Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: A small portion of the project site contains approximately 0.07 acre of cattail marsh. The majority of the cattails consisted of broadleaf cattails; this vegetation type is not classified as a sensitive natural community, but rather a California Natural Community by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (Type 52.050.04–Typha [latifolia, angustifolia]) and is not applicable to this resource category. The project site does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, by the CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-26–27). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
18 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Potential Effect
Impact BIO-4: The proposed project would not substantially interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-29).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The project site is surrounded by industrial developments and is situated in a semi-urban landscape with high amounts of traffic from local industrial operations.
Further, I-205 separates the project site from the closest wildlife corridor to the north, and I-5 and Business I-205 preclude non-volant wildlife movement from the east and southeast. The project site is not part of or within a wildlife movement corridor and, for this reason, impacts would be less than significant under CEQA (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-29–30). No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-30).
Findings: No impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project would be required to adhere to the relevant provisions of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Participation in the SJMSCP ensures that potential impacts for covered species are mitigated below a level of significance in compliance with CEQA as well as the Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to compliance to the SJMSCP, which may include payment of development fees and implementation of other identified mitigation measures (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-30–31). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact BIO-6: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-30)
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Because the project site is located within the SJMSCP Planning Area, and the City is a signatory to the SJMSCP , the proposed project would be required to adhere to the relevant provisions of the SJMSCP . Participation in the SJMSCP ensures that potential impacts for covered species are mitigated below a level of significance in compliance with CEQA as well as the Endangered Species Act and CESA. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to compliance with the SJMSCP , which may include payment of development fees for the conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special-status species as well as implementation of other identified mitigation measures. Implementation of the SJMSCP would ensure that specific impacts to listed City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx species are less than significant under CEQA. Additionally, any potential conflicts with the SJMSCP would be limited to the construction phase of the proposed project, and construction would need to proceed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations including those set forth in the SJMSCP. Therefore, no impacts related to conflicts with the SJMSCP would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.
1.6.5 - Energy
Potential Effect
Impact ENER-1: 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. (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-22).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: For purposes of a conservative analysis, the anticipated construction schedule for all three phases of development was assumed to begin in April 2022 and conclude in March 2025. Construction equipment is estimated to consume a total of approximately 446,864 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction duration. In total, the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 2,937,391 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and a combined approximately 155,123 gallons of gasoline and diesel for vehicle travel during construction.
Equipment could include singlewide mobile office trailers, which are commonly used in construction staging areas and generally range in size from 160 square feet to 720 square feet. A typical 720- square-foot office trailer would consume approximately 21,562 kWh during the 3-year construction phase. Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment along with requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings. Similarly, compliance with applicable State laws and regulations would limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are part of a comprehensive regulatory framework that is implemented by the California Air Resources Control Board (ARB). Additionally, as a practical matter, it is reasonable to assume that the overall construction schedule and process would be designed to be as efficient as feasible in order to avoid excess monetary costs. For example, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully due to the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it.
Therefore, the opportunities for further future efficiency gains during construction are limited. For the foregoing reasons, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
During operation, the proposed project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Project energy consumption is summarized in Table 3.6-1 of the Draft EIR (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-23). Operation of the proposed project would consume an estimated 16,056,160 kWh of electricity and an estimated 21,072,650 kBTU of natural gas on an annual basis. The proposed project’s buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s latest adopted energy efficiency standards, which are based on the State’s Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings and Green Building Code Standards. The proposed project would be required to incorporate electrical conduit to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, and would be required to design the proposed buildings to structurally City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
20 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx 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. Therefore, building energy consumption would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.
Project-related vehicle trips would consume an estimated 805,478 gallons of gasoline and diesel annually. The proposed project would include the installation of bicycle parking fixtures at 5 percent of the proposed automobile parking spaces, encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation for worker commutes. Regional access to the project site is provided via US Interstate 205, which borders the project site. Moreover, the proposed project would be required to implement various Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that would contribute to fuel savings through incentives for project staff to utilize nonmotorized transportation modes. Thus, transportation fuel consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary (Draft EIR, Page
3.6-22–24). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant or no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact ENER-2: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-24).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project would be served with electricity provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). In 2018, PG&E’s electricity-generating portfolio contained 39 percent electricity generated from renewable sources. The utility is required to meet the future objective of 60 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2030. The buildings would be required to be designed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations including the provisions of Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings and Title 24, Green Building Code Standards.
The City’s Sustainability Action Plan and General Plan contain goals, objectives and policies related to energy conservation. Compliance with applicable Title 24 standards would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any of the Sustainability Action Plan energy conservation policies related to the proposed project’s building envelope, mechanical systems, and indoor and outdoor lighting. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable State energy standards and with energy conservation policies contained in the Tracy Sustainability Action Plan. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable State plans and policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-24–25). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to energy would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-26).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 21
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Facts in Support of Findings
Electricity and Natural Gas
The geographic scope of the cumulative energy analysis is the portion of PG&E’s service area that covers incorporated and unincorporated San Joaquin County. During operation, the buildings and other improvements that would be constructed as part of the various cumulative projects would be required to be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings as applicable. Future cumulative development would also be required to meet even more stringent energy efficiency requirements through local and Statewide policy. Furthermore, PG&E, which supplies electricity to the project site and vicinity, would be required by Senate Bill (SB) 100 to incrementally increase the proportion of renewable electricity generation supplying its in-state retail sales until it reaches 100 percent carbon-free electricity generation by 2045. Electricity consumed during construction of the cumulative projects would also be subject to the renewable electricity generation requirements established by SB 100, as PG&E would be the anticipated electricity supplier for the cumulative project areas. Similarly, the proposed project’s energy use would be limited to that which is necessary for the construction and operation of the proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Statewide and local policies and standards pertaining to energy efficiency and can reasonably be assumed to pursue greater energy efficiencies to the extent commercially practicable in its operation, in the interest of reducing operating costs.
Fuel
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment and are enforced by the ARB. Additionally, various federal and State regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Program, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. The proposed project would consume vehicle fuel during both construction and operation.
The proposed project would also be required to use fuels which conform to various federal and State regulations, such as the LCFS, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and LEV Program. In addition, the proposed project would consume fuels in an amount necessary to construct and operate the proposed project and it is reasonable to assume that it would not consume excessive amounts of fuel beyond what is necessary in the interest of avoiding unnecessary construction or operation costs. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-25–26). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
1.6.6 - Geology and Soils
Potential Effect
Impact GEO-2: The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-13).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
22 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Facts in Support of Findings: During construction, the proposed project would include grading and excavation that would expose approximately 500,000 cubic yards of soils. The proposed project would disturb at least 1 acre of land and therefore would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), consistent with the City’s General Permit (No. CAS000004) and to comply with its conditions and requirements, which are designed to minimize potential erosion issues. Consistent with Chapter 11.34 of the Municipal Code, compliance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would ensure the applicant(s) for individual development proposals within the project site would each obtain and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in connection with the individual development proposal at issue where BMPs are implemented that would prevent sediments and other pollutants from entering the stormwater system. Additionally, compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 11.28 would ensure that each relevant development proposal would obtain and implement a grading plan during construction, which would prevent significant erosion of soils.
Impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil are limited to construction impacts. No respective operational impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-13–14). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact GEO-5: The proposed project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-16).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to soil capability of supporting the use of alternative wastewater disposal systems are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur. All development on the project site would connect to the City’s wastewater collection system and no alternative wastewater disposal system would be operated. Furthermore, General Plan Objective 7.3 requires that new development within the City demonstrate adequate wastewater treatment for the proposed project. Wastewater treatment capacity impacts are discussed further under Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-16). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
1.6.7 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potential Effect
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Draft EIR, Page 3.8-35).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Total GHG emissions generated during the three construction phases were estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2. To provide a robust and conservative analysis, the City, in its discretion, has determined to include construction emissions, which were quantified for all phases of the development and then amortized over a 30- City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 23
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx year period. Project operation is assumed to begin in 2023 for Phase 1, 2024 for Phase 2 and 2025 for Phase 3. In addition to being required to comply with applicable rules and regulations, the proposed project would provide benefits in terms of its appropriate location and infrastructure that would reduce project VMT compared with default values. The proposed project would locate industrial uses close to major transportation corridors, for example. Results of this analysis for the three phases are presented in the Draft EIR, Table 3.8-6, Table 3.8-7 and Table 3.8-8. A second set of analyses for 2030 is presented in the Draft EIR, Table 3.8-9 through Table 3.8-11.
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 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (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 Business as Usual (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.
As shown in the Draft EIR, with applicable regulations and design features incorporated: Phase 1 would achieve a reduction in GHG emissions of 49.7 percent from the BAU scenario (compared to the threshold of 21.7 percent reduction BAU) by the year 2023, 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 well above the 21.7 percent average reduction from all sources of GHG emissions now required to achieve Assembly Bill (AB) 32 targets. The ARB originally identified a reduction of 29 percent from BAU as needed to achieve AB 32 targets. The 2008 recession and slower growth in the years since 2008 resulted in a reduction of the growth forecasted for 2020, and the concomitant amount needed to be reduced to achieve 1990 levels as required by AB 32. The California Department of Finance population forecast for 2020 to 2030 predicts growth in the State of 8.1 percent by the 2030 target year or 0.8 percent per year.
The percent reductions from BAU for the three phases are all well in exceedance of the average 21.7 percent reduction required by the State from all sources to achieve the AB 32 2020 target and therefore addresses the concern expressed in the Newhall Ranch decision that projects should likely do more than the average to ensure they are providing a fair share of emission reductions. In addition, the percent reductions from BAU for the three phases are all well in exceedance of the average 29 percent reduction recommended by the SJVAPCD. The emission reductions achieved by the proposed project would primarily come from improved building energy efficiency, increasing transportation fuel content standards, and increasing vehicle fuel efficiency standards when compared with a 2005 BAU scenario.
For purposes of a conservative evaluation, the analysis also addresses consistency with the SB 32 targets and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update with an assessment of the proposed project’s reduction from BAU levels based on emissions in 2030 compared with 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. Therefore, because the proposed project’s buildout would occur City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
24 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx after 2020, operational emissions from the proposed project beginning in 2030 are summarized in the Draft EIR, Table 3.8-9 through Table 3.8-11 and compared with the applicable Valley Air District’s threshold of a 29 percent reduction from BAU emission levels.
As shown in the Draft EIR, with applicable regulations and design features incorporated: Phase 1 would achieve a reduction of 43.9 percent as compared to the Valley Air District-established target of 29 percent reduction from BAU by the year 2030, Phase 2 would achieve a 43.3 percent reduction by 2030, and Phase 3 would achieve a 44 percent reduction by 2030. No new threshold has been adopted by the City of Tracy for the 2030 target, so in the interim the proposed project must make continued progress toward the 2030 goal.
In conclusion, each of the project phases would achieve reductions well in exceedance of both targets: (1) the ARB 2020 21.7 percent target and (2) the Valley Air District 29 percent reduction from BAU requirements from adopted regulations in their respective operational years. No new threshold has been adopted by the City for the SB 32 2030 target; however, the emission estimates presented in the Draft EIR 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 is consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan and would make a reasonable fair share contribution to achieving the 2030 target.
In addition, compliance with the VMT targets, to the extent feasible, adopted to comply with SB 375 and implemented through the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated VMT guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and implemented by the City may be considered to appropriately address GHG emissions from passenger cars and light-duty trucks. (See Section 14, Transportation, for additional details of the VMT analysis as well as proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the extent feasible, which would also reduce GHG emissions.) Additionally, the State strategy relies on the Cap-and- Trade Program to make up any shortfalls that may occur from the other regulatory strategies. The costs of Cap-and-Trade emission reductions will ultimately be passed on to the consumers of fuels, electricity and products produced by regulated industries which include future residents of development projects and other purchasers of products and services. Given the above information and that the proposed project would not exceed Valley Air District-established GHG significance thresholds, this impact would be less than significant (Draft EIR, Page 3.8-35–45). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Draft EIR, Page 3.8-46).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: While the City of Tracy has adopted a Citywide Sustainability Action Plan, it has not adopted a GHG Reduction Plan. In addition, the City has not completed the GHG City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 25
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx inventory, benchmarking, or goalsetting process required to identify a reduction target and take advantage of the streamlining provisions contained in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted for SB 97 and clarifications provided in the CEQA Guidelines amendments adopted on December 28, 2018. The Valley Air District has adopted a Climate Action Plan, but it does not contain measures that are applicable to individual development projects such as the proposed project. Therefore, the Valley Air District Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) cannot be applied to the proposed project for purposes of streamlining under CEQA. Since no other local or regional Climate Action Plan is in place, the proposed project was assessed for its consistency with ARB’s adopted Scoping Plans.
Consistency with California’s Post-2020 Targets
Executive Order S-3-05 sets goals to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The goal of Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 was codified by AB 32. The proposed project, for the reasons summarized above and analyzed in detail in the EIR, is consistent with AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with this component of Executive Order S-3-05. 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. The Scoping Plan Update provides a strategy that is capable of reaching the SB 32 target if the measures included in this plan are implemented and achieve reductions within the ranges expected. Under the Scoping Plan Update, each local government plays a supporting role through its land use authority and control over local transportation infrastructure. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes reductions from implementation of SB 375 that applies to VMT from passenger vehicles. San Joaquin County targets for SB 375 are a 12 percent per capita reduction by 2020 and a 16 percent per capita reduction by 2035 relative to 2005 levels. SB 375 is implemented with the San Joaquin Council of Governments (San Joaquin COG) RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS envisions an increase in development density and intensity that would encourage fewer and shorter trips and more trips by transit, walking, and bicycling in amounts sufficient to achieve the SB 375 targets.
The Executive Order S-3-05 2050 target has not been codified by legislation. However, studies have shown that, in order to meet the 2050 target, aggressive pursuit of technologies in the transportation and energy sectors, including electrification and the decarbonization of fuel, will be required. Quantitatively analyzing the proposed project’s impacts further relative to the 2050 goal is speculative for purposes of CEQA.
The proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets. Recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Even though these studies did not provide an exact regulatory and technological roadmap to achieve the 2030 and 2050 goals, they demonstrated that various combinations of policies could allow the Statewide emissions level to remain very low through 2050, suggesting that the combination of new technologies and other regulations not analyzed in the studies could allow the State to meet the 2050 target.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
26 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Given the proportional contribution of mobile source-related GHG emissions to the State’s inventory, recent studies also show that relatively new trends— such as the increasing importance of web- based shopping, the emergence of different driving patterns, and the increasing effect of web-based applications on transportation choices— are beginning to substantially influence transportation choices and the energy used by transportation modes. These factors have changed the direction of transportation trends in recent years and will require the creation of new models to effectively analyze future transportation patterns and the corresponding effect on GHG emissions. For the reasons summarized above and described more fully in the EIR, the proposed project’s post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets.
Consistency with SB 32
As explained above, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes the strategy that the State intends to pursue to achieve the 2030 targets of Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32. The Draft EIR, Table 3.8-12, provides an analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures. Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with whatever measures are enacted that State lawmakers decide would lead to an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. In its 2008 Scoping Plan, the ARB acknowledged that the “measures needed to meet the 2050 are too far in the future to define in detail.” In the First Scoping Plan Update; however, the ARB generally described the type of activities required to achieve the 2050 target: “energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and rapid market penetration of efficiency and clean energy technologies that requires significant efforts to deploy and scale markets for the cleanest technologies immediately.” The 2017 Scoping Plan Update provides an intermediate target that is intended to achieve reasonable progress toward the 2050 target.
