks from DPM emissions and cites a Draft EIR for a Costco development. The commenter states that the City should prevent further health risks due to new development and that the Draft EIR does not properly analyze or mitigate the entire project impacts.

The commenter summarizes information regarding the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, as well as noting generally the sources of air pollution and impacts related thereto, including health concerns related to heavy-duty diesel trucks.

The commenter also cited conclusions from a draft environmental impact report for an unrelated Costco development regarding public health risks associated with air pollution. The commenter then goes on to assert that, given the foregoing, the City “needs to do everything in its power to ensure new development does not exacerbate the problem” and claims that the Draft EIR for the proposed project does not adequately analyze or mitigate its impacts. However, the commenter does not provide any specific comments related to the analysis or specific mitigation measures in the Draft EIR and Final EIR for the proposed project.

CEQA requirements make clear that comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a)). Reviewers and commenters should explain the basis for their comments and provide data, references, or other evidence to support their comments. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c)).

CEQA requires that the Final EIR address comments submitted during the 45-day public comment period that raise significant environmental issues on the adequacy of the Draft EIR (PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). CEQA considerations are limited to significant issues as these relate to potential physical impacts of the project on the environment.

A good faith effort at full disclosure to facilitate informed decision making is the primary focus of CEQA. Thus, the lead agency must evaluate comments on the Draft EIR and prepare written responses for inclusion in the Final EIR. (See PRC § 21091(d); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(a) and 15132). The written responses must describe the disposition of any “significant environmental issues” raised by commenters. (See PRC § 21091(d)(2)(B); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(c) and 15132(d), 15204(a)). There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. While conclusory statements by the lead agency unsupported by factual information will not suffice, the level of detail in the response may correspond to the level of detail in the comment. A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). Also, CEQA does not require that the lead agency respond to every comment submitted to it. The lead agency generally has considerable leeway regarding responses to comments, and City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-154 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 need not respond to comments that do not raise a significant environmental issue. 12 The lead agency also need not respond to general reference materials submitted in support of comments, comments that repeat those already considered, or comments that are clearly irrelevant, and has the discretion to reject comments that are not focused as provided by the CEQA Guidelines. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15204(e)). Responses to comments need not be exhaustive; they need only to demonstrate a good faith, reasoned analysis. (See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15088(c)). As noted above, the commenter’s assertions about air quality in the San Joaquin Valley, its comments regarding the environmental review for the unrelated Costco project, and its generalized assertion that the proposed project may pose similar air quality concerns, are not addressed to any specific aspects of the Draft EIR for this project, or otherwise identify any flaws or defects in the Draft EIR for this project. Because no specific issues cognizable under CEQA are raised, no further response is required.

Nonetheless, for informational purposes, the following is noted. As described in this Final EIR Response to Comments (including, without limitation, Responses to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [Valley Air District-2] and Responses to GSEJA) as well as the Errata, the Draft EIR for the proposed project robustly evaluated all potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts and identified feasible mitigation where necessary. Specifically with respect to potential health risks, the proposed project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of TACs was fully analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible under Impact AIR-3 in the Draft EIR. See, also, Response to SIERRA-1-4 and Response to SIERRA-1-5, below, for more details addressing the adequacy of the air quality analysis prepared for the proposed project. The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the proposed project (1) incorporate a robust regulatory framework (including citing relevant General Plan policies as well as guidance from ARB and the Valley Air District) and set forth a thoughtful consistency analysis related thereto; (2) fully disclose all significant impacts; (3) identify all feasible mitigation measures to mitigate, avoid or reduce the identified significant impacts; and (4) include a summary of all such measures that will be incorporated into a MMRP that will be adopted by the City Council in connection with its certification of the EIR and thereafter imposed as enforceable conditions of approval.

Response to SIERRA-1-4
The commenter claims that the EIR did not adequately evaluate the potential mitigation measures and lists the CEQA requirements that all mitigation measures must meet. The commenter reiterates the Tracy General Plan Policy AQ-1.2-P14, which requires new development only be approved if they include feasible mitigation measures.

See Response to SIERRA-1-3, above.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. As described in the Response to Comments and Errata of this Final EIR, the Draft EIR for the proposed project robustly evaluated and disclosed all potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts and identified feasible mitigation consistent with CEQA requirements, where necessary; specifically, the Draft EIR considered air quality and GHG impacts in Chapters 3-3 and 3-8, which detail all the potential project impacts, the resulting

12 See Citizens for E. Shore Parks v. State Lands Comm’n (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 549.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-155
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 mitigation measures, and how those measures would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The Draft EIR discloses that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the following topics: Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan, Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of ROGs and CO During Construction, and Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of ROG and NOX During Operation, Exposing Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations, and Cumulative Air Impacts. In addition, the Draft EIR determined that less than significant impacts would occur related to a substantial increase in GHG emissions and consistency with the applicable GHG Reduction Plan and policies.

With respect to potential health risks in particular, the proposed project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to elevated concentrations of TACs was fully analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible under Impact AIR-3 in the Draft EIR. See also Response to SIERRA-1-3, above, and Response to SIERRA-1-6, below, for more details addressing the adequacy of the air quality analysis prepared for the proposed project. For example, as further described in Response to GSEJA-31, the Draft EIR and Final EIR considered additional potential mitigation measures when the analysis was prepared; however, the suggested potential measures that were not adopted were determined to be either infeasible, unenforceable, not considerably different compared to measures already required, or would not reduce the impact being mitigated.

Response to SIERRA-1-5
The commenter requests the City Council not approve the proposed project unless the commenter’s specific listed mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval. The commenter then states the CEQA requirement for all lead agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures that reduce impacts of a development.

For the reasons set forth in Chapters 3-3 and 3-8 and as further described in the Final EIR Response to Comments and Errata (including, without limitation, Responses to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [Valley Air District-2] and Responses to GSEJA), the EIR for the proposed project evaluated and disclosed all potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts as required under CEQA.

In addition, feasible mitigation was identified, which would be imposed on the proposed project as enforceable conditions of approval and implemented prior to issuance of applicable permits as detailed in the MMRP (which would be adopted in connection with the City Council’s certification of the EIR). In addition, see Response to SIERRA-1-4 above, and Response to SIERRA-1-6, below.

Response to SIERRA-1-6
The commenter urges the lead agency to adopt a list of recommended mitigation measures that the commenter suggests are feasible and would reduce impacts of the proposed project. Some of the recommended measures are based on measures recommended by the State Attorney General and/or other State Agencies to reduce Air Quality and GHG impacts.

For the reasons set forth herein, CEQA does not require the imposition of additional mitigation beyond those measures already identified therein. Therefore, no further response is necessary.

However, for informational purposes the following is noted. As detailed more fully below, with respect to certain measures proposed by the commenter, the project applicants had already City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-156 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 previously agreed to incorporate measures that are substantially similar to several of those suggested by the commenter.

Furthermore, although not required to do so, the project applicants have voluntarily agreed to accept certain of the additional measures, as detailed further below.

A response to each suggested mitigation measure is provided below.

Suggested Mitigation Measure No. 1: Construct sufficient solar panels on each building to provide power for the proposed project, to be completed prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for the building.

Response: This Final EIR addresses the topic of solar panels on each building as part of the response to GSEJA-31 and Valley Air District 2-12. As described therein, the California Building Standards Code (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 making progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the production of solar energy. Furthermore, the use of solar panels would not reduce air pollutant emissions on- site, because energy source emissions described 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 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, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Sections 3.3 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR as well as this Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Sug
gested Mitigation Measure No. 2: Utilize a "clean fleet" of light vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 6) as part of business operations for all buildings.

Response: The suggested mitigation measure is similar to recommended measures identified in the Draft EIR as well as the Final EIR. Moreover, the commenter’s suggestion that the project applicant provide clean fleet vehicles for all light and medium-duty vehicles would be infeasible. Among other reasons, first, the vast majority of light-duty passenger vehicles would be owned and operated by employees of future tenants/users, all of whom are private citizens. As such, neither the project applicants nor the City would be able to mandate or acquire clean fleet vehicles for employees. Other light vehicles/delivery vans/trucks that would access the project site during operations are anticipated to be from third-party vendors. Because it is not anticipated that future tenants occupying the proposed project would own these vehicles, neither the future tenants nor the City would have control over the vehicles accessing the project site and thus neither would have the ability to enforce any such obligation during the life of the proposed project. Rather, the emissions resulting from the vehicles accessing the project site would largely be influenced by regulations (current and future) that would apply to vehicle manufacturers. As described in Response to GSEJA-31, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-157
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 given the volume of medium-duty vehicles that would be involved as part of the tenants’ business operations, practical limitations on the owner’s ability to control and enforce such an obligation, along with the current cost and availability of electric vehicles, the suggested mitigation is not feasible. Moreover, the project applicants would be required to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure throughout all parking areas as part of MM AIR-1i, which would improve charging infrastructure in the City and help facilitate the transition to electric vehicles. Furthermore, the suggested measure cannot be enforced in a way that would ensure a reduction to potential health impacts. Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Sections 3.3 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR as well as this Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Suggested Mitigation Measure No. 3: The property owners/tenants/lessees shall ensure that all heavy-duty trucks (Class 7 and 8) domiciled on the project site are model year 2014 or later from start of operations and shall expedite a transition to zero-emission vehicles, with the fleet fully zero- emission by December 31, 2025, or when commercially available for the intended application, whichever date is later.

Response: This Final EIR has explained in detail how the proposed project would include a clean truck fleet during operations to the maximum extent feasible and would satisfy this request. The proposed project would already be required to demonstrate compliance with MM AIR-1d, which requires as a condition of issuance of occupancy permit that applicants of each subsequent property document the use of a clean truck fleet that meets the California ARB adopted 2013 Optional Low-NO
X standard of 0.02 gram of NOX per brake horsepower for all heavy-duty trucks during operation to the maximum extent feasible. Moreover, MM AIR-1i would require the proposed project include EV charging infrastructure pursuant to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2 in all parking areas during operation. Therefore, all development as part of the proposed project would be conditioned to demonstrate a clean truck fleet would be operational to the maximum extent feasible when the subject project operations begin. The suggested mitigation measure requiring that the property owners/tenants/lessees ensure that all heavy-duty trucks (Class 7and 8) domiciled on the project site are model year 2014 or later from start of operations is not feasible, given that neither the project applicants nor the City could effectively impose and enforce such an obligation for the life of the proposed project.

Furthermore, the suggested measure of utilizing, to the maximum extent feasible, a clean truck fleet is already included as MM AIR-1d, and providing a fully zero-emission truck fleet by December 31, 2025 is not feasible given the current cost and availability of such vehicles.

Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Sections 3.3 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR as well as the Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Suggested Mitigation Measure No. 4: At all times during project operation, owners, operators, or tenants shall be required to provide electric charging facilities on the project site sufficient to charge all electric trucks domiciled on the site and such facilities shall be made available for all electric trucks that use the project site.

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

3-158 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: The proposed project would be required to comply with MM AIR-1i, which would require the inclusion of EV charging infrastructure pursuant to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2, in all parking areas during operation. Therefore, the proposed project would provide EV charging infrastructure that would support passenger vehicles and the future use of electric trucks.

Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Sections 3.3 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR as well as the Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Suggested Mitigation Measure No. 5: Design the proposed project to include a setback of at least 1,000 feet from the nearest homes.

Response: The ARB's general recommendation of a 1,000-foot setback is not a legal mandate that would prohibit all new warehouse developments from operating within 1,000 feet of existing receptors. Rather, this suggested setback is merely a general, non-binding guideline.

Moreover, to the extent the commenter construes this recommendation as a mandate, the language of the ARB guidance demonstrates this is not the case. Rather, the referenced ARB guidelines also provide that for new warehouses meeting certain criteria that operate within 1,000 feet of new receptors, ARB recommends that a site-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) be prepared to fully analyze a project’s anticipated health risk impacts. As described in the “Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook,” prepared by the ARB, “Transition zone recommendations. . . should not be used as a substitute for site-specific assessments of emissions and health impacts for proposed freight facilities, including those analyses required or recommended as part of federal or State environmental review processes.” Consistent with ARB’s guidance, the Draft EIR included the preparation of a robust, site- specific HRA that fully evaluated the proposed project’s estimated health risk impacts on nearby residences and other sensitive receptors and included recommended feasible mitigation. Additionally, the primary source of TACs during operation would be from truck idling and parking activity occurring in the parking areas of the project site. As such, the main source of project TACs would be near docking doors, loading areas, and parking areas where trucks would idle and stop and start engines— not at the boundaries of the project site nearest existing sensitive receptors. As described in the “Concept Paper for the Freight Handbook,” prepared by the ARB, physical space or transition zones are implemented to separate sensitive receptors from new freight facilities because creating distance from an emissions source can reduce health risks. The proposed project design would include drainage basins in the northern portion of the project site such that project truck operations would not occur directly adjacent to existing sensitive receptors. Further, the City would review and approve the detailed site plans associated with each individual specific development proposal for the proposed project before any development occurs to confirm compliance with all applicable requirements and standards. Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Sections 3.3 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR as well as the Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Suggested Mitigation Measure No. 6: Provide a community benefits fund to assist Banta residents and the Banta Elementary School in upgrading air ventilation systems.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-159
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: The City does not have the legal authority to impose an obligation for the project applicants to provide funds as suggested by the commenter because, among other reasons, there is no legal nexus of this measure to any identified impacts of the proposed project. See Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR as well as this Final EIR for additional detail in this regard.

Moreover, the operations of private homes in the Banta community are not under the purview of the owners or operators of the proposed project; thus, there would be no mechanism available to ensure that any such funding would be utilized to install and maintain air filtration systems at sensitive receptor locations within the Banta community. In addition, the suggested measure raises significant implementation issues; e.g., it does not identify which Banta residents would receive such funding, how much would be provided to each recipient, and how such air filtration systems (which heavily rely on continued maintenance and replacing filters) would be effectively maintained. Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Sections 3.3 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR as well as this Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Suggested Mitigation Measure No. 7: Provide funding to install large signs along Grant Line Road in multiple locations that state trucks are prohibited on the road east of the project site, and design all phases of the proposed project to prohibit left turns on to Grant Line Road.

Response: Although not required as mitigation for any impact, the City has agreed to adopt a
nd the project applicants have agreed to expand the requirements in MM AIR-1e to include the suggested measure. The updated MM AIR-1e is provided below (with changes reflected in in underline), in Section 4, Errata, and is also included in the updated MMRP .

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, as documented in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR and this Final EIR, this suggested measure is not required under CEQA. Nevertheless, the City has agreed to adopt and the project applicants have voluntarily accepted the inclusion of this mitigation measure; therefore, recirculation is not required.

MM AIR-1e Operational Truck Fleet Routing
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development pro
posal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that trucks used during project operation for the subject individual development proposal will be prohibited from accessing Grant Line Road east of the project site, such as plans illustrating intended truck routes. Additionally:

A. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Tracy Engineering Department plans or designs that show where the project’s private drive intersects with Grant Line Road, the applicant shall use a City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-160 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 combination of raised concreate medians (or islands) and/or bollards to prevent trucks from entering the left turn pocket. Truck drivers shall be directed into a dedicated right turn lane onto Grant Line Road. Signage and roadway stripping within the project will also direct drivers to the appropriate lanes as they approach the intersection. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tracy Engineering Department.

B. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit for the first building, the Phase I Developer shall demonstrate to the City of Tracy Public Works Department that the development shall include new signage warning truck drivers that truck travel through the Community of Banta is not permitted and a fineable offense shall be placed along Grant Line Road. Specifically, two signs shall be placed on the north and south sides of Grant Line Road near its intersection with the project’s private drive and visible to east bound traffic. The exact locations, design and text of the signs shall be approved by the City of Tracy Public Works department.

All trucks used during project operation shall use routes that circumvent the use of Grant Line Road east of the project site.

As revised, MM AIR-1e would prohibit trucks from accessing Grant Line Road east of the project site by requiring installation of raised concrete medians and/or bollards to prevent trucks from entering the left turn pocket, and by requiring signage along Grant Line Road warning truck drivers that truck travel through the Banta community is not permitted and a fineable offense.

See also Response to SIERRA-1-3 through Response to SIERRA-1-5, above.

Response to SIERRA-1-7
The commenter states that it attached a letter to this February 23, 2023, comment letter that is the settlement agreement between the Sierra Club, City of Stockton, and Greenlaw Development, LLC, for a project that would develop a 203-acre industrial park. The commenter further elaborates that the State Attorney General signed a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Stockton and the developer that includes many of the measures listed previously. The commenter states that they have commented on other warehouse projects in the City and incorporate by reference those other letters as well as the public comment letter by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

This comment has been noted. No response needed as no new concerns raised. CEQA directs commentors to focus on specific environmental issues associated with the proposed project and the proposed project’s environmental document. To the extent this comment attempts to incorporate letters related to a separate project and unrelated environmental analysis, no further response is required as the comments are not focused on the proposed project. Contrary to the commenter ’s assertion, there is no substantial evidence in the record to document why or how comments made on an unrelated Costco project and its separate environmental review, which is being pursued by a different applicant on a different site, are “very germane and applicable” to the proposed project.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-161
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 Thus, there is no basis for “incorporating by reference” such comments; brief, generalized statements by the commenter, apparently based solely on the fact that each project proposes a warehouse-type light industrial use is not sufficient for purposes of exhausting any such issues.

Moreover, the commenter’s failure to specifically identify the purported “flaws” in the EIR for the proposed project— instead seeking to rely on a “shortcut” of generally referencing a separate proposal with a separate CEQA document— does not provide the City with an opportunity to thoughtfully respond to specific comments at hand, contrary to CEQA.

No further response is necessary.

See Response to GSEJA-1 through Response to GSEJA-37 for responses to the comment letter by the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance.

See also Response to SIERRA-1-3, above.

Response to SIERRA-1-8
The commenter refers to the published document from the State Attorney General, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, which includes measures to reduce air quality and GHG impacts. This document includes measures such as setbacks between sensitive receptors and new warehouse uses.

The comment is noted. Because it does not raise any specific CEQA comments with respect to the proposed project, no response is necessary.

For informational purposes, see also Response to SIERRA-1-3 and Response to SIERRA-1-6, above.

Response to SIERRA-1-9
The commenter restates text from the Draft EIR describing where existing sensitive receptors are located in relation to the project site.

This comment has been noted. Because it does not raise any specific CEQA comments with respect to the proposed project, no further response is required.

Response to SIERRA-1-10
The commenter requests that the Final EIR include a new mitigation measure that ensures all phases of the project provide a minimum 1,000-foot setback between the nearest residence and the proposed project that includes landscaping, earthen berms, and mature trees.

See Response to SIERRA-1-6, above, regarding the suggested mitigation of a 1,000-foot setback. See also Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR for additional information as to why the suggested mitigation is not triggered under CEQA. No further response is required.

For informational purposes, the following is noted. The proposed project would be required to include a vegetative buffer along the eastern property boundary of the project site pursuant to MM AIR-1h. This mitigation measure was requested by the San Joaquin Valley Air District (Valley Air District), and accepted by the City and the project applicants, and states the following: “Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for each individual development proposal within the project site, the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-162 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 relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall demonstrate on their site plans the inclusion of a vegetative buffer along the eastern property line of the project site adjacent to sensitive receptors. Examples of vegetative buffers may include, but are not limited to, trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix thereof.” As discussed more fully throughout this Final EIR, MM AIR-1h further addresses the concern related to the proposed project’s potential to locate sources of TACs near sensitive receptors. Furthermore, with incorporation of MM AIR-1h, the proposed project satisfies the commenter’s request that the proposed project include landscaping, earthen berms, and mature trees. Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons and as further documented in Sections

3.3 and 3.8 of the Draft EIR as well as this Final EIR, the suggested mitigation is not required under CEQA.

Response to SIERRA-1-11
The commenter requests that the City consider an ordinance for future projects that establishes development standards for the construction of industrial warehousing and distribution facilities that exceed 100,000 square feet before December 31, 2023.

The comment is noted. This comment does not raise any CEQA concerns with respect to the EIR for the proposed project, and instead involves a requested action directed to the City that is only within its land use purview. 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.

Response to SIERRA-1-12
The commenter provides conclusion statements and requests that the aforementioned suggested mitigation measures be included as part of the proposed project.

See Response to SIERRA-1-3 through Response to SIERRA-1-6, above. No further response is required.
..

Tracy City Council
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, California
Via e-mail
February 8, 2023
Re: Comments on Tracy Alliance warehouse project and Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Tracy City Council:

The Sierra Club submits the following comments on the Tracy Alliance warehouse project and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The Sierra Club also requests that notices of scheduled public hearings and availability of documents relating to all large proposed industrial development projects be sent to us. Please send digital copes of notices by e-mail to Eric Parfrey at parfrey@sbc global.net.

We are requesting that the Council not approve this large warehouse project unless the following specific air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and project setback measures are included in the project's conditions of approval:
• sufficient solar panels to provide power for the project • utilize a "clean fleet" of light vehicles/delivery vans/trucks (Class 2 through 6) as part of business operations
• adopt standards to provide 100% electrification of all heavy-duty trucks (Class 7 and 8)
domiciled on the project site by end of 2025 or when commercially available for the intended application, whichever date is later
• provide electric charging facilities on the project site sufficient to charge all electric trucks and
employee vehicles
• design the project to include a setback of at least 500 feet from the nearest homes • provide a community benefits fund to assist Banta residents and the Banta elementary school in upgrading air ventilation systems
• provide funding to install large signs along Grant Line Road in multiple locations that state trucks are prohibited on the road east of the project site, and design the project to prohibit left turns on to Grant Line Road
1 SIERRA-2

1 2
SIERRA-2

3 SIERRA-2

3 CONT
4 5
SIERRA-2

5 CONT
6 7
8 SIERRA-2

8 CONT
9 10
11 SIERRA-2

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-169
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 Sierra Club (SIERRA-2)
Response to SIERRA-2-1
The commenter provides an introduction and requests that notices of scheduled public hearings and availability of documents relating to all large proposed industrial development projects be sent to the commenter.

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

Response to SIERRA-2-2
The commenter requests the City Council not approve the proposed project unless the commenter’s specific listed mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval. The commenter then states the CEQA requirement for all lead agencies to adopt feasible mitigation measures that reduce impacts of a development. The commenter urges the lead agency to adopt a list of recommended mitigation measures that the commenter suggests are feasible and would reduce impacts of the proposed project. Some of the recommended measures are based on measures recommended by the State Attorney General and/or other State Agencies to reduce Air Quality and GHG impacts.

The issues raised herein have been thoroughly addressed in Responses to SIERRA-1-5 and -6. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-3
The commenter provides background information on increases of warehouse development in San Joaquin County and other inland areas of California, and that the commenter is actively involved in these warehouse projects. The commenter states that it attached a letter that is the settlement agreement between the Sierra Club, City of Stockton, and Greenlaw Development, LLC, for a project that would develop a 203-acre industrial park. The commenter further elaborates that the State Attorney General signed a separate MOU with the City of Stockton and the developer that includes many of the measures listed previously. And the Attorney General also negotiated a memorandum of agreement in Fontana for a warehouse project.

The issues raised herein have been thoroughly addressed in Response to SIERRA-1-7. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-4
The commenter states that CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt all feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts of a development project, even if the environmental analysis finds that the impacts are significant and unavoidable.

The issue raised herein has been thoroughly addressed in Responses to SIERRA-1-5 and -6. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-5
The commenter urges the lead agency to adopt a list of recommended mitigation measures that the commenter suggests are feasible and would reduce impacts of the proposed project. Some of the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Responses to Written Comments Final EIR

3-170 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 recommended measures are based on measures recommended by the State Attorney General and/or other State Agencies to reduce Air Quality and GHG impacts.

The issues raised herein have been thoroughly addressed in Responses to SIERRA-1-5 and SIERRA-1-

6. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-6
The commenter restates text from the Draft EIR describing where existing sensitive receptors are located in relation to the project site.

The issue raised herein has been thoroughly addressed in Response to SIERRA-1-9. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-7
The commenter requests that the Final EIR include a new mitigation measure that ensures all phases of the project provide a minimum 500-foot setback between the nearest residence and the proposed project that includes landscaping, earthen berms, and mature trees.

A similar comment which requested a more conservative, 1,000-foot setback from nearest residence is addressed in Response to SIERRA-1-10. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-8
The commenter requests analysis and mitigation measure of funding HVAC improvements for nearby homes and Banta Elementary School. The commenter also requests the project to install one open source air quality monitoring station near the project site that can be monitored in real time by Banta residents.

The comment related to funding HVAC improvements has been thoroughly addressed in Response to SIERRA-1-6. No additional response is required.

The suggested measure of installing one open source air quality monitoring station near the project site does would reduce any air quality or GHG impact, since monitoring in and of itself does not reduce emissions. Furthermore, the commenter does not provide any information on why monitoring would be beneficial to the community. Because the suggested measure would not reduce an environmental impact caused by the project, there is no legal nexus of this measure to any identified impacts of the proposed project. Therefore, the suggested mitigation is neither required under CEQA nor would it reduce any impact from the project. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-9
The commenter requests enforcement measures to prohibit truck traffic on Grant Line Road east of the project site, including signage plan, installation of cameras, siting truck entry away from residents on California Avenue, implementing physical barrier to prevent illegal truck turns, and limiting truck traffic to occur outside of school hours.

The issue raised herein has been thoroughly addressed in Response to SIERRA-1-6. No additional response is required.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-171
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 SIERRA-2-10
The commenter requests that the City consider an ordinance for future projects that establishes development standards for the construction of industrial warehousing and distribution facilities that exceed 100,000 square feet before December 31, 2023.

The issue raised herein has been thoroughly addressed in Response to SIERRA-1-11. No additional response is required.

Response to SIERRA-2-11
The commenter provides conclusion statements and requests that the aforementioned suggested mitigation measures be included as part of the proposed project. See Response to SIERRA-1-3 through Response to SIERRA-1-6. No further response is required.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
From: Genna McIntosh <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2022 6:18 PM
To: Victoria Lombardo <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on Tracy Alliance Project EIR (SCH NO. 20200805524) August 29, 2022
Victoria Lombardo, Senior Planner
CIty of Tracy Development Services
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, California 95376
Subject: Comments on Tracy Alliance Project EIR (SCH NO. 20200805524) Dear Ms. Lombardo,
During the May 25th 2022 Planning Commission meeting, I spoke about the project on the north east corner of our city, the Tracy Alliance Project. Since that meeting some things have come to my attention.

What is concerning is the lack of addressing an Environmental Justice element.

In 2016, Senate Bill 1000 signed in 2016, requires all cities and counties in California to include environmental justice goals and policies to their General Plan. https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000 SB 1000 references that in local land use planning, cities are required to update their General Plan to include an Environmental Justice element when 2 or more elements have been amended/updated which would have occurred with our land use and housing general plan element updates. https://www.cityoftracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/906/637451218789130000 When I spoke at that May 25th meeting I was unaware of how my community is considered a Disadvantaged Community on Calenviroscreen and it raises the following questions:

Where are the environmental justice elements to this EIR? Has the City reviewed and or adopted any of the AG Warehouse Project Best Practices? https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf Is the city utilizing the CalEnviroScreen to identify Disadvantaged Communities? (CalEPA’s SB 535 “Disadvantaged Communities'' Mapping Tool).

Did the public comment period reflect the OAG best practice of community engagement? https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pd As Tracy strives to build an economically, diverse, healthy and robust community the residents expect full transparency, accountability and communication to be more actively engaged. Concerned Citizens for Tracy Alliance Project, Concerned Citizens for TAP, requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to [email protected] Respectfully,
Genna McIntosh
McINTOSH-3

1 2
3 4
5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-175
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 Individual
Genna McIntosh (MCINTOSH-3)
Response to MCINTOSH-3-1
The commenter notes participation at a May 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, and notes a lack of an Environmental Justice Element.

This comment does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA and therefore no further response is required. However, for informational purposes, the following is noted.

A General Plan must include an Environmental Justice element when the local jurisdiction proposes to adopt or revise at least two elements concurrently, pursuant to SB 1000.

Since SB 1000 went into effect, the City of Tracy has updated only the Land Use Element of its General Plan. The Housing Element was updated in 2016, prior to SB 1000. Therefore, because the City has not updated more than one element concurrently since SB 1000 went into effect on January 1, 2018, the requirement to include an Environmental Justice element has not been triggered. If and to the extent such requirement is triggered in the future, the City will be required to comply with applicable law.

Response to MCINTOSH-3-2
The commenter noted a previous lack of awareness that her community (unincorporated Banta) is identified as a Disadvantaged Community on CalEnviroScreen. The commenter also noted that this raises several questions regarding inclusion of an Environmental Justice analysis in the Draft EIR, and whether the City has reviewed and/or adopted the “AG Warehouse Project Best Practices.” This comment is noted and acknowledged, but because it does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. However, for informational purposes, the following is noted.

While the Banta community may experience some existing pollution burden, the Banta community is not identified as part of an area which has different significance thresholds from those recommended by the Valley Air District. Refer to Response to GSEJA-3 and GSEJA-26 regarding Environmental Justice; see also Response to Mcintosh 3-3. Regarding the California Attorney General’s Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, the Attorney General’s letter provides examples of the AG’s position with respect to best practices for siting warehouses but does not constitute legally enforceable requirements on facility siting. The Draft EIR, Section 3.3, Air Quality, included feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential air quality impacts. Furthermore, as discussed in Response to Valley Air District-2-5, to further reduce potential health impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors, new MM AIR-1e is added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata. No further analysis or mitigation measures are required under CEQA.

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

3-176 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-3-3
The commenter raises the question whether the City is utilizing the CalEnviroScreen to identify disadvantaged communities (Cal/EPA’s SB 535 “Disadvantaged Communities” Mapping Tool).

This comment is noted and acknowledged, but because it does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. However, for informational purposes, the following is noted.

CalEnviroScreen is a general mapping tool developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to help identify California communities that are most affected by sources of pollution.