Accordingly, taking into account the nature of the proposed project’s use, location and infrastructure, as well as 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 proposed 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 would not obstruct their attainment. (Draft EIR, Page 3.8-46–51).
Consistency with the RTP/SCS
The SJCOG 2018 RTP establishes regional transportation policy for San Joaquin County based on specific regional 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 objectives contained in the RTP are focused on City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 27
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx 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 focuses on enhancing the environment for existing and future generations and conserve energy. The 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 (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-22–24) or conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (Draft EIR, Page 3.6-24–25). The 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 industrial space and ancillary office uses and related improvements, is consistent with this land use classification. The RTP/SCS accounts for growth in the project area, 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 proposed project would be required to implement feasible mitigation (Mitigation Measure [MM] AIR-1d, MM AIR-1e, MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1i, MM TRANS-1(a), and MM TRANS-1(b)), 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 noted above, the proposed project involves industrial uses that would be strategically located near major transportation corridors, and as described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIR, Project Description, and throughout the EIR, the proposed project would provide for an efficient on-site circulation system and off-site public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as 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). The TMP provides a comprehensive review of the City’s transportation system and serves as a blueprint that can be utilized to identify and implement required improvements to the existing roadway system as well as expand upon the system to accommodate planned development consistent with the General Plan, such as the proposed project.
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 not part of the proposed project, the 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, once constructed by the relevant public agencies, by providing regional infrastructure for automobiles and trucks entering and exiting the site and beyond. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 14, Transportation, of the EIR, the proposed project would be required to implement the following travel demand measures to reduce project VMT as is required by MM TRANS-1(a).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
28 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. Utilize communication and information strategies–4 percent reduction;
2. Offer telecommuting for administrative staff (5 percent of staff population)–1 percent reduction;
3. Designate parking spaces for carpool vehicles–1 percent 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.
Through 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.
The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to GHGs would be less than significant. (Draft EIR,
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: GHG emissions and global climate change inherently represent cumulative impacts. GHG emissions cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature; instead, the GHG emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities have contributed to and would contribute to global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. According to the Valley Air District, GHG emissions from development projects are inherently cumulative and do not require the estimation of cumulative projects in the region of the project. Thus, the determination of GHG cumulative impacts is based on the State target established by AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the project’s consistency with the State’s post-2020 GHG emission reduction targets. In order to ensure that these goals would be achieved, as discussed above in detail, Air Districts and Lead Agencies developed GHG thresholds to ensure compliance with the State’s AB 32 target. Projects with GHG emissions in conformance with these thresholds, therefore, would not be considered significant for purposes of CEQA. In addition, although the emissions from such cumulative projects would add an incremental amount to the overall GHG emissions that cause global climate change impacts, emissions from projects consistent with these thresholds would not be a “cumulatively considerable” contribution under CEQA. Such projects would not be “cumulatively considerable,” because they would be helping to solve the cumulative problem as a part of the AB 32 process. Given that it has been determined the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable thresholds as evaluated above in detail, it would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to generation of GHG emissions (Draft EIR, Page 3.8-51).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 29
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx
1.6.8 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-24).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activity would be expected to involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuels, aerosols, and paints, which are typical for this type of light industrial use. Transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials can increase the risk of upset and accident conditions that could involve the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, the use of these materials would be subject to applicable provisions of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Public Resources Code, and other State and local laws and regulations that would reduce risks of accident by limiting the use of hazardous materials and thereby reducing the associated risks of exposure. Any handling, transporting, use, or disposal by the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and programs set forth by various federal, State, and local agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), RCRA, Caltrans, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the City of Tracy Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), which are designed to reduce risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
During operation, tenants/operators of the proposed project may use potentially hazardous substances that are typical for this type of light industrial use, including lubricants, hydraulic oils, and other substances. Small quantities of hazardous materials would be used on-site during operation of the proposed project, but not in sufficient quantities to create a significant hazard in the unlikely event of upset or accident. These types of materials are common in such light industrial projects and represent a low risk to people and the environment when used and handled as intended and would not be expected to result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The handling, transport, and disposal of such substances by the proposed project would be required to comply with all local, State, and federal laws and regulations, which would reduce risks of accident conditions. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-24–25). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-25).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The closest school, Banta Elementary School, is located approximately 0.35 mile to City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
30 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 east (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-25–26). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-5: The proposed project would not be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-32).
Findings: No impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project is located greater than 5 miles northeast from the Tracy Municipal Airport. At this distance, the proposed project would not be located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport. Therefore, no impact related to exposure of people to safety hazards or excessive noise in proximity to an airport would occur. (Draft EIR, Page
3.9-32–33). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-6: The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-33).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: During construction, it is expected that construction equipment and vehicles would be accessing and leaving the project site, which in turn could potentially impede evacuation or EVA. During operation, employee vehicles would need to access and leave the project site. Neither the San Joaquin County Local HMP nor the City of Tracy Local HMP include specific evacuation routes. However, main arterial roads into and out of the project vicinity that would serve as evacuation routes in case of emergency would be Interstate 205 (I-205) in the east–west direction and I-5 in the north–south direction as well as Paradise Road and Grant Line Road. Given the nature of the proposed project and the fact that there are several alternate routes that provide access to these evacuation routes, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with these evacuation routes. With adherence to the applicable procedures of the San Joaquin County Local HMP and the City of Tracy Local HMP , the proposed project would not conflict with the relevant General Plan safety policies (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-33). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-7: The proposed project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-33).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 31
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Facts in Support of Findings: The project site is surrounded by urban development and managed land without steep terrain or unmanaged open space areas prone to wildfires. The closest open space area is located approximately 7 miles south of the project site. The project site has not previously experienced wildfire. Given that the project site is not located in or near an area of steep terrain or historical wildfire burn, there is a low likelihood that the project site would be prone to greater wildfire risk as compared to existing conditions. Neither the City nor the project site is in a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as designated by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), there are no Tier 2-Elevated Zones or Tier 3-Extreme Zones within the City of Tracy. The closest fire prone areas located in a designated fire hazard zone are the southwest areas of the City’s SOI, over 7 miles southwest of the project site.
The proposed project would be adequately served by fire protection services from the Tracy Fire Department. Furthermore, project structures would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code with respect to emergency access and use of building materials that would limit the spread of wildfire to the greatest extent feasible. Compliance with applicable State and local plans, laws and regulations would decrease the risk of impacts related to wildland fire hazards. Specifically, the General Plan includes goals (Goal SA-3), objectives (Objective SA-3.1), and policies (PI and P3) that incorporate requirements for fire-safe construction into the land use planning process (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-33–34). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-34).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials cumulative analysis is the City. The types and sizes of cumulative development anticipated in the project vicinity would not be anticipated to involve large quantities of hazardous materials or activities that transport or handle hazardous materials. Cumulative projects would be subject to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Public Resources Code, and other State and local laws and regulations that would reduce and limit the associated risks. Any handling, transporting, use, or disposal would be required to comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and programs set forth by various federal, State, and local agencies, including the EPA, RCRA, Caltrans, and HMP . However, cumulative projects may include demolition of existing structures that have the potential to contain hazardous building materials. Building materials may contain asbestos- containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP). To address potential release of hazardous materials, the City would require the applicants of cumulative developments to assess structures and comply with standard conditions of approval/ mitigation measures. Additionally, a comprehensive regulatory framework involving regional, State, and federal laws and regulations would apply to these cumulative projects, which would further ensure a less than significant cumulative impact related to exposure to hazardous materials. With respect to the proposed project, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
32 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx it would similarly be required to adhere to standard conditions of approval and identified mitigation, and otherwise ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, plans and policies related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Planned uses as proposed by the cumulative projects are contemplated in the General Plan, would result in predominantly infill development, and would not significantly increase the need for emergency services, including those related to wildfires. Furthermore, all construction would be required to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations, including those in the California Fire Code, which are designed to minimize the potential for the release of hazardous materials or uncontrolled fires. Once development is proposed, the City would assess the needs for fire protection services and inform efforts to improve or expand needed facilities. Cumulative development would increase the population, as contemplated in the City’s General Plan. All cumulative development would, however, be required to comply with emergency access requirements as standard conditions of approval. Furthermore, the cumulative development in the City would be required to ensure no permanent road closures and would not be permitted to impede established emergency access routes, or interfere with emergency response requirements. With respect to the proposed project, it would similarly be required to adhere to standard conditions of approval and identified mitigation, and otherwise ensure compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, plans and policies related to emergency access routes and emergency response requirements (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-34–35). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
1.6.9 - Hydrology
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-2: The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-24).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge are limited to operational impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant amount of new impervious surfaces, which could interfere with groundwater recharge rates. The Geotechnical Engineering Report determined that stormwater would percolate at a rate of 0.36 inch per hour or 167 minutes per inch. Project site soils contain finely layered, fine-grained alluvial soils (silt) that impede vertical percolation of stormwater. As such, groundwater recharge on the project site is currently limited. Percolation rates could be further reduced if stormwater pollutants are present in the runoff, such as sediment, organic materials, and/or oil residue. However, the design of the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin includes filters to remove sediments and organic materials that might otherwise reduce groundwater percolation rates and thus would help facilitate groundwater recharge. Therefore, despite the significant increase in impervious surfaces that would occur with the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly impact groundwater recharge rates for the foregoing reasons.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 33
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Historically, groundwater accounted for up to 50 percent of the City's water supply. Prior to 2001, groundwater extraction in the City totaled less than 6,000 AFY . Between 2001 and 2004, to meet increased demands for water, the City extracted additional groundwater, ranging from 7,321 to 7,176 AFY . In 2005, the rate of groundwater extraction decreased back to the historic 6,000 AFY , reflecting two key factors: (1) the South County Water Supply Project (SCWSP) was completed and the City began receiving Stanislaus River water, and (2) rainfall was above normal, meaning that the City received a higher percentage of its Delta-Mendota Canal/Central Valley Project contractual entitlements. From 2006 to 2010, groundwater extraction ranged from 2,034 AFY to 498 AFY , declining as more water was used from the South San Joaquin Irrigation District. (Draft EIR, Page
3.10-24). The City’s estimated groundwater yield is 9,000 AFY . An assessment of the aquifer beneath the City indicates that there is an average annual operational potential yield of 9,000 AFY . Since the City’s groundwater is hard and consists of high TDS levels, the City has scaled back its groundwater extraction in most years, but it is anticipated that the City will continue to rely on groundwater for peaking and drought and emergency water supply. As described in more detail in the EIR, the City anticipates that total extraction during a normal year would be 2,500 AFY through the planning horizon. By reducing groundwater extraction on an average annual basis during normal years, the City would: (1) increase the overall quality of its drinking water, thus increasing customer satisfaction and reducing system maintenance and repair caused by the lower-quality groundwater; and (2) recharge the underlying aquifer, effectively increasing the availability of groundwater during a drought or emergency condition (i.e., effectively "banking" groundwater). At the production volumes shown in the EIR, Table 3.10-3, the City's groundwater supplies are considered to be 100 percent reliable. In the event of a severe water supply shortage or emergency, the City could increase production dramatically, up to 22,000 AFY .
The 2020 UWMP addressed the sufficiency of the City’s groundwater supplies, in conjunction with the City’s other existing and additional water supplies, to meet the City’s existing and planned future uses. Based on the information summarized above, described further in the EIR, and included in the 2020 UWMP , the City’s groundwater supply, together with the City’s other existing and additional planned future water supplies, are sufficient to meet the water demands of the proposed project, in addition to the City’s existing and other planned uses. Although the City can sustainably extract up to 9,000 AFY of groundwater on a continuous basis, the City’s use of groundwater under normal hydrologic conditions is anticipated to be lower, as available higher-quality surface water supplies would be utilized first. Assuming normal year hydrologic conditions, annual groundwater use is anticipated to be 2,500 AFY . This anticipated future groundwater pumpage is significantly below the City’s maximum historical groundwater pumpage and the average annual operational yield of 9,000 AFY . The proposed project would not significantly decrease groundwater supplies because, among other things, the design of the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin includes filters to remove sediments and organic materials that might further reduce groundwater percolation rates. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-24–30). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
34 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Cumulative Effect
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-39–41).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings
Hydrology
All cumulative developments within the San Joaquin River Basin including those cumulative projects listed in the EIR, Table 3-1, have been considered in the EIR’s analysis since they are located within the San Joaquin River Basin which eventually drains into the San Joaquin River and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. All cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations implemented by the relevant public agencies including the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB), as well as relevant policies in the General Plan and other applicable codes, ordinances, and policies, which prevent a project from increasing off-site surface water flow from existing conditions and further ensures that projects adhere to BMPs during construction to prevent pollutants from being carried off-site. Additionally, cumulative development would be required to comply with applicable regional, State and federal laws and regulations regarding flooding to ensure impacts are less than significant in this regard. These laws and regulations, in combination with implementation of applicable provisions in the General Plan (including, but not limited to, Objective PF-7.3: Policies P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5, Objective PF-7.4:
Policy P3, and Objective PF-8.2: Policies, P1, P2, P3, P4), would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology.
The proposed project would also be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations implemented by the relevant public agencies including the Central Valley RWQCB, as well as relevant policies in the General Plan and other applicable codes, ordinances, and policies related to preventing pollutants from being conveyed off-site.
Water Quality
The geographic context for consideration of cumulative impacts related to surface water quality is the San Joaquin River Basin. All cumulative project construction would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Board, which would require preparation of a SWPPP that would control potential discharges of contaminants into the San Joaquin River. These cumulative projects would also be required to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) and comply with the applicable General Plan policies and relevant provisions of the Municipal Code during operation. Similarly, the proposed project would also be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Board and prepare a SWPPP as well as a SWMP . In addition, the proposed project would be mandated to comply with applicable General Plan policies (including, but not limited to, Objective PF-7.3: Policies P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5, Objective PF-7.4: Policy P3, and Objective PF-8.2: Policies, P1, P2, P3, P4), and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code during operation.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 35
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx The geographic context for consideration of cumulative impacts related to groundwater quality and management is the Tracy Groundwater Subbasin. Construction of cumulative projects would be required to obtain a Construction General Permit from the State Water Board, which would require preparation of a SWPPP that would control pollutants that could seep into groundwater. Operations of these cumulative projects would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations imposed by the relevant public agencies including the Central Valley RWQCB, thereby ensuring that stormwater is pre-treated via bioretention and is otherwise handled pursuant to all applicable standards and requirements to ensure that percolation to the groundwater table would not result in degradation of groundwater quality. In addition, the cumulative projects would include bioretention areas to remove sediments and organic materials that might reduce groundwater percolation rates and other project features that would help facilitate groundwater recharge. Similarly, the proposed project would include these types of features and would otherwise be mandated to comply with applicable General Plan policies and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, as well as other governing laws and regulations, during operation.
Flooding
The geographic context for consideration of cumulative impacts related to flooding is the NEI Specific Plan area. A small portion of the northern part of the NEI Specific Plan area is within the 100-year flood zone and flooding impacts would affect other parcels in the NEI Specific Plan area. According to the City’s General Plan, the City anticipates urban growth in this portion of the City. Flooding occurs mainly near the northern areas of the City closer to I-205. Cumulative development projects in the floodplain would be required to install stormwater facilities pursuant to applicable standards to ensure projects would not be susceptible to flooding. The City would review cumulative development proposals to ensure they are in accordance with applicable guidelines, ordinances, permitting requirements, including, among others, General Plan policies (including, but not limited to, Objective PF-8.1: Policies P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, Objective PF-8.2: Policies P1, P2, P3, and P4, Objective SA-2.1: Policies P1, P2, P3, and P4). Thus, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to flooding.