The environmental effects of the proposed project are fully evaluated in the Draft EIR, and feasible mitigation measures are identified to reduce identified significant impacts. An adjacent area (Banta) is designated by Cal/EPA as being part of a disadvantaged community for the purpose of SB 535; however, Banta is outside of the City’s SOI. The City of Tracy does not have any disadvantaged communities within its SOI. SB 535 targets disadvantaged communities in California for investment of proceeds from the State’s Cap and Trade Program to improve public health, quality of life, and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities, while also reducing pollution. The CalEnviroScreen general mapping tool was not developed for use in evaluating potential impacts under CEQA, and utilizing this tool is not required under CEQA.

The proposed project entails the development of three industrial warehouse and distribution buildings and related improvements, which would bring jobs and other economic opportunities to the local area without State assistance. The environmental effects of the proposed project are fully evaluated in the Draft EIR, and feasible mitigation measures are identified for the identified significant impacts that are within the City of Tracy’s jurisdictional authority to impose and enforce as required by CEQA. The Draft EIR provides a disclosure of localized impacts. As described in the methodology section under Section 3.3, Air Quality, the Draft EIR’s analysis was based on the applicable Valley Air District guidelines and thresholds and is supported by substantial evidence based, in part, on project-specific information. Furthermore, as discussed in Response to Valley Air District-2-5, to further reduce potential health impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors, new MM AIR-1e is added to Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. These changes can be seen in Section 3.1 of the Errata. Additionally, refer to Response to GSEJA-3.

Response to MCINTOSH-3-4
The commenter raises the question whether community engagement occurred during the public comment period as recommended by the OAG.

This comment is noted and acknowledged, but because it does not raise any specific project-related environmental issues under CEQA, no further response is required. However, for informational purposes, the following is noted.

Opportunities for public participation is a mandated and essential part of the CEQA process.

Pursuant to CEQA, the City held a duly noticed public scoping meeting on September 9, 2020, at which no public comments were submitted, Additionally, the City’s Planning Commission held a duly City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Responses to Written Comments

FirstCarbon Solutions 3-177
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 noticed public meeting on May 25, 2022 for the purpose of receiving oral and written comments on the Draft EIR, and opportunities to review and comment on the Draft EIR and related appendices were provided both electronically and via hard copies. Therefore, the environmental review process for the proposed project exceeds CEQA’s requirements for public participation.

Response to MCINTOSH-3-5
The commenter requested that Concerned Citizens for Tracy Alliance Project (TAP) be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project.

Comment is noted and acknowledged. Concerned Citizens for TAP will be included in future notices for the proposed project. No further response is required.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx SECTION 4: ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the Tracy Alliance Project. These revisions are minor refinements and revisions to the document that merely amplify and clarify the analysis herein, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR or otherwise require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).

4.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments
Revisions to Sources
The footnote sources for the Tracy Municipal Services Review are updated to the following to provide a working link:

De Novo Planning Group. 2019. Tracy Municipal Services Review. Website:
https://www.sjgov.org/docs/default-source/local-agency-formation-commission- documents/municipal-services-and-spheres-of-influence/cities/tracy---july- 2019.pdf?sfvrsn=aa988a63_2. Accessed: July 25, 2022.

Executive Summary
Page ES-3-4
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Project-Level Impact Related to Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation which means the proposed industrial use was accounted for in the Air Quality Plan (AQP) land use projections.

However, the proposed project could create a localized violation of State or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative non-attainment pollutant violations, and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-41i; however, because full implementation of the mitigation cannot be guaranteed due to potential technical and/or financial infeasibility, the proposed project’s potentially significant impact is conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with Criterion 1 of the AQP even after the incorporation of mitigation. The impact would be significant and unavoidable.
• Project-Level Impact Related to Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of reactive organic gases (ROG) and carbon monoxide (CO) During Construction, and ROG and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) During Operation: The construction schedule for the proposed project assumed that none of the three project phases would overlap. In this scenario, after the incorporation of MMs AIR-1a and AIR-1b, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) daily emission screening levels for an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA), pursuant to District Rule 2201.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR

4-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx However, the potential remains for project phases to be constructed concurrently. If the three phases of construction occur concurrently, emissions of ROG and CO would exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds if all three project phases were constructed concurrently.

As such, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of identified mitigation.

During operation
, unmitigated emissions would exceed Valley Air District thresholds of significance for ROGs and NOX. Therefore, MM AIR-1c through MM AIR-1iand MM AIR-1d would be required to mitigate operational emissions to below Valley Air District thresholds.

However, the full implementation of MM AIR-1c through MM AIR-1iand MM AIR-1d cannot be guaranteed during project operation; therefore, the reasonable worst-case operational emissions would exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds for ROG and NOX and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Project-Level Impact Related to Exposing Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations: During construction, if all three project phases were constructed concurrently, the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to CO and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions that exceed applicable thresholds even with mitigation incorporated. During operation, the proposed project would expose sensitive receptors to ROGs, NOX, and DPM levels that exceed applicable thresholds even after incorporation of identified mitigation resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Page ES-50, Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix
Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Impact AIR-1: The
proposed project
could conflict with
or obstruct
implementation of
the applicable air
quality plan.

Potentially
Significant
MM AIR-1a: NOX Reduction Measures
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for each development
proposal shall provide documentation to the City of Tracy demonstrating the following NO
X reduction measures
would be adhered to during construction activities for the relevant development proposal:
• For all construction equipment and vehicles used during project construction that are equal to or greater than
250 horsepower, the contractor shall use construction
equipment and vehicles that meet the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 Final
engine standards;
• For all construction equipment and vehicles used during project construction that are less than 250 horsepower, the contractor shall use electric construction equipment and vehicles to the extent feasible, with the exception of handheld generator sets; and
Significant
and
Unavoidable
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata

FirstCarbon Solutions 4-3
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• All generator sets utilized during project construction shall be limited to 5 horsepower and shall only be used to power handheld power tools.

The construction contractor shall maintain reasonable
records concerning its efforts to comply with this
requirement, including equipment lists. Documentation
that each relevant applicant provides to the City shall include, but is not limited to, equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine
model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.

MM AIR-1b: “Super-Compliant” Architectural Coatings
Prior to the issuance of grading or building pe
rmits for
each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for each development shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the
use of “Super-Compliant” architectural coatings, as
defined by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (South Coast AQMD), during construction of the proposed project. “Super-Compliant” architectural
coatings, as defined by the South Coast AQMD, are paints which do not exceed 10 grams of reactive organic gas
(ROG) per liter of paint.

MM AIR-1c: “
Zero-VOC” Consumer Products
Prior to issuance of building permits for each individual development proposal within the project site, the
relevant applicant for each development shall provide the City with documentation requiring the consumer products purchased by the building occupant(s) or by the cleaning business contracted by the building occupant(s) for on- site use shall consist of water-based or “zero volatile organic compound [VOC]” consumer products, to the
maximum extent feasible. “Consumer products,” as
referred to in this mitigation measure, shall include
detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, and floor
finishes. “Consumer products,” as referred to in this
mitigation measure, shall not include parking lot
degreasers, architectural coatings, pesticides, or
fertilizers.

MM AIR-1d: C
lean Truck Fleet
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with
reasonable documentation demonstrating the use of a
clean truck fleet that meets the California Air Resources City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR

4-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Board’s adopted 2013 Optional Low-NOX Standard of 0.02
gram of nitrogen oxide (NOX) per brake horsepower hour
for all heavy-duty trucks during operation of the proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible. If the relevant applicant does not own the truck fleet that will be used during operation of the subject individual development, the relevant applicant shall provide the City with
reasonable documentation from the truck fleet owner
demonstrating that trucks utilized for operation of the subject individual development will meet the California 2013 Optional Low-NOX Standard, to the maximum extent
feasible. If any change occurs where a new truck fleet is utilized during operation of the subject individual
development, the relevant applicant shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that the
new truck fleet meets the California 2013 Optional Low- NO
X Standard of 0.02 gram per brake horsepower hour, to
the maximum extent feasible. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each phase of the proposed project, the relevant applicant for the individual
development proposal within the project site shall
provide the City with reasonable documentation
demonstrating the use of a clean truck fleet that meets the California Air Resources Board’s adopted 2013
Optional Low-NO
X Standard of 0.02 gram of nitrogen
oxide (NOX) per brake horsepower hour for all heavy-duty trucks during operation of the proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible. If the relevant applicant does not own the truck fleet that will be used during operation of each phase of the proposed project, the relevant
applicant shall provide the City with reasonable
documentation from the truck fleet owner demonstrating
that trucks utilized for operation of the individual
development at issue will meet the California 2013
Optional Low-NO
X Standard, to the maximum extent
feasible. If any change occurs where a new truck fleet is utilized during operation of the individual development at issue, the relevant applicant shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that the new
truck fleet meets the California 2013 Optional Low-NOX
Standard of 0.02 gram per brake horsepower hour, to the maximum extent feasible.

MM AIR-1e: Operational Truck Fleet Routing
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with
reasonable documentation demonstrating that trucks
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata

FirstCarbon Solutions 4-5
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
used during project operation for the subject individual development proposal will be prohibited from accessing
Grant Line Road east of the project site, such as plans illustrating intended truck routes. Additionally:

A. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Tracy
Engineering Department plans or designs that show
where the project’s private drive intersects with Grant Line Road, the applicant shall use a combination of raised concreate medians (or islands) and/or bollards to prevent trucks from entering the left turn pocket. Truck drivers shall be directed into a dedicated right turn lane onto Grant Line Road. Signage and roadway stripping within
the project will also direct drivers to the appropriate lanes as they approach the intersection. The design shall be
reviewed and approved by the City of Tracy Engineering
Department.

B. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit for the first building, the Phase I Developer shall demonstrate to the City of Tracy Public Works Department that the
development shall include new signage warning truck
drivers that truck travel through the Community of Banta is not permitted and a fineable offense shall be placed along Grant Line Road. Specifically, two signs shall be placed on the north and south sides of Grant Line Road
near its intersection with the project’s private drive and visible to east bound traffic. The exact locations, design and text of the signs shall be approved by the City of Tracy Public Works department.

All trucks used during project operation shall use routes that circumvent the use of Grant Line Road east of the
project site.

MM AIR-1f: Idling Limitation
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with
reasonable documentation demonstrating that on-site
truck idling during project operation for the subject
individual development proposal shall be limited to no
greater than 3 minutes. The documentation provided to
the City shall include photos or a map of signage posted in strategic locations on-site identifying that truck idling does not exceed 3 minutes. The signage shall include a
phone number to contact at the facility regarding idling City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR
4-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
violation complaints, and corrective action shall occur within 48 hours of receipt of the complaint.

MM AIR-1g: Electric On-site Off-Road and On-Road
Equipment
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with
reasonable documentation demonstrating that all on-site off-road and on-road equipment to be used during project operation of the subject individual development proposal will be electric-powered. On-site off-road and on-road
equipment shall include, but are not limited to, forklifts and pallet jacks.

MM AIR-1h: Vegetated Project Site Buffer
Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for each
individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual
development proposal shall demonstrate on their site
plans the inclusion of a vegetative buffer along the
eastern property line of the project site adjacent to
sensitive receptors. Examples of vegetative buffers may include, but are not limited to, trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix thereof.

MM AIR-1i: Tier 2 CALGreen Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure
Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for each
individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual
development proposal shall provide the City with
reasonable documentation (e.g., shown on-site plans)
showing that the proposed parking areas for passenger
automobiles and trucks for project operation of the
subject individual development proposal are designed and will be built to include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to include a number of EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California
Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2.

Impact AIR-2: The
proposed project
could result in a
cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any
criteria pollutant
for which the
Potentially
Significant
MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1dMM AIR-1i Significant
and
Unavoidable
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
region is in
nonattainment
under an
applicable federal
or State ambient
air quality
standard.

Impact AIR-3: The
proposed project
could expose
sensitive receptors
to substantial
pollutant
concentrations.

Potentially
Significant
MMs AIR-1d through AIR-1i. Significant
and
Unavoidable
Cumulative
Impact
Potentially
Significant
MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1di Significant
and
Unavoidable
Impact TRANS-1:

The proposed
project would
result in a
substantial
increase in vehicle
miles travelled.

Potentially
Significant
MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management
Measures
MM TRANS-1(a): Transportation Demand Management
Measures
Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the
relevant individual development proposal, the relevant
applicant for the individual development proposal at issue shall submit to the City of Tracy Planning Department a transportation demand management (TDM) program that
incorporates all of the following six measures (as
explained further in Table 3.14-6 of the Draft EIR):

1. Communication and Information Strategies–4 percent
reduction;

2. Telecommuting for administrative staff (5 percent of s
taff population)–1 percent reduction;

3. Designated parking spaces for carpool vehicles–1
p
ercent reduction;

4. Provide a transit stop along the project frontage on Grant Line Road, if agreed to by the City–2 percent
reduction;

5. Provide bike lanes and sidewalks along the project
frontage–1 percent reduction; and

6. Provide on-site bike racks and showers–1 percent
reduction.

Provided, however, that if the relevant applicant
determines that one of more of the foregoing six TDM
measures is not feasible in connection with the individual development proposal at issue, then the relevant
Significant
and
Unavoidable
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR
4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Impact
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
applicant may obtain approval from the City of Tracy
Planning Department of acceptable substitute TDM
measure(s) pursuant to Table 3.14-6 of the Draft EIR.

The relevant applicant’s TDM program, as described
above, shall reflect a 10 percent reduction in VMT for the relevant individual development proposal.

MM TRANS-1(b): Payment of Applicable Banking Fee.

In addition to the TDM program required in MM TRANS-
1(a), e
ach applicant for an individual development
proposal shall pay its fair share of the applicable fee as set forth in the adopted VMT Mitigation Banking Fee in place and effective at the time the relevant applicant seeks to obtain building permits for its individual development
proposal. Provided, however, that 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 total minimum VMT reduction requirement of
15 percent. then payment of $633.11 (cost per VMT
reduction for the relevant individual development
proposal) shall constitute compliance with this MM
TRANS-1(b) then the relevant applicant shall implement
additional VMT reduction measures in order to meet the
minimum VMT reduction requirement of 15 percent.

Section 3.3 Air Quality

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations The following Valley Air District rules and regulations are relevant to this analysis:

Rule 2010— Per mits Required. This rule requires operators of emission sources to obtain an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the District.

Rule 2201— New and Modified Stationary Source Review. This rule requires that new and modified stationary sources of emissions mitigate their emissions using Best Available Control Technology, such as requiring a backup generator to meet Tier 4 emission standards.

Rule 2520— Federally Mandated Operating Permits. The purpose of this rule is to issue operating permits for new and modified sources of air contaminants pursuant to the requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 70.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata

FirstCarbon Solutions 4-9
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Rule 4002— National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The purpose of this rule is to protect the public from uncontrolled emissions of asbestos by requiring a thorough inspection for asbestos before any demolition or renovation activities occur.

Rule 4102— Nuisance. The purpose of this rule is to protect the health and safety of the public and applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants or other materials.

Regulation VIII— Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions. Rules 8011-8081 are designed to reduce PM10 emissions (predominantly dust/dirt) generated by human activity, including construction and demolition activities, road construction, bulk materials storage, paved and unpaved roads, carryout and trackout, etc. All development projects that involve soil disturbance are subject to at least one provision of the Regulation VIII series of rules.

Rule 9410— Em ployer Based Trip Reduction. This rule applies to projects that result in the employment of 100 or more “eligible” employees and requires the employer to establish an Employer Trip Reduction Implementation Plan that encourages employees to reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips.

Rule 9510— Indirect Source Review. This rule reduces the impact of NOX and PM10 emissions from growth within the Air Basin. The rule places application and emission reduction requirements on development projects meeting applicability criteria in order to reduce emissions through on-site mitigation, off-site Valley Air District-administered projects, or a combination of the two. The proposed project must comply with Rule 9510 because it would develop more than 25,000 square feet of light industrial uses.

MM AIR-1e Operational Truck Fleet Routing
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that trucks used during project operation for the subject individual development proposal will be prohibited from accessing Grant Line Road east of the project site, such as plans illustrating intended truck routes. Additionally:

A. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the City of Tracy Engineering Department plans or designs that show where the project’s private drive intersects with Grant Line Road, the applicant shall use a combination of raised concreate medians (or islands) and/or bollards to prevent trucks from entering the left turn pocket. Truck drivers shall be directed into a dedicated right turn lane onto Grant Line Road. Signage and roadway stripping within the project will also direct drivers to the appropriate lanes as they approach the intersection. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tracy Engineering Department.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR

4-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx B. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permit for the first building, the Phase I Developer shall demonstrate to the City of Tracy Public Works Department that the development shall include new signage warning truck drivers that truck travel through the Community of Banta is not permitted and a fineable offense shall be placed along Grant Line Road. Specifically, two signs shall be placed on the north and south sides of Grant Line Road near its intersection with the project’s private drive and visible to east bound traffic. The exact locations, design and text of the signs shall be approved by the City of Tracy Public Works department.

All trucks used during project operation shall use routes that circumvent the use of Grant Line Road east of the project site.

MM AIR-1f Idling Limitation
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that on-site truck idling during project operation for the subject individual development proposal shall be limited to no greater than 3 minutes. The documentation provided to the City shall include photos or a map of signage posted in strategic locations on-site identifying that truck idling does not exceed 3 minutes.

The signage shall include a phone number to contact at the facility regarding idling violation complaints, and corrective action shall occur within 48 hours of receipt of the complaint.

MM AIR-1g Electric On-site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that all on-site off-road and on-road equipment to be used during project operation of the subject individual development proposal will be electric- powered. On-site off-road and on-road equipment shall include, but are not limited to, forklifts and pallet jacks.

MM AIR-1h Vegetated Project Site Buffer
Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall demonstrate on their site plans the inclusion of a vegetative buffer along the eastern property line of the project site adjacent to sensitive receptors.

Examples of vegetative buffers may include, but are not limited to, trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix thereof.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata

FirstCarbon Solutions 4-11
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx MM AIR-1i Tier 2 CALGreen Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation (e.g., shown on-site plans) showing that the proposed parking areas for passenger automobiles and trucks for project operation of the subject individual development proposal are designed and will be built to include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to include a number of EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact.

As shown in Table 3.3-12, unmitigated operational emissions would exceed Valley Air District thresholds of significance for ROG and NOX. Therefore, MMs AIR-1c, and AIR-1d, AIR-1e, AIR-1f, AIR- 1g, AIR-1h, and AIR-1i would be required to mitigate operational emissions to the extent feasible to below Valley Air District thresholds.

Nonetheless, the full implementation of MM AIR-1c and MM AIR-1d cannot be guaranteed during project operation; therefore, the emission estimates provided in Table 3.3-14 demonstrate a reasonable worst-case scenario for project operation after incorporation of identified mitigation. In addition, MM AIR-1f would restrict on-site vehicle idling to no greater than 3 minutes. MM AIR-1g would require the use of electric on-site on- and off-road equipment in place of non-electric alternatives. MM AIR-1i 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 CALGreen of the 2019 California Building Code. The inclusion of MMs AIR-1f, AIR-1g, and AIR-1i would help further incrementally reduce emissions below those disclosed in this Draft EIR; however, the quantified reductions from these measures cannot be accurately identified and guaranteed at this time. Because the operational emissions shown therein above would exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds for ROG and NOX, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Operational Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Valley Air District Rule 2201 requires that an AAQA be conducted for a project when that project’s maximum daily emissions exceed 100 pounds for any single criteria or precursor pollutant after incorporation of all mitigation. As shown in Table 3.3-14, due to the uncertainty of full implementation of MM AIR-1c and MM AIR-1d, and the uncertain extent and efficacy of quantified reductions resulting from MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, MM AIR-1i, the potential emission reductions resulting from MM AIR-1c and MM AIR-1d identified mitigation are not considered in the proposed project’s mitigated operational emissions. As such, maximum daily operational emissions generated by all phases of the proposed project would exceed the Valley Air District’s screening threshold for City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR

4-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx an AAQA for NOX emissions. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation is incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
Implement MMS AIR-1a, AIR-1b, AIR-1c, to AIR-1d, AIR-1f, AIR-1g, and AIR-1i.

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. In addition, MM AIR-1e would restrict truck traffic from accessing Grant Line Road east of the project site, where many sensitive receptors are located. MM AIR-1f would restrict on-site vehicle idling to no greater than 3 minutes. MM AIR-1g would require the use of electric on-site on- and off-road equipment in place of non-electric alternatives. MM AIR-1h would require the installation of a vegetated buffer around specified portions of the project site to reduce the potential off-site dispersion of TACs generated at the project site during operation. MM AIR-1i 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 CALGreen of the 2019 California Building Code. The inclusion of MMs AIR-1f, AIR-1g, and AIR-1i would help incrementally reduce emissions below those disclosed in this Draft EIR; however, the quantified reductions from these measures cannot be accurately identified and guaranteed at this time. As a result, this impact would be significant and unavoidable after the incorporation of mitigation.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially Significant Impact
Mitigation Measures
MMs AIR-1d through AIR-1i.

… constructed concurrently. In addition, because the full implementation of MMs AIR-1c and AIR-1d cannot be guaranteed during project operation, and the potential emission reduction from inclusion of MMs AIR-1f, AIR-1g, and AIR-1i cannot be accurately identified and guaranteed at this time, the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to regional emissions significance thresholds for ROGs and NOX, both ozone precursor pollutants, during project operation.

Mitigation Measures
MMs AIR-1a to AIR-1i and MM AIR-3
Section 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata

FirstCarbon Solutions 4-13
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Table 3.8-5: Summary of Applicable Greenhouse Gas Regulations Regulation Project Applicability
Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards
Project buildings would be required to be constructed to meet the latest version of Title 24 (currently 2019),
which, among other standards, requires that
nonresidential projects construct their roofs to be solar- ready to accommodate the future installation of solar
panels. Reduction applies only to energy consumption
subject to the regulation.

Green Building Code
Standards
The project would be required to include water
conservation features mandated by the standard.

Water Efficient Land Use
Ordinance
The project landscaping would be required to comply with the regulation.

Renewable Portfolio
Standard
Electricity purchased for use at the project site is subject to the 33 percent RPS mandate.

Solid waste The solid waste service provider would be required to provide programs to increase diversion and recycling to meet the 75 percent mandate, to which the project
would be required to adhere.

Accordingly, taking into account the proposed project’s emissions, and the progress being made by the State toward reducing emissions in key sectors such as transportation, industry, and electricity, the project would be consistent with State GHG Plans and would further the State’s goals of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and does not obstruct their attainment.

Consistency with RTP/SCS
The SJCOG 2018 RTP establishes regional transportation policy for San Joaquin County based on specific transportation goals and objectives. The RTP focuses on achieving a coordinated and balanced multimodal transportation system, while maintaining the integrity of the existing system.

The RTP includes projects located throughout San Joaquin County for all forms or modes of transportation, including automobiles, transit, nonmotorized (including bicycle), passenger rail, freight, and aviation facilities. The goals and objective contained in the RTP are focused on transportation initiatives, infrastructure, planning, and funding on the regional level. The proposed project would support these policies and strategies.

Policy 1 of the RTP/SCS would 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 these potential impacts. As analyzed in Section 3.6, Energy, the proposed project would not result in 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 City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR
4-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx energy efficiency (Impact ENER-2). The proposed project site has a land use designation of “Industrial” in the City of Tracy General Plan, and the proposed project, which consists of the buildout of warehousing and other industrial space, is consistent with this land use designation. The RTP/SCS accounts for growth in the project site and vicinity, including industrial developments such as the proposed project. 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 EIR, 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 EIR, consistent with the City of Tracy Transportation Master Plan (TMP). As noted in the TMP , it 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. 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 these specific future regional transportation improvements would be considered and implemented as part of a separate process subsequent to approval of the proposed project, the approximately 12.51 acres of land set aside that would facilitate the improvements to the City’s expressway system and the future I-205/Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange would result in such improvements by providing infrastructure for automobiles and trucks entering and exiting the site. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 14, Transportation, of the EIR, the proposed project would implement the following travel demand measures to reduce project VMT as is required by MM TRANS-1(a).

1. U tilize communication and information strategies –4 percent reduction;

2. O ffer telecommuting for administrative staff (5 percent of staff population) –1 percent reduction;

3. D esignate parking spaces for ca rpool vehicles–1 percent reduction;

4. P rovide a transit stop along the project frontage on Grant Line Road, if agreed to by the City– 2 percent reduction;

5. P rovide bike lanes and sidewalks along the project frontage– 1 percent reduction; and

6. P rovide on-site bike racks and showers– 1 percent reduction.

Thr
ough the implementation of project design features and required mitigation measures, as discussed above, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with the RTP/SCS.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata

FirstCarbon Solutions 4-15
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Section 3.11 Land Use and Planning

Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
Consistency Determination No. Text
10— Air
Quality
Goal AQ-1 Improved air quality and
reduced greenhouse gas
emissions.

Consistent: The proposed project would be subject
to various regulatory measures adopted to ensure
ambient air quality standards are met to the extent
feasible. The proposed project would implement
MMs AIR-1a through AIR-1i to reduce emissions
generated during construction and operation to the
extent feasible 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 or odors. Refer to Section 3.3, Air Quality and
Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas, for further
discussion.

AQ-1.2 P1 The City shall assess air quality
impacts using the latest
version of the CEQA Guidelines
and guidelines prepared by the
San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District.

Consistent: The proposed project would be subject
to various regulatory measures adopted to ensure
ambient air quality standards are met. This Draft
EIR evaluated the proposed project’s potential air
quality impacts pursuant to CEQA and San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air
District) Guidelines. Refer to Section 3.3, Air
Quality, for further discussion.

AQ-1.2 P3 Developers shall implement
best management practices to
reduce air pollutant emissions
associated with the
construction and operation of
development projects.

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 P4 New development projects
should incorporate energy
efficient design features for
HVAC, lighting systems and
insulation that exceed Title 24.

Consistent: The proposed project’s buildings,
including the HVAC, lighting systems, and
insulation, would be designed and constructed in
accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy
efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s
Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These are
widely regarded as the most advanced and
stringent building energy efficiency standards and
compliance would ensure that building energy
consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR

4-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
Consistency Determination No. Text
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 Draft EIR Section 3.6,
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 P7 Trees should be planted on the
south- and west-facing sides of
new buildings or building
undergoing substantial
renovation in order to reduce
energy usage.

Consistent. Project landscaping trees are included
in the project design and would be consistent with
the NEI Specific Plan requirements for placing one
tree per five parking spaces, and otherwise would
comply with all applicable landscaping
requirements.

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 (HRA) 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
along the east property boundary near 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.

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
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
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-17
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Element
Goal/Objective/Policy
Consistency Determination No. Text
approval for subdivision maps,
site plans, and grading
permits.
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 MMs 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.

Section 3.14 Transportation

As noted above, the City is currently pursuing a VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program; the draft program currently calculates the cost per one (1) VMT reduction as $633.11. However, the VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program has not yet been finalized and adopted; accordingly, the applicable fee would be the amount provided for under the Mitigation Banking Fee Program adopted by the City Council and effective at the time the relevant applicant for an individual development proposal within the project site obtained building permits. Provided, however, that if the 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 payment of $633.11 (cost per one (1) VMT reduction) shall constitute compliance for the payment component of MM TRANS-1(b) then the relevant applicant shall implement additional VMT reduction measures in order to meet the minimum VMT reduction requirement of 15 percent.

MM TRANS-1(b) Payment of Applicable Banking Fee
In addition to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program required in MM T
RANS-1(a), each applicant for an individual development proposal shall pay its fair share of the applicable fee as set forth in the adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Banking Fee in place and effective at the time the relevant City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Errata Final EIR

4-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx applicant seeks to obtain building permits for its individual development proposal.

Provided, however, that 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 payment of $633.11 (cost per VMT reduction for the relevant individual development proposal) shall constitute compliance with this MM TRANS-1(b) then the relevant applicant shall implement additional VMT reduction measures in order to meet the total minimum VMT reduction requirement of 15 percent.

Section 6 Alternatives

• Project-Level Impact Related to Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan: The proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan designation which means the proposed industrial use was accounted for in the Air Quality Plan (AQP) land use projections.

However, the proposed project could create a localized violation of State or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative non-attainment pollutant violations, and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would be required to implement MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-41i; however, because full implementation of the mitigation cannot be guaranteed due to potential technical and/or financial infeasibility, the proposed project’s potentially significant impact is conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with Criterion 1 of the AQP even after the incorporation of mitigation. The impact would be significant and unavoidable.
• Project-Level Impact Related to Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of reactive organic gases (ROG) and carbon monoxide (CO) During Construction, and ROG and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) During Operation: The construction schedule for the proposed project assumed that none of the three project phases would overlap. In this scenario, after the incorporation of MMs AIR-1a and AIR-1b, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Valley Air District) daily emission screening levels for an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA), pursuant to District Rule 2201.

However, the potential remains for project phases to be constructed concurrently. If the three phases of construction occur concurrently, emissions of ROG and CO would exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds if all three project phases were constructed concurrently.

As such, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of identified mitigation.

During operation, unmitigated emissions would exceed Valley Air District thresholds of significance for ROGs and NO
X. Therefore, MM AIR-1c through MM AIR-1iand MM AIR-1d
would be required to mitigate operational emissions to below Valley Air District thresholds.