The proposed project would also be required to install stormwater facilities and prepare a Final Drainage Plan in connection with each individual development proposal, which would be required to adhere to the stringent criteria set forth in the City’s Design Standards. For example, the proposed project would incorporate an on-site stormwater detention basin into its design that would be required to adhere to all applicable performance standards to ensure no flooding impacts. For these reasons and as further summarized and discussed more fully in the EIR, the proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-39–41).
1.6.10 - Land Use
Potential Effect
Impact LAND-1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. (Draft EIR, Page 3.11-17). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
36 FirstCarbon Solutions
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: Impacts related to physical division of an established community are limited to operational impacts. The development of the proposed project would not involve construction of any type of linear feature that would impair mobility within an existing community, nor would it remove a means of access in a manner that would impede travel or otherwise constitute division of an established community. Rather, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with relevant NEI Specific Plan policies, which would help ensure a cohesive, integrated site and circulation plan, taking into account ready access to nearby transportation corridors (Draft EIR, Page 3.11-17–18).
Potential Effect
Impact LAND-2: The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Draft EIR, Page 3.11-18). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to consistency with applicable land use plans and policies are limited to operational impacts.
Local Agency Formation Commission General Standards for Annexation Consistency Spheres and Municipal Service Reviews
The project site is within the City’s existing SOI (10-year horizon), and therefore has already been contemplated for future inclusion within the City’s municipal boundaries. The City’s inclusion of the project site via its designation under the City’s General Plan as Industrial is consistent with the land use vision for the proposed project and the SOI.
The City’s Municipal Services Review (MSR) update determined that the City would have adequate capacity and funds to support expanded services as part of the anticipated development of the SOI (which, as noted above, includes the project site). This included a capital improvement program that identified and planned funds for specific infrastructure improvements and master plans that identified necessary infrastructure upgrades. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the LAFCo policy requiring a Municipal Service Review and SOI Plan to demonstrate that adequate services can be provided within the timeframe needed by the inhabitants of the annexed area.
Contiguity
The project site is contiguous to the existing City of Tracy limits and the existing NEI Specific Plan area. The boundaries of the proposed reorganization, which would involve the annexation of the project site into the City’s municipal boundaries (along with the related detachment from the Fire District) would not create or result in areas that are difficult to serve.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 37
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Progressive Urban Pattern
The proposed project would represent a progressive step toward filling in the SOI in this area of the City, consistent with the longtime planning vision of this City for the area as reflected in the City’s General Plan. The project site is adjacent to existing City limits and is furthering outward growth that is not isolated and would not constitute “leapfrog” development or otherwise facilitate urban sprawl. Rather, the proposed reorganization would reflect a logical and orderly extension of the City’s boundaries.
Piecemeal Annexation Prohibited
The proposed project does not reflect a piecemeal annexation approach. The project site has been included within the City’s SOI and designated for urban development under the City’s General Plan for the last approximately 29 years. The proposed reorganization reflects a logical and orderly extension of urban growth and the City’s boundaries, which would ensure the project site is developed in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner consistent with other nearby lands in the NEI Specific Plan area.
Definite and Certain Boundaries
It is anticipated that project site boundaries that would be presented in the reorganization application would be definite and conform to Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) lines and/or ownership of legal lots and would not contain any split parcels.
Service Requirements
The City has the capacity to adequately serve the areas within its municipal boundaries as well its existing SOI. Moreover, the project site is contiguous to the City’s municipal boundaries and other existing urban development, which facilitates the efficient extension of existing utilities. The proposed project would connect to and/or otherwise utilize existing utility lines for service to the proposed project, and would also construct and/or pay applicable development impact fees toward the construction of identified infrastructure and improvements, consistent with the City’s Master Plans.
Adverse Impact of Annexation on the Other Agencies
The City has the capacity to adequately serve the areas within its municipal boundaries as well its existing SOI without impairing the City’s ability to serve existing and other proposed uses, and the proposed reorganization reflects a logical and orderly extension of service boundaries and would result in the efficient delivery of services. All applicable impact fees would be paid by each co- applicant for individual development proposals within the project site, which would further ensure that new development “pays its own way.”
Annexation of Streets
The proposed project would be a logical and orderly extension of the City’s boundaries and would include the annexation of territory such that the circulation plan and street network would not fragment governmental responsibility between the City and the County.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
38 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Prezoning Required
The project site would be pre-zoned NEI Specific Plan and this zoning designation would not be permitted to be changed within 2 years of the completion of the reorganization.
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency
The proposed project is not within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone. The proposed project does not reach the standard height and distance from an airport that would require Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) notification.
General Plan Consistency
The County General Plan land use designation for the project site is A/UR. However, with project approval and completion of the related reorganization proposal, the County General Plan would no longer apply to the proposed project, as the project site would be annexed into the City of Tracy.
One of the factors LAFCo must consider when reviewing a proposal for reorganization is the effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands, as defined by Government Code Section 56016. Similar to the discussion reflected in the EIR, although the proposed project would result in a reduction of agricultural land, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Tracy General Plan land use designation of Industrial for the project site and reflects the planned urban development vision for the project site. The EIR provides a consistency analysis in Table 3.11-3, finding that the project is consistent.
Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Consistency
Implementation of the proposed project would require an amendment to the NEI Specific Plan to include the project site within its boundaries (and other conforming amendments to ensure consistency). As such, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and prezoning, if approved, constitute a self-mitigating aspect of the proposed project that would serve to correct what would otherwise be a conflict. The proposed project would be designed to incorporate applicable development standards and design guidelines that comply with relevant provisions in the NEI Specific Plan.
Proposed land uses on the project site are currently permitted in the NEI Specific Plan. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the urban, industrial character of the surrounding NEI Specific Plan area.
Tracy Municipal Code Consistency
Planning and Zoning Code
The project site would be pre-zoned “Northeast Industrial Specific Plan.” In connection therewith, the proposed project includes an amendment to the NEI Specific Plan boundaries to incorporate the project site (and other conforming amendments to ensure consistency). With these actions, the provisions of the NEI Specific Plan would serve as zoning for the lands within its boundaries, including the project site. The proposed light industrial, warehouse and distribution and ancillary office uses would be consistent with this zoning. Development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to all applicable development standards and design guidelines set forth in the NEI Specific Plan and the Municipal Code.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 39
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Off-Street Parking Code
The proposed project would be required to provide approximately 1,153 automobile spaces and approximately 59 bicycle stalls. The proposed project proposes to meet or exceed these requirements.
Street Tree Ordinance
The applicant of each individual development proposal would be required to submit an application to the Parks and Community Services Department in connection with the proposed removal of any street trees. The Director of Parks and Community Services can authorize or prohibit the tree from being removed and can provide conditions of approval. (Draft EIR, Page 3.11-18–29). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.11-30). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant.
Facts in Support of Findings: The cumulative setting includes past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future developments within the City and its SOI. Development within the City is governed primarily by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. These guiding laws and regulations and planning documents set forth the land use vision for the community, facilitate logical and orderly development, and ensure consistency with the General Plan as required under State Planning and Zoning laws. All cumulative developments would be required to be consistent with and conform to these planning documents and governing regulations. For cumulative projects, the relevant land use agency is required to issue findings demonstrating consistency with applicable General Plan and Municipal Code requirements to be approved. Projects listed in Table 3-1 that are within the boundaries of the Tracy Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone would be required to demonstrate consistency with the applicable airport land use compatibility criteria. For cumulative projects that are within the City’s SOI and would be annexed into the City, these would be required to demonstrate consistency with applicable provisions of LAFCo regulations and local LAFCo policies. For the foregoing reasons, there would not be a significant cumulative impact related to division of an established community to a level of less than significant or conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts and no mitigation is required (Draft EIR, Page 3.11-29–30).
1.6.11 - Noise
Potential Effect
Impact NOI-1: The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-17).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
40 FirstCarbon Solutions
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: For purposes of determining the existing ambient noise levels, traffic noise is the primary noise source affecting the project site. Background traffic noise levels in the project vicinity range from approximately 63 A-weighted decibel (dBA) to 75 dBA day/night average sound level (Ldn) along modeled roadway segments adjacent to the project site as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost lane. The nearest proposed façade to Grant Line Road would be set back a minimum of 150 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. At this distance, traffic noise levels would attenuate to below 69 dBA Ldn. These noise levels are within the City’s “normally acceptable” noise land use compatibility range for the relevant type of new industrial land use development (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-18). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact NOI-3: The proposed project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-26).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The City of Tracy has not adopted criteria for construction groundborne vibration impacts or for operational groundborne vibration impacts that would be applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, as noted above, the City, in its discretion, elects to utilize the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction vibration impact criteria. For operational impacts, a significant impact would occur if ongoing project activities would produce groundborne vibrations that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at the property lines of the site.
Construction
The FTA impact assessment criteria for construction is 0.2 in/sec PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings. Table 3.12-3 of the EIR provides approximate vibration levels for various construction activities. Of the variety of equipment used during the construction component of the proposed project, the small vibratory rollers that would be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Small vibratory rollers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.101 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.
The nearest off-site structure to where the heaviest construction equipment would operate during construction of the proposed structures on the western parcels is the barn structure located west of the project site near the intersection of Grant Line Road and Paradise Avenue. This structure would be located approximately 150 feet from the nearest construction footprint where a small vibratory roller would operate. At this distance, operation of a small vibratory roller could result in groundborne vibration levels up to 0.007 in/sec PPV. This is well below the FTA’s damage threshold criteria of 0.2 PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 41
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx The nearest off-site structure is located over 45 feet from the project site boundary. Therefore, operation of a small vibratory roller at the nearest project boundary could result in groundborne vibration levels up to 0.04 in/sec PPV. This also is well below the FTA’s damage threshold criteria of
0.2 PPV for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings. Therefore, construction activities would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration levels.
Operation
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any permanent sources of vibration that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the vicinity of the project site; this is given the nature of the project and the type of proposed on-site operations (parking lot and truck loading/unloading activity) which, due to distance to off-site receptors, would be less than perceptible without instruments as measured at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity (Draft EIR,
necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact NOI-4: The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-28). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Additionally, there is not a private airstrip located within a 5 mile radius of the project. The closest public airport is the Tracy Municipal Airport located 5.3 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is also not located within the 55 dBA CNEL airport noise contours of any public or public use airport. As such, operation of the proposed project would not expose people working at the project site to excessive noise levels associated with public airport or public use airport noise (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-28). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page
3.12-28).
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings
Noise Land Use Compatibility Consistency
Cumulative development would be required to comply with all applicable design review and development standards and regulations directing the siting, design, and insulation of new City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
42 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx development and redevelopment and all applicable noise policies, standards and requirements in the General Plan and Municipal Code, which would ensure that noise impacts are less than significant. Combined cumulative year traffic noise levels along modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity would result in noise levels that the City of Tracy considers to be “normally acceptable” for the relevant land use category (with projected traffic noise levels attenuating due to distance to below 70 dBA L
dn at the nearest existing or proposed façades). This is the only noise land use compatibility category that would apply to existing and planned development for parcels adjacent to the modeled roadway segments. Cumulative traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. The incremental contribution of project traffic would also not be cumulatively considerable.
Construction Noise
Noise impacts tend to be localized; therefore, the area surrounding the project site (approximately 1,000 feet) would be the area most affected by proposed project activities. Cumulative development would be required to comply with all applicable construction hour requirements and would also be anticipated to incorporate appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to help reduce construction noise. The proposed project would comply with design review and development standards and regulations directing the siting, design, and insulation of new development and redevelopment and all applicable noise policies, standards and requirements in the General Plan and Municipal Code. The incremental contribution of project construction noise would not be cumulatively considerable.
Operational Traffic Noise
Combined cumulative year traffic noise levels along modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity would result in noise levels that the City of Tracy considers to be “normally acceptable” for existing and planned land use development along modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity.
Therefore, cumulative traffic noise levels would be a less than significant impact for existing and planned development along modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity. Because there is not a cumulative significant traffic noise impact to existing or planned land uses in the project vicinity, even under Cumulative Plus Project traffic conditions, the incremental contribution of project traffic would also not be cumulatively considerable.
Operational Stationary Noise
The source of operational stationary noise within 1,000 feet of the project site that would produce the highest noise levels would be truck loading activities. Existing truck loading facilities in the project vicinity are set back more than 100 feet from receptors on adjoining properties. Assuming compliance with applicable minimum setback requirements for all parcels within the project site, proposed truck loading areas would also be set back more than 100 feet from receptors on adjoining properties. Assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario of a truck loading event for every proposed truck loading dock within a single hour would result in an hourly average noise level of 67 dBA equivalent sound level (L
eq) as measured at a cumulative project’s boundary adjoining other properties. These noise levels are well below the City’s hourly average noise performance threshold of 75 dBA L
eq(h). In addition, these noise levels would not exceed existing background ambient noise levels. Therefore, there is a less than significant cumulative impact related to operational stationary City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 43
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx noise sources in the project vicinity, and the incremental contribution of project operational stationary source noise would not be cumulatively considerable.
Construction Vibration
Construction vibration impacts are very localized; therefore, the area surrounding the project site (approximately 100 feet) would be the area most affected by proposed project construction activities. While there would be cumulative projects undergoing construction in the general vicinity, none of these are within 100 feet of the site and therefore, do not have to potential to create significant cumulative construction vibration impacts that would exceed potential impact criteria as measured at any sensitive receptor in the project vicinity. Thus, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to construction vibration, and the incremental contribution of project construction noise would not be cumulatively considerable.
Operational Vibration
The only major source of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity is railroad activity along the rail line located approximately 3,670 feet southeast of the project site. Groundborne vibration levels from these cumulative sources would not be perceptible without instruments at any sensitive receptor in the project vicinity, therefore there is no significant cumulative impact. The proposed project’s incremental contribution to these less than significant cumulative operational vibration levels would not be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce any new permanent sources of vibration to the project vicinity that would result in groundborne vibration levels that would be perceptible without instruments as measured at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, and would also not increase railroad activity (Draft EIR,
necessary.
1.6.12 - Public Services
Potential Effect
Impact PUB-1: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-8). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: South San Joaquin County Fire Authority (South County Fire) would provide fire protection for the proposed project. The proposed project would require a detachment from Tracy Rural as part of project approval from the San Joaquin LAFCo of the proposed reorganization. Fire Station 92 is the nearest station approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site.
Fire Station 92 is a City-owned fire station; however, South County Fire responds the closest resources to all emergency and non-emergency calls for service. The next closest station is Fire Station 96, approximately 3.6 miles west of the project site. The proposed project would be required City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 44 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx to comply with applicable provisions of the CBC, which is adopted by the Tracy Municipal Code (Chapter 9.04 Building Code), and the California Fire Code, which is adopted by the Tracy Municipal Code (Chapter 9.06 Fire Protection and Prevention). In compliance with the California Fire Code, Part 9 of the CBC, during construction the proposed project would be required to follow fire safety standards related to provision of fire apparatus access and acquisition of building permits.
Specifically, CBC Section 105.7.17 requires plans be submitted and a permit to install, improve, modify, or remove public or private roadways, driveways, and bridges for which Fire Department access is required by the Fire Code; this would ensure adequate driveway/entry turning radius, height clearance, and fire hydrant access for fire trucks and engines at the project site during construction. In addition, CBC Section 105.7.18 requires plans be submitted to the Fire Code official for all land developments or for the construction, alteration, or renovation of a building within the jurisdiction where a building permit is required; this would ensure that construction and alteration would not obstruct Tracy Fire Department from delivering adequate levels of fire protection services and otherwise help to ensure that all applicable standards and requirements are satisfied.
Operation
The City has an appropriate process in place to plan and fund fire protection services that would ensure that adequate fire protection staffing, performance levels, and facilities are maintained to serve the City’s existing population as well and future growth within the SOI. New industrial uses on the project site would result in new employees, which could result in an increase in calls for fire protection and emergency medical services. However, given the nature of the proposed uses, this increase is not expected to be atypical or substantial. Given that the City has adequate fire protection staffing, performance levels, and facilities, and the proposed use would not require substantial use of hazardous materials, the proposed project would not cause a significant impact to fire protection services. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the Tracy Municipal Code, the CBC, and the California Fire Code. It is not expected that the proposed project would adversely affect response times or increase use of existing fire protection or emergency medical response facilities such that substantial physical deterioration, alteration, or expansion would be required, thereby triggering environmental impacts. Furthermore, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable review and development impact fees toward fire protection facilities and apparatus (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-8–10). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact PUB-2: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-10). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 45
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Facts in Support of Findings
Construction
The City has an appropriate process in place to plan and fund police protection services to ensure that adequate police staffing, performance levels, and facilities are maintained to serve the City’s existing population as well as future growth within the SOI. After annexation, the Tracy Police Department would provide law enforcement services to the project site. Tracy Police Department headquarters is approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the project site; however, response is not likely to originate officers who are consistently patrolling the area. During construction, the proposed project would also implement appropriate security measures such as provision of adequate lighting and a project boundary fence around the subject construction area to prohibit access to unauthorized persons other than construction personnel. With adequate police capacity as noted above and provision of security measures, project construction would not create the need for new or altered police protection facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
New industrial uses on the project site would result in new employees, which would result in an increase in calls for police protection services. However, given the nature of the proposed uses, this increase is not expected to be atypical or substantial. Primary access to the project site during operation would be from Grant Line Road and Paradise Road. Responses to calls for service would likely be from patrolling officers. As the Police Department’s area of responsibility is increased through the annexation and development, the need may arise to add sectors or beats, which are assigned to officers to patrol. The increase in this responsibility may trigger the need for additional staffing (sworn and professional staff) in order to maintain the response standards and quality of services currently provided by the Tracy Police Department.
A significant increase in vehicle traffic, both personal vehicles and delivery trucks, is expected, consistent with Police Department’s experience and observations at other similar sites in its jurisdiction. This would likely trigger another need for increase of personnel involved in traffic enforcement, particularly commercial vehicle regulations. However, this proposed project is part of the anticipated growth contemplated by the City in its General Plan. As new specific plans and development projects within the SOI are considered, the City will review the specific details of each proposal. Prior to approving any new development project (including individual development proposals for the project site), the City will have the opportunity to ensure that any Community Facilities District associated with the subject proposal, any relevant development agreement provisions for funding police services, and the development impact fee schedule are appropriately adjusted, in accordance with applicable laws, to reflect anticipated funding gaps. Each project applicant would be required to pay applicable review and development impact fees to help provide for the costs associated with a police facilities building, equipment, and staffing to serve additional demands for police services (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-10–11). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact PUB-3: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
46 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools. (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-12). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to provision of or need for construction of new or expanded school facilities are limited to operational impacts. The proposed project could result in indirect population growth due to the creation of employment opportunities. Based on the light industrial nature of the proposed project, it is expected that approximately 1,871 employees would work on-site at full buildout. Because the population of the City is currently estimated at 95,931, the total number of employees that may work at the proposed project represents a relatively nominal increase of approximately 2 percent of the current population of the City. Moreover, the proposed project would not include residential units that would directly result in new school-aged children or a substantial unplanned increase in population growth (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-12). In addition, the proposed project would be required to pay any applicable school impact fees pursuant to State law.
The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact PUB-4: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks. (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-12). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to provision of and need for construction of new or expanded park facilities are limited to operational impacts. It is expected that approximately 1,871 employees would work on-site at full buildout. Because the population of the City is currently estimated at 95,931, the total number of employees that may work at the proposed project represents a relatively nominal increase of approximately 2 percent of the current population of the City. While it is reasonable to assume that some employees would utilize park facilities during their workday to a certain degree, this use would be limited given the nature of the industrial use and the location of the project site. The proposed project would not include residential units that would directly result in the creation of additional park demand that would result in a significant increase in population or existing park use. Therefore, the proposed project would not require new or altered park facilities and would not result in significant environmental impacts to existing park facilities. (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-12–13). No mitigation is necessary.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 47
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Potential Effect
Impact PUB-5: The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for libraries or other public facilities. (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-13). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to provision of and need for construction of new or expanded library facilities are limited to operational impacts. Because of the nature of the proposed industrial use and the location of the project site, the proposed project is not expected to result in an increase in use of the Tracy Branch Library. The proposed project would not create a need to construct new or expand existing library facilities and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-14). No mitigation is necessary.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for public facilities. (Draft EIR,
necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Cumulative development would result in an increased demand for fire protection facilities. To help offset increased demand, similar to the proposed project, other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative projects would be required to pay all applicable fees to the Tracy Fire Department and Tracy Rural. All cumulative developments would also be required to adhere to applicable provisions of the California Fire Code, Part 9 of the CBC, in terms of meeting standards for fire safety such as fire flow requirements for buildings, fire hydrant location and distribution criteria, automated sprinkler systems, and fire-resistant building materials.
With adherence to the CBC and payment of applicable fees, cumulative projects would not result in additional needs for new or altered fire protection or emergency medical facilities not already analyzed within the City and County General Plans, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. As summarized above and discussed further in the EIR, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to fire protection services, and would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact.
In addition, to help offset increased demand for police protection, the proposed project and other cumulative projects would be required to pay applicable fees to the Tracy Police Department. Similar to the proposed project, all cumulative developments would also be reviewed for impacts on law City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
48 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx enforcement services and required to address any potentially significant impacts with mitigation.
Because demand for law enforcement services varies substantially by project (clientele, hours of operation, crime prevention measures, etc.), it is unlikely that there would be substantial overlap in demand that would result in a cumulatively significant impact such that new or expanded police protection facilities are necessary beyond the City’s existing capacity and regular review of service levels for future developments. With payment of applicable fees, cumulative projects would not result in additional need for new or altered police protection facilities not already analyzed within the City General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Since the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to fire protection services, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the already less than significant cumulative impact.
Planned projects including cumulative projects would result in residential development, though none include any educational facilities. All approved developments would be required to pay applicable development impact fees toward school district facilities. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, payment of adopted development fees is considered “full and complete mitigation” for impacts to school facilities, and local governments are prohibited from assessing additional fees or exactions for school impacts. As part of project entitlement processes, cumulative project applicants would be responsible for paying their fair share of school facility fees. With payment of impact development fees, cumulative projects would not result in additional need for new or altered school facilities not already analyzed within the City General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. As summarized above and discussed further in the EIR, the proposed project would not include the development of any residences, and therefore, would not increase the population in the area, the proposed project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with schools.
Residential cumulative projects would be required to provide parkland or pay applicable development fees. With payment of applicable park impact fees and/or otherwise satisfying park dedication obligations by cumulative projects, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to additional increased use and physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities not already analyzed within the City General Plan. Because the proposed project would not include the development of any residences, and therefore, would not increase the population in the area, the proposed project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with parks.
Cumulative developments would be required to pay applicable development impact fees. With payment of fees by cumulative projects, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact regarding additional need for new or altered library facilities not already analyzed within the City General Plan. As summarized above and discussed further in the EIR, the proposed project would not include the development of any residences, and therefore, would not increase the population in the area, the proposed project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with libraries (Draft EIR, Page 3.13-14–16).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 49
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx
1.6.13 - Transportation
Potential Effect
Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Draft EIR,
necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction
During the construction period for each individual development proposal within the project site, it is anticipated that a two-way travel would be maintained on Paradise Road and Grant Line Road.
Should Paradise Road or Grant Line Road experience temporary one-way travel restrictions or be closed to travel, there are multiple access routes to I-205 and I-5 which act as the main evacuation routes into and out of the project vicinity. Construction detour signage would be provided.
Operation
Fire Station 92 at 1035 East Grant Line Road is the nearest fire station to the project site, approximately 1.4 miles to the west. Fire Station 92 is a City-owned fire station; however, South County Fire responds the closest resources to all emergency and non-emergency calls for service.
The nearest Tracy Fire Station is Station 96, located at 1800 West Grant Line Road, approximately 3.6 miles west of the project site. Primary fire protection access to the project site would occur from existing roadways that would not be changed as part of the proposed project.
The proposed project would be served by eight points of vehicular access (the northerly access point along Paradise Road would be for Emergency Vehicle Access [EVA] only):
• Grant Line Road: four access points to the project site. • Paradise Road: four access points to the project site (the northerly access point along Paradise Road would be for EVA only).
Since no application for individual development proposal(s) for either the Suvik Farms or Zuriakat parcels has been submitted to the City as of this writing, it is too speculative and uncertain to identify the exact location(s) of access points from the New Private Drive to the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels. Therefore, this evaluation reasonably assumes that a driveway would be placed at the Banta Road intersection and opposite other existing driveways to the south. Thus, the proposed project would provide a total of eight vehicular access points to the project site from surrounding roadways.
The provision of these access points would satisfy the applicable California Fire Code’s emergency access requirements. Moreover, the width of these access points and internal roadways would need to adhere to all other applicable requirements and standards, including the following. All access points and internal roadways for the project site would be required to be compliant with Section 503, Fire Apparatus Access Roads, of the California Fire Code, as well as Chapter 9.06 of the Tracy Municipal Code, which would ensure that access roadways can accommodate fire apparatus vehicles City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
50 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx via a minimum width of 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches, along with adequate turning radius as determined by the fire code official (Draft EIR, Page
3.14-36). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact TRANS-4: The proposed project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. (Draft EIR, Page 3.14-37). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction
Because there are no sidewalks currently provided along the proposed project frontage or along California Avenue, construction of the proposed project would not adversely affect or otherwise conflict with existing pedestrian access to TRACER Bus Service or Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) or the service for these transit agencies. Should Paradise Road or Grant Line Road be temporarily shut down during construction, there are alternative roadway connections to these transit facilities and access to these facilities would remain available throughout construction.
No Class I facilities currently exist near the project site. Class II facilities currently exist along Grant Line Road in eastbound and westbound directions, west of Paradise Road. No Class III facilities currently exist near the project site. Because there are no existing bicycle facilities along the frontage of Paradise Road or Grant Line or California Avenue, road construction of the proposed project would not result in the temporary closure of bicycle facilities during construction.
There are no sidewalks currently provided along Grant Line Road or Paradise Road along the proposed project frontage or along California Avenue. Because there are no sidewalks along Grant Line Road or Paradise Road along the proposed project frontage or along California Avenue, construction of the proposed project would not result in temporary closures of sidewalk facilities.
Operation
As part of the proposed project’s frontage improvements, it is anticipated that the proposed project would construct a Class I path (that would accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles) per the TMP for both Grant Line Road and Paradise Road. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a bicycle and pedestrian connection to the Class II bicycle facilities and sidewalks that exist along Grant Line Road in eastbound and westbound directions west of Paradise Road that would ultimately provide access to the nearest transit facility. Additionally, under MM TRANS-1(a), the proposed project would provide a transit stop along project frontage on Grant Line Road, if agreed to by the City.
Paradise Road and Grant Line Road would still provide roadway access to these transit facilities.
However, given the nature of the proposed project and its location, it is anticipated that many employees would drive to the project site and the proposed project would add a minimal number of additional transit riders and would not exceed existing transit capacity.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 51
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx As part of the proposed project’s frontage improvements, it is anticipated that the proposed project would construct a Class I path per the TMP for both Grant Line Road and Paradise Road. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a bicycle connection to the Class II facilities that exist along Grant Line Road in eastbound and westbound directions west of Paradise Road, which would improve the existing bicycle network. In addition, pursuant to the parking requirements of Tracy Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 Article 26, the proposed project would provide approximately 59 bicycle parking spaces in accordance with applicable City requirements. Bicycle racks (single-sided or double-sided racks or equivalent) would be located near the office entrances of each building to provide for the secured parking of bicycles. The required spaces for bicycle parking would be evenly distributed among the office locations within each building pursuant to applicable standards and requirements. Overall, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding bicycle facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
As part of the proposed project’s frontage improvements and as noted above, it is anticipated that the proposed project would construct a Class I path (that would accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles) per the TMP for both Grant Line Road and Paradise Road that would provide access to the existing sidewalk network. Therefore, the proposed project would improve the existing pedestrian network. The proposed project would not impede the use of existing sidewalks, and it is not anticipated that the proposed project would substantially increase pedestrian activity in the project vicinity (Draft EIR, Page 3.14-37–39). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is necessary.
1.6.14 - Utilities and Service Systems
Potential Effect
Impact UTIL-4: The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-58). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: During construction, the proposed project would generate solid waste from demolition and removal of existing structures on the project site. The EPA estimates 4.34 pounds per square foot for a nonresidential construction project (defined as lodging, office, commercial, health care, educations, religious, public safety, and manufacturing facilities). The proposed industrial buildings and related improvements would cover approximately 191 acres; therefore, at buildout, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 36,108,800 pounds or 18,054.4 tons of solid waste during construction, equating to approximately 16.48 tons per day. The Foothill Landfill is permitted to receive 1,500 tons of waste per day. As such, the approximately 16.48 tons per day of construction/demolition debris generated by the proposed project represents a nominal percent (approximately 1 percent) of the quantity of solid waste that the landfill currently accepts on a daily basis. In addition, compliance with applicable local and State City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
52 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx laws and regulations would ensure that all construction waste would be conveyed to the appropriate solid waste facility and would be disposed of properly.
During operation at full buildout, the proposed project’s approximately 1,871 employees would generate an estimated 16,708.03 pounds of solid waste per day (8.35 tons), and 6,098,430.95 pounds per year (3,049 tons), assuming operation 365 days per year. The Tracy Material Recovery Facility and Solid Waste Transfer (MRF) has a daily intake capacity of 1,500 tons of solid waste per day, and the permitted capacity of the Foothill Landfill is 138 million cubic yards, of which 125 million cubic yards remains available, with an anticipated closure year of 2082. As a result, the proposed project’s estimated 8.35 tons of solid waste per day and 3,049 tons per year represent less than 1 percent of daily permitted capacity and overall landfill capacity. Pursuant to AB 939, cities are required to redirect at least 50 percent of municipal waste; as of 2009, the City of Tracy has exceeded this diversion requirement, in accordance with its goal of reaching 75 percent reduction.
The proposed project would be required to adhere to the Tracy Municipal Code Section 5.20.250 “Multi-family, commercial and industrial recycling programs,” which requires diversion of waste from landfills through recycling. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-58–59). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact UTIL-5: The proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-59). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: During construction, the proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 5.20 of the Tracy Municipal Code related to solid waste reduction and recycling measures. Compliance with this regulation would ensure compliance with AB 939 by ensuring construction waste is transferred to facilities that can adequately recycle solid waste. Thus, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable solid waste regulations and statutes.
During operation, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws and regulations related to solid waste such as AB 939 and Chapter 5.20 of the Tracy Municipal Code. Adherence to AB 939 and the Tracy Municipal Code would ensure sufficient solid waste collection and transportation is available and would ensure that disposal sites contain sufficient capacity through permit review and inspections and recycling programs are implemented to divert waste. As such, operation of the proposed project would not impede the ability of the City to meet waste diversion requirements or cause the City to violate State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-60). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 53
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-63). The proposed project's impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: Less than significant impact.