However, the full implementation of MM AIR-1c through MM AIR-1iand MM AIR-1d cannot be guaranteed during project operation; therefore, the reasonable worst-case operational emissions would exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds for ROG and NOX and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 4-19
https://adecinnovations-my.sharepoint.com/personal/mramirez_fcs-intl_com/Documents/Desktop/17260011 Sec04-00 Errata.docx Appendix E
Page E-1
Tracy Alliance Sunnyvale FCII Project Energy Use Summary

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix A:

Exhibit

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
© 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS © 2020 Microsoft Corporation © 2020 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2020) Distribution Airbus DS

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

FirstCarbon Solutions

Appendix B:

Tracy Alliance Full Project I-205 MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Tracy Alliance I‐205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis                                                                                     Page 1

MEMORANDUM
From:      Frederik Venter, PE and Colin Ogilvie | Kimley‐Horn and Associates To:     Tom Dumas, Office of Metropolitan Planning Chief | Caltrans Date:  November 4, 2022
Re:  Tracy Alliance: I‐205 & MacArthur Drive Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis

1. Introduction
This  memorandum  presents  the  findings  of  the  I‐205  &  MacArthur  Drive  Interchange  ramp  queuing analysis for the Tracy Alliance project requested by Caltrans in their Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) comments. The queuing analysis is based on the updated I‐205 and MacArthur Drive Interchange geometry, traffic counts collected in 2022, and signal timin gs requested from Caltrans.

The following scenarios were analyzed:
 Exisiting Conditions
 Existing Plus Project (Full Project) Conditions
All Project trips at the I‐205 & MacArthur Interchange under Background Conditions are anticipated to move to the future I‐205 & Chrisman Interchange under Cumulative Conditions and are assumed to be included  in  the  TOAR
.  Therefore,  the  Project  will  not  cause  a  queuing  deficiency  at  the  MacArthur interchange in the Cumulative Conditions.

This analysis is supplemental to the Kimley‐Horn Tracy Alliance and Northeast Area Annexation report dated April 2022.

2. Queuing Analysis
The I‐205 & MacArthur Drive Interchange ramp queuing analysis was completed for the off‐ramps only per  Caltrans’s  Traffic  Safety  Bulletin  20‐02‐R1:  Interim  Local  Development  Intergovernmental  Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance to determine safety impacts to the freeway mainline. The following analysis scenarios were analyzed:
 Exisiting Conditions
 Existing Plus Project (Full Project) Conditions
Existin
g traffic counts are illustrated in Figure 1. Analysis volumes represent the peak hour volumes per intersection and were balanced as necessary between intersections. Existing signal timings were obtain from Caltrans and no modifications were made between Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project (Full Project) Conditions.

Tracy Alliance I‐205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis                                                                                     Page 2

Existing  Plus  Project  (Full  Project)  volumes  are  provided  in  Figure  2.  All  Project  trips  at  the  I‐205  & MacArthur  Interchange  under  Background  Conditions  are  anticipated  to  move  to  the  future  I‐205  & Chrisman  Interchange  under  Cumulative  Conditions  and  are  assumed  to  be  included  in  the  TOAR.

Therefore, the Project will not cause a queuing defici ency at the MacArthur interchange in the Cumulative Conditions.

The analysis utilized SimTraffic 11 with a 10‐minute seeding period, four 15‐minute periods and 10 runs.

The average and 95th‐percentile queues for each of the ten runs was averaged and shown in Table 1 and Table 2. The Existin
g Conditions queues were calibrated based on field‐verified queuing.

All  ramp  queuing  under  Existing  Conditions  and  Existing  Plus  Project  Conditions  is  within  each  ramp’s storage capacity and does not extend to the freeway mainline. Therefore, no Project safety mitigations are required.

November 2022 Tracy Alliance I-205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Existing Conditions
Figure 1
LEGEND
Intersection ID
XX (XX) AM (PM) Volumes
#
Signal
10 MacArthur Dr &
I-205 WB Off-Ramp
O
Q S L
k s
Overall: 956 (1085)
I-205 WB On-Ramp
75 (76)
205 (37)
2 (7)
373 (323)
I-205 WB Off-Ramp
62 (119)
MacArthur Dr
MacArthur Dr
132 (227)
107 (296)
11 MacArthur Dr &
I-205 EB Off-Ramp
S K
s qa
190 (353)
320 (457)
Overall: 1228 (1630)
232 (205)
I-205 EB Off-Ramp
MacArthur Dr
49 (170)
2 (3)
MacArthur Dr
I-205 EB On-Ramp
399 (381)
36 (61)
10 11MacArthur Dr

November 2022 Tracy Alliance I-205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Figure 2
Existing Plus Project Conditions
LEGEND
Intersection ID
XX (XX) AM (PM) Volumes
#
Signal
10 MacArthur Dr &
I-205 WB Off-Ramp
O
Q S L
k s
Overall: 1032 (1172)
I-205 WB On-Ramp
75 (76)
205 (37)
2 (7)
423 (348)
I-205 WB Off-Ramp
62 (119)
MacArthur Dr
MacArthur Dr
158 (289)
107 (296)
11 MacArthur Dr &
I-205 EB Off-Ramp
S K
s qa
216 (415)
341 (509)
Overall: 1382 (1796)
289 (232)
I-205 EB Off-Ramp
MacArthur Dr
49 (170)
2 (3)
MacArthur Dr
I-205 EB On-Ramp
449 (406)
36 (61)
10 11MacArthur Dr

Tracy Alliance I‐205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis                                                                                     Page 5

Table 1 – Existing Conditions

Table 2 – Exisiting Plus Project (Full Project) Conditions

3. Appendix
A. Traffic Counts
B. SimTraffic Reports
C. Caltrans DEIR Comment Letter
Intersection  Movement  Storage Length
(ft)
Average
Queue (ft)
95th Percentile
Queue (ft)
AM Peak  PM Peak  AM Peak  PM Peak
10  I‐205 WB Ramps &
MacArthur Dr
WBL  500  149  129  252  236
WBT/R  1,020  46  22  79  57
NBL  200  102  108  184  189
NBT  230  47  72  97  142
SBT  1,400  54  43  116  86
SBR  450  22  24  42  52
11  I‐205 EB Ramps &
Macarthur Dr
EBL/T/R  1,000  104  155  194  278
NBT  750  54  101  118  187
NBR  750  110  75  197  140
SBL  220  43  44  98  86
SBT  220  111  101  230  200
Notes:

1. Movements highlighted in blue represent I‐205 off‐ramp movements.

Intersection  Movement  Storage Length
(ft)
Average
Queue (ft)
95th Percentile
Queue (ft)
AM Peak  PM Peak  AM Peak  PM Peak
10  I‐205 WB Ramps &
MacArthur Dr
WBL  500  174  152  324  259
WBT/R  1,020  48  22  151  60
NBL  200  109  150  193  249
NBT  230  41  78  85  143
SBT  1,400  46  51  107  105
SBR  450  21  23  44  50
11  I‐205 EB Ramps &
Macarthur Dr
EBL/T/R  1,000  118  217  229  410
NBT  750  69  154  157  283
NBR  750  117  91  226  171
SBL  220  38  48  94  99
SBT  220  129  112  253  234
Notes:

1. Movements highlighted in blue represent I‐205 off‐ramp movements.

Tracy Alliance I‐205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis                                                                                     Page 6

A. Traffic Counts

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 Date: 08/30/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 5:30 AM 8:30 AM
SB 25.5% 0.84
TOTAL 15.6% 0.81
WB 9.1% 0.74
NB 30.3% 0.98
Peak Hour: 5:30 AM 6:30 AM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
0 0 0 16 17
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
239 0
5:45 AM 0 0 0 0 106 1 90 0 23 18 0 0 0 16 18 272 0
5:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 107 1 56 0 21 21
11 18 176 882
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 81 0 31 0 26 16 0 0 0 19 22
75 882 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 4 0
0 0
0 195 0
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 79 0 28 0 21 19 0 0 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0 0 0 373 2 205 0 91 74 0 0 0 62
42 8 0 0 0 33 2 138 0
HV% - - - - - 13% 0% 2% - 46% 11% - - - 53% 3% 16% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South 0 0
0 12 13 8 33 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 14 10 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 AM 0 0 0 0
0 14 13 10 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 53 50 35 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 AM
5:45 AM
6:00 AM 0 0
0 17 10 7 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 WB Ramps
I-205 WB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 WB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
882TEV:

0.81PHF: 75
62 0
137
279
0 205
2 373
580
0 0
0 74
91 165
435
0 0
0 0
0 168
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
2 0

TH RTUT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total

UT LT TH RT
0 106 1 90 0 23
0 16 17 239 0
5:45 AM 0 0 0 0
56 0 21 21 0 05:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 107 1
0 19 22 195 0
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0
31 0 26 16 0 0
272 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 81 0
18 0 0 0 16 18
176 882
6:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 86 1
19 0 0 0 11 180 79 0 28 0 21
0 103 1 27 0 28
0 17 26 198 841
6:45 AM 0 0 0 0
16 0 20 32 0 0
0 19 18 197 809
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
14 0 44 20 0 0
238 807
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 82 0
36 0 0 0 12 31
220 853
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 94 0
34 0 0 0 20 220 90 0 16 0 38
0 95 0 12 0 37
0 17 20 188 843
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
14 0 29 14 0 0
0 24 19 193 811
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
14 0 41 22 0 0
210 815
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 73 0
24 0 0 0 14 28
187 77825 0 0 0 9 230 74 0 11 0 45
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 1,070 4 0 194 262 2,513 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
329 0 373 281 0 0
0 0 33 2 138 00 4 0 42 8 0
75 882 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 49
91 74 0 0 0 620 0 373 2 205 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- - - 53% 3% 16%13% 0% 2% - 46% 11%HV% - - - - -
0 0
5:45 AM 0 10 14 10 34 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
5:30 AM 0 12 13 8 33 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
6:15 AM 0 17 10 7 34
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6:00 AM 0 14 13 10 37 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
6:45 AM 0 22 19 9 50 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
6:30 AM 0 22 11 8 41 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 23 19 10 52
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7:00 AM 0 17 23 4 44 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 13 19 3 35 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 19 13 10 42 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
8:15 AM 0 21 14 4 39
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 0 18 14 12 44 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour 0 53 50 35 138 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0Count Total 0 208 182 95 485 0
00 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound
0 7 1 33 0
5:45 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 10 3 0 0
TH RT
5:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
34 0
6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 13 0
1 0 0 0 10 00 9 0 1 0 13
0 15 0 2 0 8
0 9 1 37 0
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0
1 0 11 2 0 0
0 5 3 41 146
6:45 AM 0 0 0 0
4 0 7 4 0 0
34 138
6:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 17 1
2 0 0 0 7 0
50 162
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 12 0
5 0 0 0 4 50 17 0 5 0 14
0 20 0 3 0 13
0 3 1 44 169
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
5 0 20 3 0 0
0 7 3 42 188
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0
4 0 12 1 0 0
52 187
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 15 0
6 0 0 0 9 1
35 173
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 18 0
2 0 0 0 3 00 13 0 0 0 17
0 18 0 3 0 13
0 9 3 44 173
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0 11 3 0 0
39 1601 0 0 0 2 2
0 75 20 485 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
28 0 149 33 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 179 1
0 05:30 AM
RT
138 0
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
8 0 0 0 33 20 49 0 4 0 42

RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
0 6:30 AM
000 0
0 0
6:15 AM
0 0 0 0
0 6:00 AM
00 0 0 00 05:45 AM 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
7:15 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:00 AM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
6:45 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 8:00 AM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
000 00 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0000 0
0 0
8:15 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
0 0Count Total
0 THLT
00 0 0 00 0
0 000 0 0
0 0
0 0
0000
0 0
0 00
0 THLT
00000000
0 00
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 000 0 0 0
000 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 Date: 08/30/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 3:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 8.7% 0.74
TOTAL 14.2% 0.97
WB 23.3% 0.88
NB 10.0% 0.90
Peak Hour: 3:30 PM 4:30 PM
HV %: PHF
EB - -
0 0 0 41 25
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
280 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 90 4 10 0 54 68 0 0 0 29 22 277 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 90 2 8 0 50 64
21 13 260 1,081
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 71 0 6 0 64 80 0 0 0 27 16
76 1,081 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 70 1 14 0
0 0
0 264 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 70 1 13 0 58 83 0 1 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0 0 0 321 7 37 0 226 295 0 1 0 118
36 16 0 0 0 15 2 154 0
HV% - - - - - 22% 14% 38% - 16% 5% - 0% - 13% 3% 14% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South 0 0
0 22 11 4 37 0 0 0 0 0
0 27 13 3 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0
0 21 16 6 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 85 52 17 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 0 0
0 15 12 4 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 WB Ramps
I-205 WB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 WB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
1,081TEV:

0.97PHF: 76
118
0 195
333
1 37
7 321
365
0 0
0 295
226
521
439
0 0
0 0
0 309
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
2 1
0 0
5 0

TH RTUT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total

UT LT TH RT
0 81 0 22 0 53
0 33 24 243 0
3:15 PM 0 0 0 0
18 0 35 45 0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 87 1
0 41 25 280 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0
8 0 50 64 0 0
247 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 90 2
52 0 0 0 23 16
277 1,047
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 71 0
68 0 0 0 29 220 90 4 10 0 54
0 70 1 13 0 58
0 27 16 264 1,068
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
6 0 64 80 0 0
0 29 20 232 1,033
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
8 0 57 56 0 0
260 1,081
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 61 1
83 0 1 0 21 13
213 969
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 59 0
46 0 0 0 19 170 48 0 18 0 65
0 61 0 11 0 65
0 12 17 193 898
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
3 0 55 47 0 0
0 27 10 198 819
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
5 0 39 45 0 0
215 853
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 71 1
49 0 0 0 18 11
186 79238 0 0 0 18 190 53 0 4 1 53
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 842 10 0 297 210 2,808 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 0
126 1 648 673 0 1
0 0 15 2 154 01 14 0 36 16 0
76 1,081 0
HV 0 0 0 0 0 70
226 295 0 1 0 1180 0 321 7 37 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
- 0% - 13% 3% 14%22% 14% 38% - 16% 5%HV% - - - - -
0 0
3:15 PM 0 19 14 5 38 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
3:00 PM 0 23 13 1 37 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
3:45 PM 0 27 13 3 43
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3:30 PM 0 22 11 4 37 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:15 PM 0 15 12 4 31 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 21 16 6 43 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 11 15 4 30
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 0 15 7 2 24 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 0 18 6 4 28 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
2 0 0
5:00 PM 0 16 8 1 25 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 9 0 3 12
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM 0 16 6 2 24 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour 0 85 52 17 154 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 5Count Total 0 212 121 39 372 0
00 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound
0 0 1 37 0
3:15 PM 0 0 0 0
5 0 5 8 0 0
TH RT
3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 18 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
38 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 17 0
3 0 0 0 5 00 16 0 3 0 11
0 22 1 4 0 9
0 4 0 37 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0
5 0 9 2 0 0
0 6 0 43 161
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 11 5 0 0
43 155
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
4 0 0 0 2 1
31 154
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 12 1
5 0 0 0 3 10 11 0 4 0 7
0 6 0 5 0 12
0 2 0 24 141
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
2 0 7 0 0 0
0 1 0 25 110
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
1 0 7 1 0 0
30 128
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 15 0
3 0 0 0 3 1
28 107
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 14 0
2 0 0 0 4 00 16 0 2 0 4
0 9 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 24 107
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
2 0 5 1 0 0
12 890 0 0 0 2 1
0 34 5 372 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
34 0 87 34 0 0Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 176 2
0 03:00 PM
RT
154 0
Interval
Start
I-205 WB Ramps I-205 WB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
16 0 0 0 15 20 70 1 14 0 36

RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
0 4:00 PM
000 0
0 0
3:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 3:30 PM
00 0 0 00 03:15 PM 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
4:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 5:30 PM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 5:00 PM
000 00 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0000 0
0 0
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
0 0Count Total
0 THLT
00 0 0 00 0
0 000 0 0
0 0
0 0
0000
0 0
0 00
0 THLT
00000000
0 00
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 000 0 0 0
000 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 Date: 08/30/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 5:30 AM 8:30 AM
SB 22.2% 0.97
TOTAL 24.3% 0.94
WB - -
NB 26.7% 0.92
Peak Hour: 7:15 AM 8:15 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 23.0% 0.86
84 0 12 98 0
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
324 0
7:30 AM 8 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 86 0 5 105 0 289 0
7:15 AM 0 17 1 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 55
84 0 295 1,220
7:45 AM 14 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 72 0 5 105 0
0 1,220 0
HV 0 5 1 59 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 312 0
8:00 AM 10 1 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 78 0 13
Peak
Hour
All 0 49 2 232 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 320 0 35 392
0 60 76 0 20 75 0 296 0
HV% - 10% 50% 25% - - - - - - 32% 24% - 57% 19% - 24% 0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South 0 0
13 0 37 30 80 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 32 22 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0
16 0 35 16 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 65 0 136 95 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM
7:30 AM
7:45 AM 0 0
20 0 32 27 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 EB Ramps
I-205 EB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 EB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
1,220TEV:

0.94PHF: 0
392
35 427
239
0 0
0 0
0 357
0 320
190
0 510
624
0 232
2 49
283
0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0

TH RTUT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 117 0 253 0
5:45 AM 0 8 1 50
0 0 0 28 51 05:30 AM 0 15 1 38 0 0 0
10 88 0 216 0
6:15 AM 0 11 0 28
0 0 0 36 40 0
259 0
6:00 AM 0 7 2 33 0 0 0
35 40 0 5 120 0
200 928
6:30 AM 0 22 0 43 0 0 0
28 42 0 5 86 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8 95 0 282 957
6:45 AM 0 22 2 47
0 0 0 30 84 0
14 92 0 276 1,037
7:15 AM 0 17 1 57
0 0 0 48 58 0
279 977
7:00 AM 0 15 0 49 0 0 0
43 54 0 6 105 0
324 1,161
7:30 AM 0 8 0 49 0 0 0
55 84 0 12 98 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 105 0 289 1,168
7:45 AM 0 14 0 68
0 0 0 36 86 0
13 84 0 295 1,220
8:15 AM 0 12 1 42
0 0 0 51 78 0
312 1,201
8:00 AM 0 10 1 58 0 0 0
48 72 0 5 105 0
257 1,15356 63 0 3 80 00 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 161 9 562 0 0 0 89 1,175 0 3,242 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 49 2
0 0 0 494 752 0
0 20 75 0 296 00 0 0 0 60 76
0 1,220 0
HV 0 5 1 59 0 0
0 190 320 0 35 392232 0 0 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
24% - 57% 19% - 24%- - - - - 32%HV% - 10% 50% 25% -
0 0
5:45 AM 8 0 29 20 57 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
5:30 AM 11 0 22 18 51 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
6:15 AM 10 0 18 24 52
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 6:00 AM 10 0 21 20 51 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
6:45 AM 18 0 41 20 79 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
6:30 AM 11 0 19 23 53 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 13 0 37 30 80
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7:00 AM 10 0 38 15 63 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 16 0 35 16 67 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 16 0 32 22 70 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 11 0 33 19 63
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 20 0 32 27 79 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour 65 0 136 95 296 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0Count Total 154 0 357 254 765 0
00 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound
1 17 0 51 0
5:45 AM 0 0 1 7
0 0 0 12 10 0
TH RT
5:30 AM 0 2 0 9 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
57 0
6:00 AM 0 1 0 9 0 0 0
15 14 0 2 18 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 17 0 51 0
6:15 AM 0 1 0 9
0 0 0 12 9 0
5 18 0 53 213
6:45 AM 0 1 2 15
0 0 0 6 13 0
52 211
6:30 AM 0 4 0 7 0 0 0
9 9 0 5 19 0
79 235
7:00 AM 0 1 0 9 0 0 0
18 23 0 3 17 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 12 0 63 247
7:15 AM 0 1 1 11
0 0 0 21 17 0
2 20 0 70 292
7:45 AM 0 1 0 15
0 0 0 14 18 0
80 275
7:30 AM 0 0 0 16 0 0 0
16 21 0 7 23 0
67 280
8:00 AM 0 3 0 17 0 0 0
18 17 0 2 14 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
9 18 0 79 296
8:15 AM 0 0 1 10
0 0 0 12 20 0
63 27915 18 0 1 18 0
43 211 0 765 0
Peak Hour 0 5 1 59
0 0 0 168 189 0Count Total 0 15 5 134 0 0 0
0 05:30 AM
RT
296 0
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
60 76 0 20 75 00 0 0 0 0 0

RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
0 6:30 AM
000 0
0 0
6:15 AM
0 0 0 0
0 6:00 AM
00 0 0 00 05:45 AM 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
7:15 AM
0 0 0 0
0 7:00 AM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
6:45 AM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 8:00 AM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
7:45 AM
0 0 0
0 7:30 AM
000 00 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0000 0
0 0
8:15 AM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
0 0Count Total
0 THLT
00 0 0 00 0
0 000 0 0
0 0
0 0
0000
0 0
0 00
0 THLT
00000000
0 00
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 000 0 0 0
000 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: For all three-hour count summary, see next page.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 Date: 08/30/2022
Peak Hour Count Period: 3:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 19.2% 0.82
TOTAL 14.7% 0.89
WB - -
NB 11.1% 0.83
Peak Hour: 3:30 PM 4:30 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 16.9% 0.92
158 0 28 106 0
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
457 0
3:45 PM 44 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 89 0 17 102 0 380 0
3:30 PM 0 34 2 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 86
82 0 386 1,630
4:00 PM 42 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 110 0 7 91 0
0 1,630 0
HV 0 11 0 53 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 407 0
4:15 PM 50 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 100 0 9
Peak
Hour
All 0 170 3 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 353 457 0 61 381
0 41 49 0 7 78 0 239 0
HV% - 6% 0% 26% - - - - - - 12% 11% - 11% 20% - 15% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South 0 0
12 0 20 21 53 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 21 24 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0
18 0 28 26 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 64 0 90 85 239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM 0 0
14 0 21 14 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 EB Ramps
I-205 EB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
I-205 EB Ramps
N MacArthur Dr
1,630TEV:

0.89PHF: 0
381
61 442
523
0 0
0 0
0 521
0 457
353
0 810
586
0 205
3 170
378
0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Three-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
2 2
1 0
7 0

TH RTUT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min Total

UT LT TH RT
0 0 0 0 0 0
15 105 0 347 0
3:15 PM 0 32 2 41
0 0 0 54 97 03:00 PM 0 27 1 48 0 0 0
28 106 0 457 0
3:45 PM 0 44 0 54
0 0 0 86 158 0
330 0
3:30 PM 0 34 2 43 0 0 0
69 83 0 6 97 0
380 1,514
4:00 PM 0 42 1 55 0 0 0
74 89 0 17 102 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
7 91 0 407 1,574
4:15 PM 0 50 0 53
0 0 0 101 110 0
17 72 0 327 1,500
4:45 PM 0 32 0 48
0 0 0 74 75 0
386 1,630
4:30 PM 0 41 1 47 0 0 0
92 100 0 9 82 0
301 1,421
5:00 PM 0 41 0 35 0 0 0
78 74 0 10 59 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 70 0 314 1,328
5:15 PM 0 33 0 38
0 0 0 65 101 0
11 87 0 309 1,228
5:45 PM 0 22 1 35
0 0 0 55 74 0
304 1,246
5:30 PM 0 32 2 48 0 0 0
77 77 0 7 72 0
268 1,19568 72 0 6 64 00 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 430 10 545 0 0 0 135 1,007 0 4,130 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 170 3
0 0 0 893 1,110 0
0 7 78 0 239 00 0 0 0 41 49
0 1,630 0
HV 0 11 0 53 0 0
0 353 457 0 61 381205 0 0 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
11% - 11% 20% - 15%- - - - - 12%HV% - 6% 0% 26% -
0 0
3:15 PM 15 0 33 22 70 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
3:00 PM 13 0 33 17 63 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
3:45 PM 20 0 21 24 65
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3:30 PM 12 0 20 21 53 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:15 PM 14 0 21 14 49 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:00 PM 18 0 28 26 72 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 10 0 22 10 42
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 13 0 15 14 42 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 3 0 21 20 44 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
2 0 0
5:00 PM 6 0 19 15 40 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 8 0 15 11 34
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM 10 0 20 16 46 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour 64 0 90 85 239 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 5Count Total 142 0 268 210 620 0
00 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] www.idaxdata.com
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Three-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

SouthboundNorthboundWestboundEastbound
Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One HourEastbound Westbound
0 17 0 63 0
3:15 PM 0 2 1 12
0 0 0 12 21 0
TH RT
3:00 PM 0 1 0 12 0 0 0

UT LT TH RT UT LT
70 0
3:30 PM 0 2 0 10 0 0 0
12 21 0 2 20 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 18 0 53 0
3:45 PM 0 2 0 18
0 0 0 9 11 0
2 24 0 72 260
4:15 PM 0 4 0 10
0 0 0 14 14 0
65 251
4:00 PM 0 3 0 15 0 0 0
10 11 0 2 22 0
49 239
4:30 PM 0 0 0 13 0 0 0
8 13 0 0 14 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 14 0 42 228
4:45 PM 0 2 0 8
0 0 0 7 8 0
0 15 0 40 173
5:15 PM 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 7 12 0
42 205
5:00 PM 0 1 0 5 0 0 0
13 9 0 1 9 0
44 168
5:30 PM 0 0 0 10 0 0 0
6 15 0 2 18 00 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 15 0 46 172
5:45 PM 0 0 0 8
0 0 0 6 14 0
34 1640 15 0 1 10 0
14 196 0 620 0
Peak Hour 0 11 0 53
0 0 0 104 164 0Count Total 0 17 1 124 0 0 0
0 03:00 PM
RT
239 0
Interval
Start
I-205 EB Ramps I-205 EB Ramps N MacArthur Dr N MacArthur Dr 15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour
41 49 0 7 78 00 0 0 0 0 0

RTTHLT RTTHLTRT
0 4:00 PM
000 0
0 0
3:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 3:30 PM
00 0 0 00 03:15 PM 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
4:15 PM
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 5:30 PM
00 0 0 00 0
0 0
5:15 PM
0 0 0
0 5:00 PM
000 00 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0000 0
0 0
5:45 PM
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hour
0 0Count Total
0 THLT
00 0 0 00 0
0 000 0 0
0 0
0 0
0000
0 0
0 00
0 THLT
00000000
0 00
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 000 0 0 0
000 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected]

Tracy Alliance I‐205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis                                                                                     Page 7

B. SimTraffic Reports

Tracy Alliance Existing
Queuing and Blocking Report AM
Queuing and Blocking Report SimTraffic Report
KH Page 1
Intersection: 1: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 290 102 204 136 139 62
Average Queue (ft) 149 46 102 47 54 22
95th Queue (ft) 252 79 184 97 116 42
Link Distance (ft) 976 228 228 544
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 450
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 249 78 149 232 112 233
Average Queue (ft) 104 57 54 110 43 111
95th Queue (ft) 194 74 118 197 98 230
Link Distance (ft) 1106 747 747 228 228
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 35
Queuing Penalty (veh) 45 19
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 66
Tracy Alliance Existing
Queuing and Blocking Report PM
Queuing and Blocking Report SimTraffic Report
KH Page 1
Intersection: 1: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 275 68 215 194 104 68
Average Queue (ft) 129 22 108 72 43 24
95th Queue (ft) 236 57 189 142 86 52
Link Distance (ft) 976 228 228 544
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 450
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 332 78 215 193 111 228
Average Queue (ft) 155 54 101 75 44 101
95th Queue (ft) 278 71 187 140 86 200
Link Distance (ft) 1106 747 747 228 228
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 40 23
Queuing Penalty (veh) 91 45
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 138
Tracy Alliance Existing Plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report AM
KH SimTraffic Report
Queuing and Blocking Report Page 1
Intersection: 10: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 401 154 227 103 133 66
Average Queue (ft) 174 48 109 41 46 21
95th Queue (ft) 324 151 193 85 107 44
Link Distance (ft) 976 228 228 544
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 450
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0
Intersection: 11: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 295 76 212 283 121 241
Average Queue (ft) 118 58 69 117 38 129
95th Queue (ft) 229 74 157 226 94 253
Link Distance (ft) 1106 747 747 228 228
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 17 39
Queuing Penalty (veh) 49 20
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 75
Tracy Alliance Existing Plus Project
Queuing and Blocking Report PM
KH SimTraffic Report
Queuing and Blocking Report Page 1
Intersection: 10: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L TR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 310 76 241 161 139 69
Average Queue (ft) 152 22 150 78 51 23
95th Queue (ft) 259 60 249 143 105 50
Link Distance (ft) 976 228 228 544
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500 450
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: N MacArthur Dr & I-205 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LT R T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 460 75 342 224 118 238
Average Queue (ft) 217 55 154 91 48 112
95th Queue (ft) 410 71 283 171 99 234
Link Distance (ft) 1106 747 747 228 228
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25
Storage Blk Time (%) 46 28
Queuing Penalty (veh) 120 53
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 182

Tracy Alliance I‐205 & MacArthur Interchange Ramp Queuing Analysis                                                                                     Page 8

C. Caltrans DEIR Comment Letter
“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
TGLL-54620\2686402.1 NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Tracy Alliance Project
City of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2020080524
Prepared for:

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

FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Date: January 17, 2023
Attachment F

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Table of Contents

FirstCarbon Solutions iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Table of Contents
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ............................................... 1

1.1 - Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 - Overview of the Statement of Findings ............................................................................. 1

1.3 - Project Summary ............................................................................................................... 2

1.4 - Procedural Background ..................................................................................................... 6

1.5 - Statement of Findings ....................................................................................................... 7

1.6 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant Without Mitigation ............ 10

1.7 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant After Mitigation .................. 57

1.8 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Significant and Unavoidable ..................... 111

1.9 - Findings Regarding Alternatives .................................................................................... 129

1.10 - Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................... 134

1.11 - Findings Regarding Growth Inducement ..................................................................... 135

1.12 - Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................... 136

1.13 - Statement of Overriding Considerations ..................................................................... 138

Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS

1.1 - Introduction
The City of Tracy is the lead agency for the Tracy Alliance Project (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2020080524) (proposed project). Having received, reviewed, and considered the EIR (as defined below) and other relevant information in the administrative record of proceedings, the Tracy City Council (City Council) hereby finds and adopts the findings set forth herein (collectively, “Findings”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Government Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code [PRC] § 15000 et seq.) (collectively, “CEQA”).