Facts in Support of Findings
Water
The geographic scope of the cumulative potable water analysis is the service area of the City.
Cumulative projects are located within the areas of the City of Tracy, San Joaquin County, and on Caltrans-owned land within 10 miles of the project site for which the City provides water treatment service. Water demand within the City’s water service area is not expected to exceed the City’s supplies at buildout under normal hydrologic conditions based on the City’s existing supplies coupled with the implementation of its additional future planned projects, which include Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Program Expansion, Recycled Water Distribution Network and Exchange Program for additional Central Valley Project (CVP) water supplies, and recycled water distribution for non- potable use. During a single dry year or a multiple dry year period, the City must depend more heavily on water conservation efforts, groundwater, and the proposed future supply projects to overcome the gap between supply and demand. Investments in wet year water supplies will also be needed to refill storage in Semitropic and expand the City’s ASR Program. Developers of the other cumulative projects would be required to pay their proportionate share of required funding to the City for completion of water infrastructure improvements. Cumulative projects would be required to comply with provisions of the applicable laws and regulations in the Municipal Code and CALGreen related to water conservation. The proposed project would also be required to comply with City/County ordinances and General Plan policies, as well as other laws and regulations that address water supply. The proposed project would also be required to pay applicable impact fees.
Wastewater
The geographic scope of the cumulative wastewater analysis is the service area of the City.
Cumulative projects located in the City are within the service area and would generate volumes of wastewater conveyed to and treated at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Cumulative projects not located in the City or its service area would convey wastewater to the applicable WWTP and are not included in this cumulative analysis. The City has anticipated planned growth and determined that capacity would exist to service the demand for wastewater treatment facilities given the existing capacity coupled with the upgrades discussed in Impact UTL-3. Projects within the service area would participate in the implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) in effect at the time building permits are applied for through the payment of applicable fees and/or the construction of WWMP facilities with corresponding applicable fee credits/reimbursements, as established by the WWMP in effect at the time building permits are issued. The proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
Each applicant for individual development proposals on any of the parcels within the project site would be required to comply with the applicable WWMP requirements and be responsible for the payment of applicable impact fees and/or construction of wastewater facilities.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
54 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Storm Drainage
The geographic scope of the cumulative analysis of storm drainage is projects within the East Side Industrial future service area, consisting of areas that drain to the storm drainage system and to the San Joaquin Delta. Consistent with measures in the Tracy Municipal Code and other applicable standards and requirements, all development in the City would be required to incorporate a stormwater control plan and stormwater collection systems into the development that would in turn reduce the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff that cumulative projects would generate to adhere to applicable performance standards. The proposed project would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate stormwater runoff associated with the project and other cumulative projects; the proposed project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.
Solid Waste
The geographic scope of the cumulative solid waste analysis is the service area of Tracy Delta Solid Waste Management, Inc. New cumulative development (residential and nonresidential) would increase demand on solid waste facilities to receive, process, and store solid waste. Existing solid waste facilities provide sufficient capacity to serve all development anticipated in the City, as well as existing, planned, and probable future land uses in the City for the foreseeable future. The Foothill Landfill has a permitted capacity of 138 million cubic yards, with 125 million cubic yards of remaining capacity that can meet anticipated demand. Additionally, other cumulative projects within the cumulative geographic context, would be required to comply with applicable federal, State and local laws, regulations and policies to address and mitigate any potentially significant impacts. The proposed project’s contribution to this less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. The anticipated waste volume of development associated with the proposed project represents less than 1 percent of the landfill’s permitted daily capacity.
Telecommunications
Cumulative projects would coordinate with telecommunication providers to provide service and would be required to ensure there is sufficient capacity to serve each project, through analysis and adequate mitigation. The proposed project would also coordinate with telecommunication providers to provide service, which has capacity to serve project operations, and the proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-60–63). No mitigation is necessary.
1.6.15 - Wildfire
Potential Effect
Impact WILD-1: The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-8). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: No impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: Because the project site is not located in a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” nor is it located in a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a “Very High Fire Hazard” in a local, State, or federal responsibility area, it does not meet the threshold for a potentially significant impact.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 55
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to be designed in compliance with applicable provisions of the HMP , ensuring efficient response to emergency incidents associated with emergencies affecting the City. The proposed project would be adequately served by police and fire services and would not create a permanent residential increase in population unaccounted for in the General Plan that could lead to overwhelming calls for emergency services and would not block an emergency evacuation route. The proposed project would be required to be consistent with applicable City standards and would be consistent with all applicable Fire Code requirements and standards. As required by General Plan Policies SA-3-1, Policy 1, and SA-3-1, Policy 2, the proposed project would be required to include the mandated clearance around structures and would be required to incorporate fire-resistant building materials, fire flow and hydrant requirements, and adequate street widths to ensure compliance with applicable General Plan safety goals, and with the applicable requirements of the San Joaquin County Emergency Operations Plan and relevant Fire Code provisions (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-8–9). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact WILD-2: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-9). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: No impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: As noted above, the project site is not located in a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” nor is it located in a SRA or a “Very High Fire Hazard” in a local, State, or federal responsibility area. The project site is relatively flat and surrounded by urban development without steep terrain or unmanaged open space areas that would be prone to wildfires. The closest open space area, the Ohlone Regional Wilderness, is located approximately 7 miles southwest of the project site.
The ARB monitors air quality in the San Joaquin Valley at a number of stations. The closest station to the project site is located at the Tracy Airport, at 5749 South Tracy Boulevard, approximately 5.12 miles southwest of the project site. According to the ARB, the maximum wind speed ranged from approximately 6 to 33 miles per hour (mph) in 2020. In addition, the project site has not previously experienced wildfire. Given that the project site does not experience consistent high winds and it is not located in or near an area of steep terrain or an area experiencing historical wildfire, the project site would not be prone to greater wildfire risk. The proposed project would be adequately served by fire protection and emergency services from the Tracy Fire Department. Furthermore, project structures would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code with regard to emergency access and use of building materials that would limit the spread of wildfire to the greatest extent feasible. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-9–10). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
56 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Potential Effect
Impact WILD-3: The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-10). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: No impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: As noted above, the project site is not located in a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” nor is it located in an SRA or a “Very High Fire Hazard” in a local, State, or federal responsibility area. Moreover, the proposed project would be served by eight points of vehicular access. The project site is located in a primarily urbanized area surrounded by existing roadways. The proposed project would not require the installation of firebreaks, because it is in a generally urbanized area surrounded by existing development with little natural vegetation. The proposed project would not require emergency water sources, because potable water would be provided by the City of Tracy, which has adequate water supplies available to serve the proposed project and other existing and planned future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years as described in Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, Impact UTIL-1. Certain existing overhead lines on the project site (as described more fully in application materials) as well as new electrical power and natural gas lines on and connecting to the project site would be installed below ground, minimizing potential ignition and related fire risk above ground, according to applicable provisions of the CBC and Tracy Municipal Code Chapter 11.08. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-10–11). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact WILD-4: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-11). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: No impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: As noted above, the project site is not located in a “Fire Hazard Severity Zone,” nor is it located in an SRA or a “Very High Fire Hazard” in a local, State, or federal responsibility area. The project site is not located on or near steep slopes susceptible to landslides or downstream flooding. The project site has also not been affected by previous wildfires that could have resulted in drainage changes or loss of vegetation. Additionally, the project site is not located in or near fire prone areas, such as unmanaged open space, or a designated fire hazard zone. As a result, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks due to post- fire slope instability or drainage changes. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-11–12). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 57
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Cumulative Impact
The proposed project would not have any cumulative impacts related to wildfire. (Draft EIR, Page
3.17-13). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
Findings: No impact.
Facts in Support of Findings: The geographic scope of the cumulative wildfire analysis is the City of Tracy and southwestern portion of San Joaquin County. Because of the topography and existing urban development (including natural and man-made fire breaks), a fire event beyond this geographic scope is unlikely to affect the proposed project and any fires starting in the project site and vicinity would not likely significantly affect lands beyond this geographic scope. The cumulative setting includes the built development and the wildland areas in the southwestern portion of the County. A combination of federal, State, and local laws and regulations limit or minimize the potential for exposure to wildfires by reducing the amount of development in wildland urban interface (WUI) areas, ensuring new development is developed according to the CBC, and incorporating requirements for fire-safe construction into land use planning. Planned uses proposed by the cumulative projects would not significantly increase the need for emergency services and all development would be required to comply with emergency access requirements, which would be imposed as enforceable, standard conditions of approval. Cumulative development would not result in permanent road closures, nor impede established emergency access routes or interfere with emergency response requirements. Accordingly, cumulative projects would not exacerbate wildfire risk. (Draft EIR, Page 3.17-12–13). The proposed project would have no impact. No mitigation is necessary.
1.7 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant After Mitigation
The City of Tracy hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that would avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that would reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:
1.7.1 - Biological Resources
Potential Effect
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-17).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-22).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
58 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Song Sparrow and Tricolored Blackbird Mitigation Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would avoid or minimize potential effects to song sparrow and tricolored blackbird as a result of project implementation within the Zuriakat parcel in and adjacent to the project site.
These measures shall be implemented for construction work that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31):
• If construction or habitat removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for song sparrow and tricolored blackbird within potential nesting habitat of the construction area, (special attention should be paid to the cattail marsh within the Zuriakat parcel) including a 500-foot survey buffer for tricolored blackbird and a 75-foot survey buffer for song sparrow, no more than 7 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities in the construction area. If no active nests are detected within the construction area on the project site or within the relevant buffer survey area, then no additional measures are required. • If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified (as appropriate) regarding the status of the nest. A setback of 500 feet (for tricolored blackbird) and 75 feet (for song sparrow) shall be established and maintained during the nesting season for the period encompassing nest building and continuing until fledglings leave nests. This setback applies whenever construction or other ground-disturbing activities must begin during the nesting season in the presence of nests which are known to be occupied. Furthermore, construction activities shall be restricted in the construction area as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned, or a qualified Biologist deems disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions shall include consultation with a qualified Biologist to determine appropriate buffer zones or alteration relevant area.
- A qualified Biologist shall delineate the buffer using nest buffer signs, environmentally sensitive area fencing, pin flags, and/or flagging tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.
MM BIO-1b Swainson’s Hawk
Foraging: Prior to any activities that would result in ground disturbance to the project site, the relevant applicant(s) for the subject development on any portion of the project site shall each ensure coverage of the relevant portion(s) of the project site under the SJMSCP and pay the applicable fee purchase adequate mitigation through the SJMSCP for 140.59 acres of potential foraging habitat (recommended) or alternatively provide applicant-responsible compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 59
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx (such as procurement of credits through a mitigation bank or dedicated of a conservation easement).
Nesting: The following measures shall be implemented for construction work during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31):
• Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would avoid or minimize potential effects to Swainson’s hawk as a result of project implementation and adjacent to the project site. These measures shall be implemented for construction work that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31):
- If construction or habitat removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season (typically February 1 through August 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk within the construction area, (special attention should be paid to trees with past recorded occurrences) including a 0.5-mile foot survey buffer, no more than 7 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities in the construction area. If no active nests are detected within the construction area site or within the buffer survey area, then no additional measures are required.
- If active Swainson’s hawk nests are found within the construction area or the
0.5-mile survey buffer of the project site, a qualified Biologist shall determine what nest avoidance buffers may be necessary so that construction-related activities do not cause nest abandonment. The avoidance buffer shall be submitted to the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) for approval. The qualified Biologist shall monitor construction activities to ensure construction activities do not result in adverse effects to the nest, fledglings, or adults. The Biologist shall submit a memorandum documenting construction compliance to the appropriate agencies.
MM BIO-1c Burrowing Owl
• A qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey no later than 30 days prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing construction activities on the construction area. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. All suitable habitats within the construction area site and adjacent buffer (within 500 feet) shall be surveyed. If no burrowing owl are detected during the surveys, then no additional measures are required. • If pre-construction surveys during the breeding season (February 1- August 31) detect active burrows within the construction area or near the adjacent buffer survey area site, a qualified Biologist shall establish and delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest until the breeding season is over as determined by the Biologist. Buffer areas shall be established using the guidelines within the Staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
60 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx • If pre-construction surveys detect active burrows during the nonbreeding season (September 1- January 31) the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) allows for eviction or passive relocation of owls. A passive relocation plan shall be prepared and submitted to SJMSCP for approval.
MM BIO-1d San Joaquin Kit Fox
Measures to protect San Joaquin kit fox shall consist of the following:
• A qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the construction area and a 200-foot buffer, between 14 and 30 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbance. If the surveys do not identify any San Joaquin kit fox activity or locate any potential dens, then no further measures are necessary. • If the survey identifies potential dens (potential dens are defined as burrows at least 4 inches in diameter that open up within 2 feet), den entrances shall be dusted for 3 calendar days to register track of any San Joaquin kit fox present. If no San Joaquin kit fox activity is identified, potential dens may be destroyed. If San Joaquin kit fox activity is identified, then dens shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist to determine whether occupation is by an adult fox only or is a natal den (natal dens usually have multiple openings).
• If the den is occupied by an adult only, the den may be destroyed when the adult fox has moved or is temporarily absent. If the den is a natal den, a buffer zone of 250 feet shall be maintained around the den until the Biologist determines that the den has been vacated. Where San Joaquin kit fox are identified, the provisions of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s published Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance shall apply (except that pre-construction survey protocols shall remain as established in this paragraph). These standards include provisions for educating construction workers regarding the San Joaquin kit fox and keeping heavy equipment operating at safe speeds.
MM BIO-1e Migratory Birds
• To prevent significant impacts to Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)-protected birds, nesting raptors, and their nests, removal of trees shall be limited to only those necessary to feasibly construct the proposed project as shown on the individual development plans approved by the City pursuant to the mapping and/or development review process.
• If any tree removal is necessary, then it should occur outside the nesting season between September 1 through January 31 to the extent feasible. If trees cannot feasibly be removed outside the nesting season, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 61
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx • If an active nest is located during pre-construction surveys, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest.
Construction activities shall be restricted in the construction area as necessary to avoid disturbance of the nest until it is abandoned, or the agencies deem disturbance potential to be minimal. Restrictions shall consist of the include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet around an active raptor nest and an appropriate radius around an active migratory bird nest depending on the species) or alteration of the construction schedule.
• A qualified Biologist shall delineate the buffer using nest buffer signs, environmentally sensitive area fencing, pin flags, and/or flagging tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.
MM BIO-1f Roosting Bats
• A qualified wildlife Biologist shall conduct surveys for special-status bats during the appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the construction area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.).
• Visual surveys shall include trees within 0.25 mile of project construction activities. Not more than two weeks prior to building demolition, the Tracy Alliance parcel applicants for development on any project parcel, shall ensure that a qualified Biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of bats and signs of bats) survey buildings proposed for demolition for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the structure, demolition may proceed. If the Biologist determines or presumes bats are present (if there are site access issues or structural safety concerns), the Biologist shall exclude the bats from suitable spaces by installing one-way exclusion devices.
• After the bats vacate the space, the Biologist shall close off the space to prevent recolonization. Building demolition of the subject structure shall only commence after the Biologist verifies seven to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. To avoid significant impacts on non- volant (i.e., nonflying) bats, the Biologist shall only conduct bat exclusion and eviction from May 1 through October 1. Exclusion efforts shall also be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
62 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Facts in Support of Findings: Special-status plant species or communities are unlikely to occur on- site, based on multiple database searches, literature review, and on-site field survey observations.
The project site does not contain suitable habitat components for any special-status plant species, including valley and foothill grasslands, native perennial bunch grass communities, or alkaline soils.
None of the six special-status plant species identified in the Special-status Species Table were observed or expected to be present on-site.
Eight special-status wildlife species as well as birds protected under the MBTA have the potential to occur on the project site, including song sparrow, tricolored blackbird, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, San Joaquin kit fox, pallid bat, Townsend big-eared bat, and western mastiff bat. Therefore, MM BIO-1a requires a pre-construction survey be conducted to confirm that no song sparrow nest (or nest of other protected bird species) is present, and to implement setbacks if they are present. The presence of a tricolored blackbird nesting colony on the project site before or during construction is highly unlikely, but cannot be ruled out. Therefore, MM BIO-1a requires a pre-construction survey to clear the applicable portion(s) of the project site (and setback area, if applicable) of tricolored blackbird (if any), and minimization measures specific to tricolored blackbird nesting colonies, such as setbacks, would be imposed on applicable areas of project development. Swainson’s hawk nests have been observed within the greater project site vicinity; the closest recorded occurrence is across Paradise Street, directly west of the project site and during the field survey. Project construction would result in the loss of foraging habitat, totaling approximately 140.59 acres. Therefore, MM BIO- 1b details the requirements to address the loss of foraging habitat and requires a pre-construction survey and further avoidance and minimization measures (if necessary). Multiple recorded occurrences of burrowing owl have been documented in the vicinity of the project site, but habitat has since been developed. The closest record of an active nest that is still suitable habitat is located approximately 1.5 miles to the south. While no suitable burrows or signs of presence of burrowing owls were observed during the field survey, it cannot be ruled out that a burrowing owl may occupy the project site before or during construction. Therefore, MM BIO-1c requires a pre-construction survey and further avoidance and minimization measures (if necessary) to reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl. San Joaquin kit fox has been sporadically reported in the southern areas of Tracy, approximately 4 miles from the project site. While San Joaquin kit fox is unlikely to occur on the project site and no dens or other signs of San Joaquin kit fox were observed during the field survey, it cannot be ruled out that a stray or migrating San Joaquin kit fox may be found on the project site before or during construction. Therefore, MM BIO-1d requires a pre-construction survey and further avoidance and minimization measures (if necessary, based on the survey) to reduce potential impacts to San Joaquin kit fox.
The trees along the southwestern boundary and trees located on-site and within the immediate vicinity may provide suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the MBTA and other special- status birds. Nesting birds can be impacted by noise, vibrations, and increased activity levels associated with various construction activities. Furthermore, construction activities that occur during the nesting season (generally February 1 to August 31) could disturb nesting sites. Therefore, MM BIO-1e requires the relevant applicant(s) for development on any areas within the project site to each conduct a pre-construction survey and implement further avoidance and minimization measures (if necessary and required by the survey) to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 63
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Buildings located within the southwestern portion of the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for bats. Direct and indirect impacts could occur to roosting bats during project construction due to removal of potential roosting habitat. Therefore, MM BIO-1f requires the relevant applicant(s) for development on any areas within the project site to each conduct a pre-construction survey and further avoidance and minimization measures (if necessary), would reduce potential impacts to roosting bats.
An impact to special-status plant and wildlife species would be considered significant if operation of the proposed project resulted in a substantial, adverse change in ambient noise. As discussed in more detail in Section 12, Noise, the proposed project would increase traffic on local roadways and would introduce stationary noise sources through the operation of new industrial facilities; however, noise emitted from the operation of the proposed project would be required to adhere to applicable established standards and would not result in a significant increase in the ambient noise environment. There is a potential impact related to bird mortality caused from collisions with the glass windows on the buildings. However, the reflective window material used would not pose a greater hazard than any other typical industrial buildings in the project vicinity or in the City.
Window elements would not be expansive and would be predominately located at building corners or inset into the buildings. As such, all operational impacts would be considered less than significant (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-17–22).
The City finds that MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to biological resources. Accordingly, the City Council finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-27).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-27).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-3 Conduct Delineation of Potentially Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources (Channels and Wetlands)
The applicant(s) for development on any project parcel shall complete a formal jurisdictional delineation to document and quantify the full extent of potentially jurisdictional waters for the relevant project parcel(s) in coordination with the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
64 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx applicable regulatory agencies. The applicant(s) for development on any project parcel shall also coordinate, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, with the applicable regulatory agencies (United States Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]) to determine whether the irrigation/drainage channels and/or cattail marsh on the project site is protected under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and/or Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Obtain CWA Sections 401 and 404 Permits Prior to Construction • Prior to the fill of any potentially jurisdictional waters within the project site, the relevant project applicant(s) for the subject project parcel(s) shall consult with the USACE and Regional Water Quality Control Board, to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations, to determine the extent, if at all, that waters of the United States and State may be impacted by the proposed project. • If required, the relevant applicant(s) for development of the subject project parcel(s) shall obtain a Section 404 CWA permit for impacts to waters of the United States. That same applicant, for development of the subject project parcel(s), will also obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, if required. Any such required permit and certification shall be obtained prior to issuance of grading permits for the implementation of the individual development proposal on the subject project parcel(s).
• The applicant(s) for development on any project parcel shall design the project to result in no net loss of functions and values of waters of the United States and State by incorporating impact avoidance, impact minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation for the impact, as set forth in the subject Section 404 permit and 401 water quality certification.
• Compensatory mitigation may consist of (1) obtaining credits from a mitigation bank; (2) making a payment to an in lieu fee program that would conduct wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource restoration, creation, enhancement, or reservation activities; and/or (3) providing compensatory mitigation through an aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation activity. This final type of compensatory mitigation may be provided at or adjacent to the impact site (i.e., on-site mitigation) or at another location, usually within the same watershed as the permitted impact (i.e., off-site mitigation). This project/permit applicant shall retain responsibility for the implementation and success of the mitigation approach.
Obtain Approval of and File Notification of Streambed Alteration Agreement Prior to Construction
The applicant(s) for development on any project parcel shall ensure that the cattail marsh is not obstructed and human intrusion into the area is minimized. In City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 65
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx compliance with Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, the relevant applicant(s) of an individual development proposal within the project site shall obtain approval and file a notification of a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to conducting any construction activities within irrigation/drainage channels that qualify as streams under CDFW jurisdiction (i.e., those having bed and bank and at least periodical flow) if and to the extent required under applicable laws and regulations. Those same applicant(s) shall implement all mitigation measures imposed by the CDFW related to the subject Streambed Alteration Agreement, which may include but not be limited to the implementation of erosion and bank stabilization measures, riparian habitat enhancement, and/or restoration and revegetation of the stream corridor habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio, as determined by the CDFW.
Facts in Support of Findings: There are aquatic resources located within the project site in the form of irrigation/drainage channels (approximately 10,344 linear feet) and a potential ditch wetland/cattail marsh (approximately 0.07 acre) located on the Zuriakat parcel. The ditch wetland/cattail marsh likely formed due to the drainage patterns created as a result of surrounding agricultural production. This potential wetland feature contained standing water during the field visit, contained dense stands of broadleaf cattail (rated an obligate wetland plant by the USACE and a California Natural Community), and supports Northern Pacific tree frogs. This potentially jurisdictional wetland feature is approximately 300 feet long by 8 feet wide.
The irrigation/drainage channels appear to have a potential hydrological connection to the San Joaquin River, a traditional navigable water of the United States. These features are generally not considered jurisdictional; however, California Water Code Section 13050(a) defines “waters of the State” broadly to include “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State,” and the determination whether impacts to parts of the irrigation/drainage ditches and/or the cattail marsh on-site are regulated as waters of the State is be made by the RWQCB. If the proposed project would result in the placement of fill that would potentially result in impacts to these aquatic resources, then implementation of MM BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-27–28).
The City finds that MM BIO-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to wetlands and related biological resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with biology would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impact
Define impact: The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-33).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
66 FirstCarbon Solutions
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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.4-33).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f and MM BIO-3.
Facts in Support of Findings: Planned developments listed in the EIR are predominantly located in areas that have already been built out or are located within highly fragmented habitats with limited potential to support special-status wildlife and plant species. The cumulative geographic context is partially developed and partially agricultural land, and there is a low likelihood of special-status wildlife and plants occurring within the cumulative project areas due to past urban development.
Numerous laws and regulations are in place to protect biological resources within the cumulative project area, including, but not limited to, CESA, Endangered Species Act, and the CWA. Future projects within the cumulative geographic context, would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies and all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts. Cumulative development would be required to comply with the above requirements, as well as General Plan and Municipal Code requirements (standard pre-construction surveys and, if necessary, avoidance procedures would be required for cumulative projects with the potential to impact special-status wildlife species (see, e.g., MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f). The proposed project’s incremental contribution to these less than significant cumulative impacts would not be significant with adherence to the mitigation measures related to special-status wildlife species identified above and compliance with other applicable standards and requirements under the comprehensive regulatory framework.
Aquatic resources are largely found outside the cumulative project areas, which are concentrated south of I-205 and north of West Linne Road within the City of Tracy’s SOI, as project activities would only affect the surrounding project areas. The majority of cumulative developments have been designed to address future growth problems and minimize developmental impacts to sensitive natural communities by designing projects, to the extent feasible, to occur in previously developed or highly disturbed areas that lack significant sensitive natural communities.
Within the cumulative project areas, development would not directly and significantly impact sensitive natural communities and/or the aquatic resources outlined above because they are largely sited in previously developed or highly disturbed areas, and they would be required to consult with the applicable regulatory agencies, quantify their potential impacts in a formal jurisdictional delineation, and mitigate accordingly. Moreover, as explained in Impact BIO-2 and Impact BIO-3, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures to address potential impacts. The proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 67
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx The City of Tracy regulates the alteration or removal of street trees. While other cumulative projects may result in the removal of street trees, these projects would be governed by the applicable local protection ordinance including relevant General Plan policies. Therefore, development of the proposed project and any related development of private property would not result in any conflicts with local tree policies or ordinances protecting trees or other biological resources. As such, there is a less than significant cumulative impact.
The cumulative project areas contain a variety of aquatic resources that act as potential movement corridors for fish and wildlife, such as Corral Hollow Creek and Tom Paine Slough. Any future development that occurs within the cumulative project areas would have to take into account the potential impact to these corridors and mitigate as required under applicable laws and regulations.
The project site is not part of or within a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact related to fish and wildlife movement would not be cumulatively considerable.
The proposed project, in addition to other cumulative projects, would be subject to compliance with the SJMSCP , which may include payment of development fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special-status species and implementation of other identified mitigation measures under the SJMSCP . Compliance by the proposed project and other cumulative projects located within the cumulative project areas to the SJMSCP would fully mitigate any potentially significant impacts in this regard. The proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable given that it also would be required to comply with all applicable provisions and mitigation requirements under the SJMSCP (Draft EIR, Page
3.4-31–33).
The City finds that MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1f, and MM BIO-3 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce cumulative impacts related to biological resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1.7.2 - Cultural Resources
Potential Effect
Impact CUL-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-20).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-20).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
68 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Archaeological Spot-Monitoring and Halt of Construction Upon Encountering Historical or Archaeological Materials
An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall inspect the site once grubbing and clearing are complete for the purpose of determining whether there are any previously undiscovered resources on-site, and prior to any grading or trenching into previously undisturbed soils. This shall be followed by regular periodic or “spotcheck” archaeological monitoring as determined by the Archaeologist. If the Archaeologist believes that a reduction in monitoring activities is prudent, then a letter report detailing the rationale for making such a reduction and summarizing the monitoring results shall be provided to the City of Tracy for concurrence. In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and workers shall avoid altering the materials until an Archaeologist has evaluated the situation. The applicants for the development of the Tracy Alliance, Suvik Farms, and Zuriakat parcels shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of but are not limited to stone, bone, glass, ceramics, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts, or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. The Archaeologist shall evaluate any finding(s) and determine whether they are significant, and if so, shall make recommendations concerning appropriate measures that will be implemented to protect the significant resource, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Any previously undiscovered significant resources found during construction within the project site shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and shall be submitted to the City of Tracy, the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as required.
Facts in Support of Findings: The closest known historical resources are located on the southwest corner of the project site and along the southern boundary of the project site. The southwest corner of project site contains buildings and structures over 50 years old associated with the Mattos Dairy Farm complex. The Mattos Dairy Farm complex was evaluated relative to the four California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility criteria and found to be ineligible to meet any of the criteria for historic and/or architectural significance required for listing on the NRHP , CRHR, or at the local level.
While unlikely, subsurface construction activities always have the potential to damage or destroy previously undiscovered historic resources such as wood, stone, foundations, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramic, and other refuse, if encountered. Therefore, MM CUL-1 would require an inspection and spot-monitoring by a qualified City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 69
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Archaeologist after clearing and grubbing but before digging and trenching, when any historic resources would be visible (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-20).
The City finds that MM CUL-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to historical resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with historical resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact CUL-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-21).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-21).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1.
Facts in Support of Findings: Records search from the Central California Information Center (CCIC) indicated that one prehistoric archaeological resource has previously been recorded within the 0.5- mile radius of the project site and is not located within the project site boundary. The presence of a prehistoric archaeological site within the 0.5-mile radius, coupled with poor soil visibility across the Tracy Alliance and Zuriakat project parcels increases the possibility that undiscovered cultural resources may be encountered during project construction. Such resources could consist of, but are not limited to stone, bone, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths and structural elements. Therefore, MM CUL-1 requires inspection and spot-monitoring by a qualified Archaeologist after clearing and grubbing are complete, but before any digging or trenching begin. (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-21–22).
The City finds that MM CUL-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to archaeological resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Draft EIR, Page. 3.5-22).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
70 FirstCarbon Solutions
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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page. 3.5-22).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures:
MM CUL-3 Stop Construction Upon Encountering Human Remains In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during the course of project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicants for the development of the Tracy City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 71
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Alliance, Suvik Farms, and Zuriakat parcels may each develop a plan with respect to their individual development proposals for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.
Facts in Support of Findings: The potential for human remains to be discovered during ground- disturbing activities is considered low because no human remains have previously been discovered on the project site or in its vicinity. While it is unlikely that the presence of human remains exists within or near the project site, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 must be followed. MM CUL-3 further specifies the procedures to follow in the event human remains are uncovered. (Draft EIR, Page. 3.5-22–23).
The City finds that MM CUL-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to accidental discovery of human remains. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-25).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-25).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3.
Facts in Support of Findings: The Mattos Dairy Farm complex located on-site, while of historic age, is ineligible for local listing under City of Tracy Resolution 3232 and was found to be ineligible for listing on the CRHR. The dairy complex therefore does not qualify as a historic resource under CEQA, and its demolition will not contribute to a cumulative impact to cultural resources. Potential cumulative impacts would be mitigated at an individual project level by adherence to applicable current State and federal laws and regulations, as well as other City and County laws, regulations and mitigation, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources (by implementing similar measures as the proposed project’s MM City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
72 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx CUL-1). The combination of these efforts would reduce potential cumulative impacts related to historical resources.
Given that the proposed project would not have a known, direct impact on any known archaeological resources, project impacts are less than significant in this regard. Construction activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to encounter undiscovered cultural resources. The proposed project would be required to mitigate for impacts through compliance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations governing cultural resources.
Additionally, the implementation of standard construction mitigation measures (MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3) would ensure that undiscovered cultural resources are not adversely affected by project- related construction activities, which would prevent the destruction or degradation of potentially significant cultural resources in the project vicinity.