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091:

No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(a) 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 (hereinafter referred to as “finding (1)”). (b) 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 (hereinafter referred to as “finding (2)”). (c) 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 (hereinafter referred to as “finding (3)”).

The required findings shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(b)).

As discussed in more detail below, for those impacts that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance, if the public agency intends to approve the project, the public agency must find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15092(b)(2)(B), 15093).

1.2 - Overview of the Statement of Findings
Based on the nature and scope of the proposed project, the City of Tracy, as lead agency, determined that the proposed project may have significant effects on the environment even after the application City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

2 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx of all feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Report, including attached appendices (collectively, Draft EIR), was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed and completed in full compliance with CEQA. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment (as described further below), after which the City of Tracy prepared a Final EIR/Responses to Comments, including attached appendices (collectively, “Final EIR”). References herein to the “EIR” are to the collective documentation contained in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. This City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including, without limitation, the Draft and Final EIRs, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during the proposed project’s entitlement process including, without limitation, evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings on the matter. The EIR reflects the independent judgment of this City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed project.

The EIR for the proposed project identifies the effects on the environment which may occur as a result of the proposed project. Section 1.5 below sets forth the potential environmental effects which are not significant; because it has been determined that impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. Section 1.6 below sets forth the potentially significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated, as well as the feasible mitigation measures that would reduce them to less than significant levels. Section 1.7 below sets forth the potential environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels even after implementing all feasible mitigation measures, and therefore would remain significant and unavoidable. Section 1.8 summarizes the alternatives evaluated in the EIR and makes findings, with respect to each alternative, regarding its feasibility, its ability to achieve the project objectives, including whether and the extent to which it would lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project while still achieving most of the project objectives.

The following summarizes all significant effects of the proposed project and with respect to each environmental topic, makes one or more of the findings set forth in the Introduction above and states facts in support of such findings in accordance with CEQA’s requirements.

The EIR as well as other documentation and materials set forth in the administrative record for the proposed project provide additional facts in support of these Findings. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment A) are incorporated by reference in these Findings, and the Findings in Sections 1.6 through 1.8 refer to individual mitigation measures as appropriate.

1.3 - Project Summary
Project Location
The 122.44-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of Grant Line Road and Paradise Road and consists of five Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 213-170-27, 213-170-24, -25, -26, and 213-170-14) (project site) held by three different ownership groups: the Tracy Alliance Group, the Suvik Farms Group, and the Zuriakat Group, respectively, in connection with individual development proposals.

The entire project site is within unincorporated San Joaquin County, adjacent to the northeastern city City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx limits and within the City of Tracy’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), 10-year planning horizon. The project site is directly east of the City’s Northeast Industrial (NEI) Specific Plan boundary. The project site is bound by Interstate 205 (I-205) to the north, California Avenue to the northeast, Grant Line Road to the south, and Paradise Road to the west. In the EIR, and for purposes of these Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the project site is described as consisting of three parcels: the Tracy Alliance parcel, the Suvik Farms parcel and the Zuriakat parcel, and the term “proposed project” means the development of all three parcels.

Project Description
The Tracy Alliance Group, Suvik Farms, LLC, and Zuriakat (co-applicants) are pursuing the proposed project, which consists, collectively, of the development of up to 3,352,320 square feet of warehouse and distribution and related development on a total of approximately 191.18 acres comprising six parcels. The six parcels consist of two Tracy Alliance parcels (totaling approximately 122.44 acres), three Suvik Farms, LLC parcels (totaling approximately 46.61 acres), and one Zuriakat parcel (approximately 22.17 acres).

The approximately 122 acres of the Tracy Alliance parcels would be developed with three buildings (Building A, Building B, and Building C) consisting of approximately 1,849,500 square feet of warehouse and distribution space (including ancillary office uses), approximately 12.51 acres of the Tracy Alliance land to be reserved to accommodate a portion of a planned interchange at Paradise Road and Interstate 205 (I-205),1 and an approximately 12.44-acre stormwater detention basin area with pump station.

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 EIR, buildout of these parcels is estimated to consist of a total of approximately 1,502,820 square feet of warehouse and distribution development, consistent with the maximum allowable density per acre identified in the NEI Specific Plan. Specifically, it is assumed that the Suvik Farm parcels would have a maximum building square footage of 1,023,660 square feet on approximately 46.61 acres of land area (50 percent floor area ratio [FAR]) and the Zuriakat parcel would have a maximum building square footage of 479,150 square feet on approximately 22.17 acres of land area (50 percent FAR). These parcels would be required to adhere to all applicable development standards and design guidelines, including those related to landscaping and parking.The entire proposed project includes demolition of 11 existing residential and agricultural structures on approximately four acres located at the southwestern corner of the Tracy Alliance parcels, removal of all crops, and construction of a warehouse facility. The proposed project would include landscaping consistent with all applicable City requirements, including, for example, approximately 110,000 square feet of landscaped areas associated with the site plan for the Tracy Alliance parcel. In connection with the individual development proposal for the Tracy Alliance parcels, the relevant site plan reflects approximately 1,134 automobile parking spaces, and approximately 572 trailer parking spaces. Parking for the

1 As explained in the EIR, the potential impacts of constructing this future interchange would undergo a separate environmental review process pursuant to CEQA and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) once funding is programmed and available and once the ultimate design of the interchange is finalized; accordingly, the construction is not considered part of the proposed project (although the interchange is assumed to be in place as part of the cumulative conditions within the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Kimley Horn).

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

4 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx proposed project would be provided pursuant to applicable parking requirements of Tracy Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 Article 26; based on these requirements, the proposed project would be required to provide a total of approximately 1,153 automobile parking spaces. Trailer parking and bike parking spaces would also be provided pursuant to applicable City requirements and standards.

The proposed project would also include off-site roadway improvements, including a westbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Grant Line Road and North MacArthur Drive with a right-turn overlap of the signal phase as well as an additional second westbound left turn lane at the intersection of Chrisman Road and Eleventh Street with the signal timing being modified to allow a lagging phase for the eastbound left turn and northbound left turn. The City of Tracy General Plan designates the project site as Industrial. The project site would be annexed into the City of Tracy upon the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval and detached from the Tracy Rural Fire District; at such time as the reorganization is complete, the current San Joaquin County General Plan designation (A/UR) would no longer apply to the project site. Because the project site is already designated Industrial by the City of Tracy General Plan, no land use re-designation (General Plan Amendment) would be required. The proposed project would be consistent with this City land use designation, for the reasons set forth in the EIR. The proposed project is expected to employ a total of approximately 1,871 people at full buildout. Upon annexation, the Tracy Fire Department and South San Joaquin County Fire Authority (South County Fire) would provide fire protection services to the project site.

Project Objectives
The quantifiable objectives of the proposed project include the following:
• Development of approximately 165 acres of industrial uses (building and parking areas). • Development of 12.44 acres of public facilities (storm basin). • Reserve 12.51 acres for future Interchange at Paradise Road and I-205. • Build a maximum of 3,352,320 square feet of employment-generating industrial uses.

Qualitative objectives for the proposed project are as follows:
• Employment Opportunities: Provide for local and regional employment opportunities that 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, and reduce the commute for regional residents.
• Transportation: Provide an efficient circulation system, including reserving land for a future interchange at Paradise Road and I-205 (construction of the interchange will not be completed as part of the proposed project).
• Public Facilities and Services: Provide infrastructure and services that meet applicable City standards and integrate with existing and planned facilities. • Phasing: Establish a logical phasing plan designed to ensure that each phase of development would include necessary public improvements required to meet applicable City standards.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx

1.3.3–Required Approvals
The following discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City for implementation of the proposed project:
• EIR Certification
• Prezoning to Northeast Industrial Specific Plan
• Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Amendment
• Development review permit(s)
• Tentative Parcel Map or Lot Line Adjustment as needed to create final development lots • Resolution of City Initiation of Reorganization Proceedings • Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on the Suvik Farms parcels (if required)

In addition, the following actions would be required by the City for implementation of the proposed project:
• Demolition permits
• Grading permits
• Building permits
• Certificates of occupancy

This list is representative and does not provide an exhaustive list of all subsequent City actions that may be necessary to implement the project.

In addition to the City, several other agencies will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. The EIR provides environmental information that may be required to grant approvals or to support coordination 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
• California Public Utilities Commission
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
• County of San Joaquin
• San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission

Actions by other agencies that are necessary to implement the project:
• Annexation of the project site into the City of Tracy (San Joaquin LAFCo) • Detachment of the project site from Tracy Rural Fire District (San Joaquin LAFCo) • Coverage under General Construction Stormwater Permit (California State Water Resources Control Board/Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board) City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx • Approval of Indirect Source Review (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District) • Issuance of Encroachment Permits for roadway or utility improvements within facilities under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the County of San Joaquin may also be necessary.

1.4 - Procedural Background
The City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for public review and comment by responsible and trustee agencies, as well as other interested agencies, organizations and individuals, from August 28, 2020 to September 30, 2020. The NOP and copies of comments received are included as Appendix A to the EIR.

On September 9, 2020, a scoping meeting was held as a virtual meeting via WebEx. The meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. during which individuals and organizations/agency representatives were provided an opportunity to submit oral and written comments pertaining to environmental concerns related to the proposed project and the proposed scope of the environmental review process.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21161 and 21092 as well as CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087(b), on April 20, 2022, a Notice of Completion (NOC)/Notice of Availability (NOA) document and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed project, or that exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the proposed project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law.

The Draft EIR was publicly available at the City of Tracy Department of Development and Engineering Services at 333 Civic Center Plaza, Tracy, CA, 95376, as well as the Tracy Branch Library at 20 East Eaton Avenue, Tracy, CA 95376. In addition, the Draft EIR was posted on the City of Tracy Department of Development and Engineering Services website at https://www.cityoftracy.org/our- city/departments/planning/specific-plans-environmental-impact-reports-and-initial-studies during the public review period. The Draft EIR was circulated for a public review period between April 20, 2022, and June 3, 2022, for 45 days.

A public meeting was held by the Planning Commission on May 25, 2022, at 333 Civic Center Plaza, which took place both virtually and in person. The meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. and interested individuals, organizations, and agency representatives were invited to provide oral and written comments on the Final EIR.

The City of Tracy received and evaluated numerous comments from other public agencies, as well as other interested organizations and individuals. After the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR, the City of Tracy prepared the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, consisting of the comments received on significant environmental issues during the 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR, and an errata making minor, non-substantive changes to the Final EIR. The Final EIR was prepared and published on January 17, 2023. In accordance with applicable CEQA requirements, the responses to comments City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx contained in the Final EIR address all written and verbal comments on environmental issues received by the City during the 45-day public review period. In addition, although not required to do so under CEQA, for purposes of providing for full disclosure and to further facilitate the EIR serving as an informational document, the City elected, in its discretion, to respond to written comments received by the City after the close of the 45-day public review period.

As noted above, for purposes of these Findings, the “EIR” shall consist of the Draft EIR, all appendices attached to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR (consisting of the Introduction, Errata, and Master and Individual Responses to Comments) and all appendices attached to the Final EIR. The conclusions and analyses set forth in the EIR are further supported by other documents and materials included in the administrative record.

1.5 - Statement of Findings
This City Council hereby finds that the EIR was prepared, published, circulated, reviewed and considered in accordance with CEQA and constitutes an accurate, adequate, objective and complete EIR. This City Council has exercised its independent judgment and analysis in evaluating the EIR. In exercising this judgment, this City Council has reviewed and considered the EIR and other relevant information in the administrative record including, without limitation, public testimony.

The City Council further finds, based on all of the evidence presented, including, without limitation, the EIR, written and oral testimony given at public meetings and hearings in connection therewith, and the submission of comments from interested individuals, organizations and other public agencies, as well as all other relevant information in the administrative record, the following environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.

This City Council concludes that implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant and adverse environmental impacts as described in Section 1.7. As discussed herein, this City Council is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Accordingly, this City Council hereby makes these required Findings, as set forth in this document. Among other things, these Findings summarize the environmental determinations about the proposed project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation, and summarize the proposed project’s individual and cumulative impacts. These Findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact. Instead, they provide a summary description of each significant impact and the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by this City Council (as reflected in the MMRP) and state the conclusions regarding the significance of each impact after incorporation of the identified mitigation measures. A comprehensive explanation of these environmental impact conclusions can be found in the EIR, as supplemented and explained in staff reports and materials presented by the project applicants, City of Tracy staff, and various project consultants, and other relevant materials in the administrative record.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

8 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx The EIR contains substantial evidence to support all the conclusions presented in these Findings.

As reflected in certain comments, there is disagreement among various parties regarding particular conclusions in the EIR. CEQA and relevant case law interpreting the CEQA statute and Guidelines provide the standards for the treatment of disagreement among experts in the context of an EIR, as follows: Where evidence and opinions conflict on an issue concerning the environment, and the lead agency knows of these controversies in advance, the EIR and/or related findings must acknowledge the controversies, summarize the conflicting opinions of the experts, and include sufficient information on the controversy. In making a decision on a project where there is disagreement among experts, the lead agency is not obligated to select the viewpoint that purports to be the most environmentally sensitive. Instead, in the context of an EIR, such as the case at hand, decision- makers are vested with the discretion to weigh expert opinion and choose which they intend to rely on and are not required to resolve a dispute among experts. In their proceedings, decision-makers must consider comments received concerning the adequacy of the EIR and address any objections raised in these comments pursuant to CEQA’s mandate to facilitate disclosure and informed decision- making. However, decision-makers are not obligated to follow any directives, recommendations, or suggestions presented in comments on an EIR, and can certify an EIR without needing to resolve disagreements among experts.

In making its decision to certify the EIR and approve the proposed project, this City Council recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to certain environmental issues, including air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts, among others. This City Council has acquired a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the EIR; as well as by its review of the information provided by the experts who prepared the EIR; the City's other consultants and its staff; along with testimony, letters, reports, and other relevant materials in the administrative record, as well as its own experience and expertise in these matters. The materials reviewed by this City Council include conflicting expert opinions and conflicting interpretations of facts, as well as other comments on the environmental issues set forth in the EIR. This comprehensive review has enabled this City Council to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues, and this City Council has made determinations of significant effects based on substantial evidence, not public controversy or speculation. Accordingly, this City Council hereby certifies that its Findings and determinations are based on all of the evidence contained in the EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and hereby elects to rely on the analysis and evidence set forth in the EIR.

The EIR is incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the proposed project despite the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

This City Council hereby adopts, and incorporates as enforceable conditions of approval of the proposed project, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment A), which has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. This City Council adopts this MMRP as it pertains to the proposed project and finds City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx that the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP will reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project to the extent feasible for the reasons described in the EIR. In the event a mitigation measure recommended in the EIR has inadvertently been omitted from the MMRP , this City Council hereby adopts such mitigation measure(s) as stated in the EIR and hereby incorporates said mitigation measure into these Findings by reference.

The mitigation measures as set forth in the MMRP are being made enforceable as conditions of approval. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the proposed project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The proposed project has several significant and unavoidable impacts, as discussed further in Section 1.8 below.