Cumulative projects within an 0.5-mile radius would be subject to applicable current State and federal laws and regulations, as well as other local and City and County laws, regulations, and mitigation, such as adherence to standard conditions of approval that require monitoring of construction sites in proximity to known resources, immediate cessation of construction activity upon discovery of unidentified human remains, and the protection of cultural resources that are discovered. The combination of the above-mentioned efforts and other standard construction conditions and mitigation measures (similar to the proposed project’s MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3) would reduce potential cumulative impacts (Draft EIR, Page 3.5-24–25).
The City finds that MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce cumulative impacts related to cultural resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1.7.3 - Geology and Soils
Potential Effect
Impact GEO-1: The proposed project could directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv. Landslides.
(Draft EIR, Page 3.7-11).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 73
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 with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-11).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures:
MM GEO-1 Prepare Grading and Construction Plans that Incorporate Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations
Prior to issuance of the grading permits for the proposed project, development of the final grading, foundation, and construction plans shall incorporate the site- specific earthwork, foundation, floor slab, lateral earth pressure, and pavement design recommendations, as detailed in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Terracon dated January 30, 2019. The applicant(s) for development of individual development proposal(s) within the project site shall each coordinate with a City-approved Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist to tailor the grading and foundation plans for the relevant development proposal, as needed, to reduce risk related to known soil and geologic hazards. The final grading and construction plans for the relevant development proposal shall be reviewed by the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer to confirm compliance with this MM GEO-1.
Grading operations shall meet the applicable requirements of the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Terracon on January 30, 2019. During construction, the City-approved Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor construction of the relevant development proposal to ensure the earthwork operations are properly performed in accordance with the foregoing recommendations.
Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to risks associated with seismic-related hazards are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur.
Ground Rupture
Based on Geotechnical Engineering Report, the potential for ground rupture is low. There are no known active faults directly crossing the project site or the City of Tracy, and neither the project site nor the City is located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest fault to the project site is the San Joaquin Fault located in the southeast portion of the City approximately 7 miles away, precluding the potential for ground rupture to occur. There would be no impact.
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
The project site is located in a seismically active region that could experience strong ground shaking during a seismic event. It could experience significant ground shaking from maximum credible earthquakes occurring on the Calaveras, Hayward, San Andreas, or Greenville Faults. Therefore, MM GEO-1 requires implementation of the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prior to the issuance of grading permits. Additionally, the project is required to implement all applicable seismic safety building standards contained in the CBC including seismic design provisions, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
74 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx which would reduce the risk of loss, injury or death. Furthermore, compliance with General Plan Policy P2 and Chapter 9.02 of the Municipal Code requires all construction to conform to the most recent edition of the CBC. With adherence to the requirements of MM GEO-1 and all applicable building codes and regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
Seismic-related Ground Failure
The project site is not listed as a liquefaction hazard zone by the California Geologic Survey (CGS); however, the Geotechnical Engineering Report determined that on-site soils are susceptible to liquefaction because of the shallow groundwater depth and soil conditions. The Geotechnical Engineering Report provided liquefaction modeling and determined that the project site could experience up to 1 inch of soil settlement and included earthwork recommendations that contained criteria for grading, excavation, and fill replacement. The recommendations are incorporated into the proposed project and must be fulfilled prior to issuance of grading permits as detailed in MM GEO-1. Therefore, MM GEO-1 would ensure that the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report are incorporated into the proposed project construction and design plans.
As explained in the EIR, the project site does not contain steep slopes, exposed hillsides, or vertical cuts. Because of the gently sloping nature of the project site, it does not contain a significant potential for landslides (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-11–12). Therefore, there is no impact from potential landslides.
The City finds that MM GEO-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to seismic activity. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with geology would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact GEO-3: The proposed project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-14).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-14).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 75
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to risks associated with location on an unstable geologic unit or soil are limited to operational impacts. No respective construction impacts would occur.
The Geotechnical Engineering Report identified soils that could be expected to experience up to 1 inch of liquefaction-induced settlement. Any such settlement across the project site would represent a significant impact. Additionally, project site soils would be corrosive to concrete used in building foundations and slabs, which could result in unstable building conditions leading to building collapse or damage. Recommendations included criteria for grading, excavation, and fill replacement that would prevent significant settlement of soils. In addition, the recommendations included concrete mix specifications that would prevent significant impacts from corrosive soils. MM GEO-1 requires implementation of all recommendations prior to the issuance of grading permits and would ensure that the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report are incorporated into the project construction and design plans (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-14).
The City finds that MM GEO-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to geologic resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with geology would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact GEO-4: The proposed project could be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (Draft EIR, Page 3.7- 15).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-15).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1.
Facts in Support of Findings: The Geotechnical Engineering Report determined that expansive soils exist on-site. Without mitigation, the near-surface stiff to hard medium plasticity lean clay and high plasticity clay could become unstable during construction activity and after precipitation events. The Geotechnical Engineering Report includes recommendations that are incorporated as requirements to be imposed on the proposed project as reflected in MM GEO-1, for site preparation, excavation, and replacement fill that would include ground modifications that would spread out the loads from foundations and reduce the influence of the construction loads on soft soil layers, thus reducing the potential for unacceptable settlements. These requirements must be achieved prior to the issuance of grading permits. In addition, the Geotechnical Engineering Report provides options for providing City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
76 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx stable foundations by including building floor slabs with foundation systems on a minimum of 18 inches of lime treated subgrade, or excavation and replacement with engineered fill or a sand/slurry mixture. Implementation of MM GEO-1 establishes requirements based on the Geotechnical Engineering Report that must be included in the grading plans and design of the proposed project.
Additionally, during operation, these soils have the potential to swell and shrink as they gain and lose moisture, which could cause building foundations to crack or heave, resulting in substantial risks to life or property, which represents a potentially significant impact. However, the Geotechnical Engineering Report includes recommendations for site preparation, excavation, and foundation design that would address the site-specific conditions. Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report are included in the design of the proposed project (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-15).
The City finds that MM GEO-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to geologic resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with geology would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact GEO-6: The proposed project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-16).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-16).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-6 Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources During Project Construction In the event a fossil is discovered during construction for the proposed project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The applicants for development of individual proposals within the project site shall each include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every proposed project-related construction contract to inform their respective contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and implement a data recovery plan that is consistent with the applicable Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. Any recovered fossil should be deposited in an appropriate repository, such as the UCMP , where it will be properly curated and made accessible for future studies.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 77
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Facts in Support of Findings: The project site is located on Holocene alluvium, which is too young to be fossiliferous. The valley fill on the project site is at least hundreds of feet thick; thus, subsurface late Pleistocene or older deposits, which have the potential to be fossiliferous, are located at depths well below any excavation required for project construction. Additionally, the Paleontological Report states that the closest paleontological resources to the project site were microfossils uncovered 7 miles to the east. While it is unlikely that paleontological resources exist within or near the project site, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed project, such as grading or trenching, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Therefore, MM GEO-6 specifies the procedures to follow in the event a paleontological resource is uncovered. Impacts related to the potential to cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature are limited to construction. No respective operational impacts would occur (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-16).
The City finds that MM GEO-6 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-18).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-18).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-6.
Facts in Support of Findings: The cumulative setting includes Cumulative Projects No. 19 and No. 35 (Draft EIR, Table 3-1) along with existing agricultural and industrial uses. Cumulative projects have the potential to experience strong ground shaking from earthquakes. Cumulative projects would be required to adhere to the applicable provisions of the CBC, and policies of the General Plan and Tracy Municipal Code reducing potential hazards associated with seismic ground shaking and ground failure.
Soil conditions associated with the proposed project, such as differential settlement, liquefaction, expansive soils, and soil creep, are specific to the project site and generally do not contribute to a cumulative effect. Some or all other cumulative projects may have similar conditions, but they also would not contribute to a general geologic or soil cumulative effect. Therefore, there is no City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
78 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx potentially significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code provisions, and the CBC, as well as being required to implement the required mitigation, all of which would reduce soil-related hazard impacts to a less than significant level. Other cumulative projects would similarly be required to adhere to standards and practices that include stringent geologic and soil-related hazard mitigation.
Construction activities associated with development of cumulative projects within the vicinity of the project site may have the potential to encounter undiscovered geologic resources and paleontological resources. These cumulative projects would be required to mitigate for impacts through compliance with applicable federal and State laws governing geologic resources and paleontological resources and other applicable mitigation measures. Moreover, the likelihood that geologic resources and paleontological resources are present on the cumulative project areas is relatively low, given that the majority of soil disturbance associated with these cumulative projects would take place within Holocene soils too young to be fossiliferous. Although there is the possibility that previously undiscovered resources could be encountered by subsurface earthwork activities, the implementation of standard construction mitigation measures and General Plan Objective CC-3.1 and Policy 5 would ensure that undiscovered geologic and paleontological resources are not adversely affected by cumulative project-related construction activities, which would prevent the destruction or degradation of potentially significant cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, potential cumulative impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.7-17–18).
The City finds that MM GEO-1 and MM GEO-6 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce cumulative impacts related to geologic and paleontological resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1.7.4 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Draft EIR, Page
3.9-20).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-20).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1a Conduct Soil Sampling (Tracy Alliance, Zuriakat, and Suvik Farms parcels) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the relevant applicant for an individual development proposal within the project site shall provide evidence of soil testing City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 79
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx within the project boundary to confirm presence or absence of hazardous compounds such as lead and arsenic. The testing shall be conducted pursuant to a San Joaquin Environmental Health-approved sampling plan. If hazardous levels of hazardous compounds are found, excavated soils shall be sent off-site for disposal and any affected soils encountered should be properly characterized, treated and/or disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations. The relevant applicant shall complete any residual soil remediation in connection with the relevant individual development proposal to the satisfaction of San Joaquin Environmental Health, as evidenced by the submittal of a no further action letter. In addition, if hazardous contaminants related to the former agricultural use of the site (such as lead or arsenic) are found, a construction worker health and safety plan shall be prepared and shall be implemented during construction of the relevant individual development proposal.
MM HAZ-1b Proper Disposal and Decommission of Underground Storage Tanks, Aboveground Storage Tanks, and Unlabeled Drums (Tracy Alliance Parcel only) If any of the reported underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are discovered during excavation activities, the applicant for the development of the Tracy Alliance parcels shall dispose of and decommission the USTs and ASTs in accordance with applicable laws and regulations of the Local Oversight Program (LOP) and the American Petroleum Institute Standards, respectively. The unlabeled drums and containers observed during the site reconnaissance for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the Tracy Alliance parcels shall be characterized and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations.
MM HAZ-1c Conduct Asbestos and Lead Surveys Prior to Demolition (Tracy Alliance parcels only)
Prior to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing buildings, the applicant for the development of the Tracy Alliance parcels shall retain a licensed professional to conduct asbestos and lead paint surveys. These surveys shall be conducted prior to the disturbance or removal of any suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP), and these materials shall be characterized for asbestos and lead by a reliable method. All activities involving ACM and LBP shall be conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, and all removal shall be conducted by properly licensed abatement contractors.
MM HAZ-1d Dust Mitigation and Soil Evaluation (Tracy Alliance, Zuriakat, and Suvik Farms parcels)
During any grading or excavation activities in connection with an individual development proposal within the project site, relevant development personnel shall be made aware to look for unusual conditions suggesting buried debris or other City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
80 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx potential adverse environmental conditions. If any abnormal soils are discovered during development activities, such as stained soils, hydrocarbon odors, or any other unusual odors, all construction activities near the discovery shall be stopped immediately and the applicant for the relevant individual development proposal shall contact a qualified hazardous material consulting firm for further assessment and implementation of any appropriate actions as may be required under applicable laws and regulations before construction of the relevant individual proposal can begin again.
MM HAZ-1e Consultation with Chevron and DigAlert (Suvik Farms parcel only) Prior to any ground disturbance and construction along the northern side of West Grant Line Road, adjacent to the southern boundary of the Tracy Alliance and Suvik Farms parcels, the relevant applicant(s) for the development of the Tracy Alliance and/or Suvik Farms parcels shall consult with Chevron (www.chevronpipeline.com; 800.762.3404) and DigAlert 811 to determine the location of the existing underground petroleum pipeline to facilitate avoidance during ground disturbance and construction activities.
Facts in Support of Findings: During construction, the proposed project would be expected to involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuels, aerosols, and paints, which are typical for this type of industrial construction. The proposed project would be subject to the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, California Public Resources Code, and other applicable State and local laws and regulations that would reduce and limit the associated risks. Any handling, transporting, use, or disposal would be required to comply with applicable laws, policies, and programs set forth by various federal, State, and local agencies and regulations, including the EPA, RCRA, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and HMP .
Tracy Alliance Parcels
The Phase I ESA for the Tracy Alliance parcels noted several RECs including a wastewater pond (western portion of the site), absence of removal records associated with historic UST(s), historical AST fueling areas, petroleum hydrocarbon staining, unlabeled 55-gallon drum storage area, burn disposal areas, and off-site groundwater impacts from an adjoining western open-inactive Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facility. A Limited Site Investigation did not find a significant contaminant release from historical or current use of the parcels in the immediate area of the investigation. The Limited Site Investigation concluded that no further investigation or remediation was required.
Arsenic-impacted soils are present in the soil samples collected from the site. The arsenic impacts are within regional background concentrations, except for the ASH-2 sample. Therefore, MM HAZ-1a would be implemented to test soils for arsenic and to require remediation and documentation of no further action by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) if site soils contain hazardous levels of arsenic.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 81
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Evidence of reported USTs on-site was identified. However, information pertaining to the location of the reported USTs was not identified in the regulatory databases or local agencies inquiries. In addition, three gasoline and/or diesel fueling ASTs ranging between approximately 200 gallons and 500 gallons in size were observed at the southwestern portion of the site. During the site reconnaissance, the ASTs were observed on soil and not within secondary containment. Therefore, if any of the reported USTs or ASTs are discovered during excavation activities, MM HAZ-1b would be implemented, which would require disposal and decommission of the USTs and ASTs in accordance with applicable regulations of the LOP and the American Petroleum Institute Standards, respectively.
Approximately ten 55-gallon unlabeled drums stored on soil were observed south of the cattle storm shed. Staining was not observed beneath the former drum area after removal; however, based on the unknown nature of materials stored in the drums and poor housekeeping practices, the former drum storage area represents a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). MM HAZ-1b requires that any remaining unlabeled drums and containers be disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations.
Three domestic groundwater wells were found on-site. Because the wells are not to be used in the planned redevelopment of the project site, they must be properly abandoned, closed, or destroyed in accordance with local, State, and federal laws, regulations and guidelines.
The proposed project would demolish the existing buildings on-site. Given the age of the existing structures on the project site, it is conceivable that ACM and LBP may exist within these structures.
MM HAZ-1c would require the applicant for the development of the Tracy Alliance parcels to conduct asbestos and lead paint surveys prior to demolition activities and safely remove and dispose of any such materials in accordance with applicable State standards and other legal requirements.
Standard dust mitigation measures would be implemented during all development and soil handling activities. During any grading or excavation activities of the Tracy Alliance parcels, development personnel must be made aware to look for unusual conditions suggesting buried debris or other potential adverse environmental conditions. In addition, if any abnormal soils are discovered during redevelopment, such as stained soils, hydrocarbon odors, or any other unusual odors, all construction activities would be stopped immediately and a qualified hazardous material consulting firm would be contacted for further assessment and monitoring, pursuant to MM HAZ-1d.