Various measures were suggested by commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures or modifications to the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. Other comments requested mitigation measures for impacts that were determined by the City to be less than significant or requested additional mitigation measures for impacts that were already determined by the City to be reduced to a less than significant level by the proposed mitigation measures. These requests are declined as unnecessary except as otherwise set forth in the Final EIR. This City Council adopts the reasons set forth in the EIR and as otherwise further supported by materials and other information in the administrative record as its grounds for rejecting the suggested adoption of new mitigation measures beyond those detailed in the Final EIR.

In addition, certain commenters suggested that additional analyses be completed and/or that analyses be conducted utilizing different modeling, methodologies, thresholds and/or assumptions.

These requests are declined as unnecessary except as otherwise set forth in the Final EIR. This City Council adopts the reasons set forth in the EIR and as otherwise further supported by materials and other information in the administrative record as its grounds for rejecting the suggested additional and/or modified analyses beyond that which is detailed in the Final EIR.

Regarding the potential for growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project, this City Council adopts the conclusions set forth in the EIR, including but not limited to the conclusions in Section 5.2 (Growth-Inducing Effects), based upon the evidence and reasoning they reflect, and adopts the findings as set forth in Section 1.10 below.

With respect to the potential significant and irreversible environmental effects of the proposed project, this City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the EIR, including but not limited to the conclusions in Section 3.16 (Utilities and Service Systems), Section 3.6 (Energy), and Section

5.3 (Significant Irreversible Changes), based upon the evidence and reasoning they reflect, and adopts the findings as set forth in Section 1.11 below.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

10 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx

1.6 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant Without Mitigation
Based on the information in the administrative record of proceedings, including the EIR, the following environmental effects are found to be less than significant, and therefore do not trigger the need for any mitigation. (CEQA Guidelines § 15091)
The section numbering used below is the same numbering used in the EIR. In addition to the supporting information presented below, please refer to the EIR, under separate cover, for greater detail.

To provide more meaningful public disclosure, reduce the time and cost required to prepare an environmental impact report, and focus on potentially significant effects on the environment of a proposed project, the EIR focuses on those potential effects on the environment of the proposed project which the City of Tracy has determined are or may be significant. Accordingly, consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 21100 and 21002.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15128s, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant and significant impacts. For other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts, the EIR has limited discussion on these other effects to a brief explanation as to why those effects are not potentially significant.

Accordingly, this City Council, based on the evidence and reasoning set forth in the EIR, finds that there are no mineral resource recovery sites or known mineral resources on or in the vicinity of the project site; therefore, there are no impacts to mineral resources (Draft EIR, Page 4-1). Because the proposed project is industrial in nature and would not develop single-family or multi-family residential uses, no direct population growth would be expected to occur because of the proposed project; therefore, there would be no impacts to Population and Housing (Draft EIR, Page 4-2).

Additionally, because the quantity of existing visitors and total facility usage would not likely increase significantly as a result of the proposed project, the City Council finds there would be no impacts to Parks and Recreation (Draft EIR, Page 4-3).

The EIR discusses and analyzes all other environmental topical areas for potential impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact and for which no mitigation is necessary. Nevertheless, based on its independent judgment and the entire administrative record before it, this City Council finds that the following potential environmental effects would not be significant and no mitigation is necessary for the reasons stated below and as further detailed in the EIR.

1.6.1 - Aesthetics
Potential Effect
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-15).

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 11
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: The General Plan identifies scenic resources, rather than scenic vistas.

During construction, views of scenic resources could be impacted because of construction vehicles and dust generated from construction of the proposed project. Scenic resources include views of the Diablo Range, natural landscapes surrounding the Paradise Cut, Old River, Tom Paine Sloughs, expansive agricultural areas and hillside areas, as well as views from the exits on I-205 off MacArthur Drive, Tracy Boulevard, Grant Line Road and Eleventh Street, and exits from I-580 at Lammers Road and Corral Hollow Road. The scenic resources visible from the project site and from adjacent, publicly accessible roadways (Grant Line Road, Paradise Road, and California Avenue) include views of the “entry corridors” from eastbound I-205 off MacArthur Drive, views of expansive agricultural lands, and views of the Diablo Range to the west.

Construction of the proposed project would obstruct, to a certain degree, views of expansive agricultural lands on and adjacent to the project site from these roadways. Though the project site is located far from the Diablo Range (approximately 9 miles to the east of the range), the Diablo Range is still visible from California Avenue. Views of expansive agricultural lands or views of the Diablo Range from California Avenue would only be partially obstructed while the structures of the buildings are being erected. Dust caused by construction would be kicked up intermittently throughout the day but would not obstruct these views for long periods of time, and any such minor impacts would be reduced by dust control measures to which the applicants for individual development proposals would be required to adhere. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in a substantial impact to publicly accessible views from certain roadways of certain scenic resources (expansive agricultural lands and certain views of the Diablo Range) as defined in the General Plan.

The area surrounding the project site is a transition zone between rural and agricultural lands to an urban environment, and the General Plan seeks to enhance the City’s identity by creating a soft transition between urban and non-urban uses around the edge of the City. Techniques used to achieve this goal are addressed in Goal CC-4, which recommends the use of buffer zones and landscaping to create appropriate transitions. The proposed project would be required to adhere to this goal and associated policies.

During operation, the buildings would not significantly interrupt views from the entry corridor off MacArthur Drive because of the distance to those corridors as well as intervening development and trees, all of which would remain, and drivers along I-205 are considered to have a relatively low sensitivity because of the speed of travel along the highway.

The proposed project would provide setbacks, and the proposed buildings would be similar in height to the existing industrial development located between the publicly accessible roadways and the Diablo Range. In addition, pursuant to the NEI Specific Plan, the maximum height for the proposed buildings would be 60 feet. Even with the setback and adherence to applicable development standards and design guidelines, given the change in the project site from expansive agriculture land to a large industrial site and the proximity of the project site to Grant Line Road, Paradise Road, and California Avenue, operation of the proposed project would impact views of expansive agricultural City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

12 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx lands on and adjacent to the project site from publicly accessible roadways. However, this type of change was envisioned by the City in the General Plan and is in keeping with the General Plan goals, objectives and policies described above, as well as other surrounding urbanized uses in the general vicinity.

The proposed project would result in further obstruction of views of the Diablo Range from drivers along California Avenue; however, this roadway is considered to have a low sensitivity because of the typical speed of travel. In addition, this type of industrial development would be a continuation of the type of development that was envisioned by the General Plan and the already increasingly urbanized nature of the general vicinity (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-15–17). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.

Potential Effect
Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-17).

Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: I-580 is officially designated as a State Scenic Highway between I-205 and I-5 and is the nearest State Scenic Highway from the project site. The project site is located approximately 7.2 miles northeast of I-580 and is not visible from that highway. Intervening trees and development, all of which would remain, would obscure the project site from being viewed from this portion of the highway. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage any scenic resources during construction or operation. The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.

Potential Effect
Impact AES-3: The proposed project is in an urbanized area. The proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-18–19).

Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project is in an urbanized area. 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 allowed FAR is 0.5. The project site is not currently within City limits although it is within the City’s current SOI (10-year planning horizon); accordingly, the City of Tracy does not currently provide a zoning designation for the project site, although the City has designated the project site as “Industrial” in its General Plan. The co-applicants are requesting prezoning to a designation of NEI Specific Plan and an amendment to the boundaries of the NEI Specific Plan to include the project site.

Pursuant to the NEI Specific Plan, the maximum height for the proposed project would be 60 feet (similar to other industrial buildings in the area) and the proposed buildings would not be allowed to City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 13
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx exceed this height. This height would also be consistent and thus compatible with adjacent existing industrial uses to the south and west. The proposed project would be required to adhere to General Plan Goal CC-4 and associated policies, including the use of a buffer zone and landscaping, which could be provided by the proposed stormwater detention basin. The proposed buildings would be set back (by at least 10 feet) from California Avenue, which would provide a transition between the residential uses and agricultural lands adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable General Plan and NEI Specific Plan design guidelines, policies and development standards set forth therein to ensure consistency and enhance overall visual compatibility with surrounding existing and planned uses (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-18–19). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.

Potential Effect
Impact AES-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-19).

Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: Construction-related impacts would include a certain amount of light and glare from construction equipment and machinery as well as nighttime security lighting.

However, light and glare during the construction phase would be temporary and limited to the duration of construction. Pursuant to Section 4.12.820 of the Municipal Code, construction activities would be limited to the hours of 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, which would limit the amount of nighttime construction lighting. Though there would be some nighttime lighting, it would not occur during the most sensitive time period (after 10:00 p.m.) when sleeping activities would most likely occur.

The project site contains minimal existing light and glare due to the small amount of existing development on-site. Additional exterior lighting would be located around and within the project site for security and safety reasons. As a result, the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare on the project site. The light fixtures used for the proposed project would meet all applicable standards pursuant to the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) and would be installed throughout the length of the New Private Drive pursuant to applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable development standards and design guidelines provided in the NEI Specific Plan intended to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting. Project signage would be required to conform to the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 10.08, Article 35, except as modified by the NEI Specific Plan. A site-specific sign program would be prepared and integrated into the total design concept for each individual development proposal within the proposed project, and all signs would be approved prior to installation. Sign 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. Landscaping would further reduce light spillage off-site and help to block glare from significantly impacting nearby uses to the extent feasible.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

14 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Windows installed as part of the proposed project could result in glare, although it 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 add significant nighttime lighting or glare in an area with no existing lighting impacts. (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-19–20). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.

Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-21).

Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: The relevant geographic scope of review is within the immediate vicinity surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the proposed project. The cumulative setting includes relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development.

There are three probable future cumulative projects located within 1 mile of the project site. The cumulative projects are subject to applicable City Code provisions, development standards and design policies and guidelines related to building heights, setbacks, undergrounding of utilities, landscaping, signage, and permitted land uses as described in the EIR, which would serve to reduce visual impacts to a certain extent. The past, present and reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would be consistent with the types of projects envisioned in the General Plan, would reflect the increasingly urbanized nature of this area, and would adhere to all applicable regulations and policies. As described above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts with respect to visual character and views and would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact.

Existing and new buildings associated with the existing and foreseeable cumulative projects could result in an increase in light and glare impacts on surrounding uses. Because these cumulative projects would be adjacent to other existing urban development, they would add significant nighttime lighting or glare in an area with relatively limited existing lighting. The cumulative projects are required to adhere to all applicable development standards and design guidelines provided in the NEI Specific Plan intended to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting; the City would confirm consistency with these requirements as part of the development review process. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact to light and glare. As discussed above, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with respect to light and glare and its contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project combined with the relevant cumulative projects would include sources of daytime glare such as direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other reflective surfaces. Nighttime illumination would include stationary sources such as structure lighting and decorative landscaping, lighted signs, solar panels, and streetlights. Mobile nighttime sources would primarily be from headlights from motor vehicles. As described above, the proposed project would be adding a certain amount of lighting and glare in an area with relatively City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 15
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx limited existing lighting, but would be required to adhere to all applicable development standards provided in the NEI Specific Plan intended to reduce daytime glare and nighttime lighting.

Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-20–21).

1.6.2 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potential Effect
Impact AG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-9).

Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: The existing zoning for the project site is AG-40 under the County’s General Plan. However, the co-applicants are requesting prezoning to “Northeast Industrial (NEI) Specific Plan,” which would take effect upon annexation into the City. The prezoning allows for the proposed industrial use, and the change in zoning from AG-40 under the County’s General Plan to NEI Specific Plan zoning would ensure there is no conflict with existing zoning.

The Suvik Farms parcels are covered by an active Williamson Act Contract; none of the other land within the project site is 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 9-year process to formally expire the contract.

Based on the date of the Notice of Nonrenewal, the contract will expire on August 21, 2026.

Additionally, State law provides a detailed procedure to terminate a Williamson Act Contract.

Accordingly, should development of the Suvik Farms parcels be pursued prior to the Williamson Act Contract expiration date, then pursuant to the provisions of the Williamson Act, the applicant for the development of the Suvik Farms parcels would be required to petition the City Council for cancellation, or agree to the imposition of a condition of approval such that no permit for development on the Suvik Farms parcels would be issued prior to the August 21, 2026, expiration date. Accordingly, because the Suvik Farms parcels applicant would be required to follow applicable provisions of State law, the proposed project would not result in any conflicts with a Williamson Act Contract (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-9–10). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation is necessary.

Potential Effect
Impact AG-3: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-10).

Findings: No impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: The project site does not contain any forest land or timberland, as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor does it contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production, as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). This condition precludes the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

16 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx possibility of the proposed project conflicting with forest zoning of forest land or timberland (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-10). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.

Potential Effect
Impact AG-4: The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-10).

Findings: No impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: The project site is adjacent to urbanized, industrial land uses (with these surrounding uses also not containing any forest land) and does not contain any forest land.

This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting forest land to non-forest use (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-10). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.

Potential Effect
Impact AG-5: The proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-11) Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: The County of San Joaquin zones areas north, east, and south of the project site (outside City limits) as AG-40, General Agriculture (40 acres), and designates these lands under the County General Plan as General Agriculture (A/G). Similar to the project site, the land directly northwest of the project site (north of I-205) is within the City’s SOI and is designated Industrial by the City’s General Plan. For this land to be converted to nonagricultural uses, it would need to be annexed into the City of Tracy (or seek the appropriate discretionary approvals from the County to modify the agricultural land use and zoning designations) and would require the completion of CEQA analysis prior to the discretionary approval of any urban development.

However, the proposed project does not include the annexation of these lands and, therefore, would not result in a change in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Though there is a possibility this land would be converted to nonagricultural uses in the future, the proposed project would not be the cause of that conversion. Moreover, the proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable Right-to-Farm provisions described above, which would help to avoid any potential land use incompatibility issues that could otherwise facilitate the eventual conversion of other agricultural lands. The project site is adjacent to urbanized, industrial land uses and does not contain any forest land. This condition precludes the possibility of the proposed project converting forest land to non-forest use (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-11).

The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant or no impact. No mitigation is necessary.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 17
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx

1.6.3 - Air Quality
Potential Effect
Impact AIR-4: The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-52).

Findings: Less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Findings: Odor impacts occur when a new odor source is located near an existing sensitive receptor or when a new sensitive receptor locates near an existing source of odor. Impacts to new receptors is generally outside the scope of CEQA review but is included in the Draft EIR analysis for informational purposes.

Land uses that are typically identified as sources of objectionable odors include landfills, transfer stations, sewage treatment plants, wastewater pump stations, composting facilities, feed lots, coffee roasters, asphalt batch plants, and rendering plants. The proposed project would not involve any of these or similar activities. Therefore, the proposed project would not be considered to have the potential to expose nearby persons to substantial sources of objectionable odors.

During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project’s site boundaries. The proposed project would neither constitute a land use which would generate odors affecting a substantial amount of people nor place new sensitive receptors that could be affected by any existing odor sources (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-52–53).

The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.

1.6.4 - Biological Resources
Potential Effect
Impact BIO-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United Sates Fish and Wildlife Service. (Draft EIR,