Zuriakat and Suvik Farms Parcels
There is a potential for accumulation of elevated levels of lead and arsenic. On-site soils may contain pesticides/herbicides above actionable levels. Therefore, it is recommended that soil sampling and testing be performed on the Zuriakat and Suvik Farms parcels prior to redevelopment; MM HAZ-1a would be implemented to test soils for lead and arsenic and to require remediation and documentation of no further action by the San Joaquin Environmental Health Department if site soils contain hazardous levels of lead or arsenic.
Because of the nature of the agricultural uses on-site, implementation of standard dust mitigation measures during all redevelopment and soil handling activities would be required by MM HAZ-1d.
During any grading or excavation activities of the Zuriakat or Suvik Farms parcels, development City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
82 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx personnel must be made aware to look for unusual conditions suggesting buried debris or other potential adverse environmental conditions. In addition, if any abnormal soils are discovered during development, construction activities would be stopped immediately and a qualified hazardous material consulting firm would be contacted for further assessment and monitoring, pursuant to MM HAZ-1d.
Markers indicating the presence of an underground petroleum pipeline owned by Chevron Pipeline Company were observed along the northern side of West Grant Line Road, adjacent to the Suvik Farms parcels. Pursuant to MM HAZ-1e, the applicant for development of the Suvik Farms parcels shall consult with Chevron and contact DigAlert prior to any ground disturbance and construction in that area.
Two on-site irrigation wells were observed within the unpaved access roads along the western property line (the Suvik Farms parcels). Because the wells are not proposed to be used in the planned development of the project site, they would be required to be properly abandoned/closed or destroyed in accordance with local, State, and federal laws and regulations. This would be applied as a standard condition of approval. Routine inspections of facilities that are subject to Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) requirements would be performed to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations concerning HMBP requirements. Any routine storage, handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and programs set forth by various federal, State, and local agencies, including the EPA, RCRA, Caltrans, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, and the City of Tracy HMP . Removal and disposal of hazardous materials would be conducted by a permitted and licensed contractor. Required compliance with applicable hazardous material laws and regulations would ensure that operation-related hazardous material use would not result in a significant hazard to the public or environment (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-20).
The City finds that MM HAZ-1a through MM HAZ-1e are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to hazards. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-26).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-26).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 83
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Mitigation Measures
Implement MM HAZ-1a and MM HAZ-1b.
Facts in Support of Findings
Tracy Alliance Parcels
Several facilities are identified on the regulatory databases, and two facilities of interest are discussed below.
Legacy Real Estate (6599 West Grant Line Road) and Mattos Farms (6735 West Grant Line Road) Legacy Real Estate (6599 West Grant Line Road) and Mattos Farms (6735 West Grant Line Road), which are former users of the Tracy Alliance parcels, are identified on the regulatory database Facility and Manifest Data (HAZNET) and two Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (HIST UST) listings. Approximately 4.8 tons of ACM was removed from the site in the year 2014 and reported to have been disposed at a landfill. The HAZNET listing corresponds to a building removal identified by the City of Tracy in the year 2014. Two 350-gallon gasoline USTs were installed in the year 1973. During the site reconnaissance, Mr. Mattos pointed out an empty rusting AST located west of the cattle barn which was a former UST. During a telephone conversation on November 26, 2018, Mr. Mattos recalled a UST was located approximately 5 feet south of the residence garage and recalled the UST had a crank pump attached to it. Mr. Mattos did not recall when the UST was removed and was not aware of a second UST on the site. Terracon requested UST removal records on file with the City, State and local agencies; however, information associated with the reported USTs was not found. Based on the absence of UST removal records, the historical USTs represent a significant data gap and REC in connection with these lands. Therefore, if any of the reported USTs are discovered during excavation activities, MM HAZ-1b would be implemented, which would require disposal and decommission of the USTs in accordance with applicable laws and regulations of the LOP .
Haley Flying Service (2395 East Pescadero Avenue, formerly 21000 Paradise Road) Haley Flying Service (2395 East Pescadero Avenue), located to the adjoining west and hydrogeologically and topographically cross-gradient relative to the site, is identified on the Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup (SLIC) Cases GeoTracker (CPS-SLIC) and the California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) databases. The facility is an open and active cleanup case with potential pesticide and herbicide contamination. The facility was a former crop- dusting operation with concerns regarding stormwater runoff and wastewater discharge.
Wastewater from aircraft washings discharged to a ditch behind the property which runs parallel to a water district irrigation distribution canal. Low levels of pesticides and herbicides including 2,4-D, diuron, linuron, and endosulfan were identified in the samples collected from an irrigation ditch at the facility. The facility’s discharge system, including a sump and evaporation system, were not within regulatory compliance.
The facility was additionally identified at 21000 Paradise Road, a former property address, and was identified on the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS-ARCHIVE), RCRA–Small Quantity Generator (RCRA-SQG), DTSC Envirostor website (ENVIROSTOR), LUSTs, Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP), Waste Management Unit Database/Solid Waste Disposal Sites (WMUDS/SWAT), City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
84 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Environmental Liens Listings (LIENS), Facility Index System (FINDS), Enforcement Compliance History Information (ECHO), Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (HIST CORTESE), SWEEPS UST, HIST UST, CA FID UST, and CERS databases. Based on a review of the listings, the facility was a small quantity hazardous waste generator of industrial waste which treats and/or disposes of liquid or semisolid waste; however, the facility did not have reporting requirements. Based on a review of the LUST listings, in 1988, a gasoline release affecting drinking water was reported and was listed as closed as of 1998. A HIST UST listing indicated two 1,000-gallon gasoline USTs, and two 2,000-gallon waste USTs were reported on the property in the 1970s. The SWEEPS UST listing indicated a 1,000- gallon gasoline UST and 5,000-gallon aviation fuel UST were reported on the property in the 1990s.
Based on a review of the ENVIROSTOR website, the facility was a former agricultural aerial operation which applied herbicides and pesticides to local agricultural fields. Spray tanks and airplanes were rinsed on the property and the tank rinse water was pumped into a concrete lined washout pit. The website noted improper hazardous material handling practices as the probable cause of soil contamination on the property. The website indicated in 1982 an unspecified amount of hazardous material was removed from the property. A site screening was performed in 1987 followed by a preliminary assessment in 1988. The facility entered a Voluntary Cleanup Act (VCP) agreement in 2005 and a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) was prepared by Geo-Phase Environmental (Geo-Phase) in 2006. Based on a review of diagrams contained in the Geo-Phase PEA, the facility washdown areas and loading docks were located on the eastern portion of the property approximately 100 feet west of the Tracy Alliance parcels. The PEA indicated elevated levels of pesticides and herbicides were detected in soil and groundwater samples collected from the property. The PEA included a Human Health Hazard Assessment and indicated detected levels of chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin, and toxaphene were above California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs). Groundwater was reported at 11 feet below ground surface (bgs). The PEA recommended further site characterization including additional soil and groundwater analysis. A PEA approval letter dated February 9, 2006, from the DTSC to the property owner, indicated the property was “highly contaminated” and concurred with the Geo-Phase PEA recommendations.
Additionally, 1990 soil and groundwater samples identified elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil samples collected from the 5,000-gallon UST tank excavation identified gasoline hydrocarbons (610 mg/kg), benzene (6.5 mg/kg), toluene (62 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (41 mg/kg), and xylene (169 mg/kg) above Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). Benzene (3.9 ug/L), toluene (19.4 ug/L), ethylbenzene (7.5 ug/L) and xylene (32 ug/L) were identified in a groundwater sample collected from the 5,000-gallon tank excavation of which benzene and xylene were reported above ESLs. The PEA noted mitigation records associated with the petroleum hydrocarbon LUST were misplaced in the County records and presumed the LUST release had been adequately mitigated and closed. There were no additional reports for the property after the year 2006. Based on proximity to the site, open regulatory status, reported impacts to soil and groundwater, and shallow depth to groundwater (11 feet), Haley’s Flying Service represents a REC to the site.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 85
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx A Limited Site Investigation concluded that there does not appear to be a significant contaminant release from historical or current use of the parcels in the immediate area of the investigation. The Limited Site Investigation concluded that no further investigation or remediation was required.
Arsenic-impacted soils are present in the soil samples collected from the site. The arsenic impacts are within regional background concentrations, except for the ASH-2 sample. Therefore, MM HAZ-1a would be implemented to test soils for arsenic and to require remediation and documentation of no further action by the San Joaquin Environmental Health Department if site soils contain hazardous levels of arsenic.
Zuriakat and Suvik Farms Parcels
Based on the findings of this assessment, including a regulatory records review of the following federal, State, and local regulatory agencies, the Zuriakat and Suvik Farms parcels were not included on any institution/engineering control databases that track activity and use limitation on properties.
Therefore, impacts related to potential location on a hazardous materials site and, thus, creating a hazard to the public or environment would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.9-26–32).
The City finds that MM HAZ-1a and MM HAZ-1b are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to hazards. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with hazards would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1.7.5 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-1: The proposed project could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality (Draft EIR, Page
3.10-21).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-21).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
MM HYD-1a Prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the relevant applicant for each individual development proposal within the project site shall submit a draft of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in connection with its individual development proposal pursuant to the then-applicable Multi-Agency Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual at the time the relevant grading permit is submitted. After City approval of the relevant grading permit, the relevant City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
86 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx NOI and SWPPP shall be sent to the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) for approval. Approval by the State Water Board is a prerequisite for issuance of the relevant grading permit by the City. The SWPPP shall address stormwater management during each phase of construction of the relevant individual development proposal. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be integrated into the relevant SWPPP as identified by the City of Tracy, which will result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and the stabilization of BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction of the relevant individual development proposal is completed. The relevant SWPPP shall be consistent with the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements to protect water quality over the period of construction of the relevant individual development proposal.
MM HYD-1b Prepare Stormwater Management Plan
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the relevant applicant for each individual development proposal within the project site shall prepare a Stormwater Management Plan in connection with its individual development proposal for review and approval by the City of Tracy. The relevant Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall include two fundamental components: (1) treatment for pollutants collected in stormwater using Low Impact Development (LID) measures, and (2) no net increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the pre-project (existing) condition. All LID treatment measures would be required to be designed in accordance with applicable engineering criteria in the then-applicable Multi-Agency Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual. Implementation of the relevant SWMP would require the preparation of a clearly defined Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan by the relevant applicant in connection with its development proposal to ensure that installed stormwater treatment measure(s) and hydromodification management control(s) are inspected and properly operated and maintained for the life of the relevant individual development proposal.
Facts in Support of Findings: Construction activity would expose soils to potential erosion, and to potential pollutants related to the use of construction equipment. Runoff from graded areas could carry eroded soils and pollutants into the storm drainage systems and into the Old River and eventually the San Joaquin River, increasing sedimentation, degrading downstream water quality, and potentially affecting the groundwater table. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable laws and regulations including the terms of the Construction General Permit, which require the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that includes BMPs to ensure reduction of pollutants from construction activities that could potentially enter surface waters as required by MM HYD-1a. Additionally, implementation of the SWPPP would also prevent pollutants from entering the Tracy Subbasin by requiring the inclusion of BMPs, such as the use of biofiltration swales and bioretention basins, that would prevent pollutants from moving off-site through the treatment of stormwater on-site. The intention would be to keep all products of erosion from City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 87
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx moving off-site into receiving waters by treatment on-site. Furthermore, compliance with Chapter
11.34 of the Municipal Code would ensure that each applicant, in connection with its respective individual development proposal, implements the BMPs contained in the relevant SWPPP which would be verified by a City inspector during the construction period. Compliance with applicable policies, laws and regulations would minimize the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies to the maximum extent feasible.
During operation, the proposed project would result in new impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions that would in turn generate stormwater runoff, which may carry pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers, and deposits of fluids and metals from motor vehicles into the Old River or allow seepage of such pollutants into the associated groundwater table. The proposed project would be subject to applicable C.3 requirements, which includes implementation of a SWMP applicable to the proposed project’s design and post-project O&M. Two fundamental components are associated with the SWMP: (1) treatment for pollutants collected in stormwater using Low Impact Development (LID) measures, and (2) no net increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the pre- project (existing) condition. All LID treatment measures would be required to be designed in accordance with applicable engineering criteria in the Multi-Agency Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual. Implementation of the SWMP would require the preparation of a clearly defined Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan to ensure that installed stormwater treatment measure(s) and hydromodification management control(s) are inspected and properly operated and maintained for the life of the project. The preparation, approval, and implementation of a SWMP is included as MM HYD-1b.
The primary treatment control measure would be the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin with a pump station that would be owned and managed by the City. Following Phase 1, each subsequent applicant for its respective individual development proposal within the project site would be required to confirm that the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin and bioretention treatment areas could accommodate project flows to the satisfaction of the City and that post-development stormwater flow rates would not substantially exceed predevelopment rates pursuant to the applicable C.3 requirements. The proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the Multi-Agency Post- Construction Stormwater Standards Manual which identifies BMPs to control the potential pollutant load of stormwater runoff. Additionally, Chapter 11.32 of the Municipal Code requires each applicant for its respective individual development proposal within the project site to pay applicable stormwater impact fees in connection with their respective development proposals, which would ensure the operation, maintenance, and replacement of existing and future stormwater facilities.
Each applicant for its respective individual development proposal within the project site would be required to prepare a clearly defined O&M Plan in connection with its respective individual development proposal to ensure that installed stormwater treatment measures and hydromodification management controls are inspected and properly operated and maintained for the life of the relevant individual development proposal (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-21–23).
The City finds that MM HYD-1a through MM HYD-1b are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to water quality standards or water quality. Accordingly, the City finds that, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
88 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-3: The proposed project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv. impede or redirect flood flows? (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-30).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-30).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b
MM HYD-3 Prepare Final Drainage Plan Prior to Grading
Each applicant for an individual development proposal within the project site shall, in connection with the relevant individual development proposal:
• Comply with all applicable rules, regulations, and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
• Submit a Final Stormwater Control Plan and a Stormwater Control Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) to the City of Tracy Public Works and Community Development Department, which shall be reviewed for compliance with the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and shall be determined consistent with the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 11.34 of the Municipal Code, Ordinance 1072) prior to issuance of a grading permit for the relevant individual development proposal. Improvement Plans shall be reviewed to verify consistency City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 89
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx with the relevant Final Stormwater Control Plan and compliance with Provision C.3 of the City’s NPDES Permit and the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 11.34 of the Municipal Code, Ordinance 1072).
• Prior to issuance of grading permits for each relevant individual development proposal, the relevant applicant shall submit a Final Drainage Plan in connection with the relevant individual development proposal that incorporates the measures included in the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum. The City of Tracy Public Works and Community Development Department shall review the relevant Final Drainage Plan to ensure it is in compliance with all applicable requirements and standards, including the recommendations provided in the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum and in the Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan in effect at the time building permits are issued, to reduce risk related to flooding within a designated floodplain. The relevant Final Drainage Plan shall be reviewed by City of Tracy Public Works and Community Development Department staff to ensure that all building minimum floor elevations for the relevant development proposal are at 26 feet or 1 foot above the maximum flood elevation and will accommodate the 200-year storm event as detailed in the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum. In addition, the on-site stormwater detention basin shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum and in accordance with the Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan in effect at the time building permits are issued.
Additionally, the relevant Final Drainage Plan shall determine if discharge of pre- project runoff rates and/or volumes into the Tom Paine Slough drainage area can continue after project construction pursuant to applicable standards and requirements. Should the relevant Final Drainage Plan determine it is feasible to discharge some runoff (possibly up to the pre-project runoff volume) into the existing downstream system, this design shall be submitted to the City of Tracy as part of the relevant Final Drainage Plan for review and approval.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction-related Erosion and Siltation
The project site is not located adjacent or near any creek beds and the proposed project does not propose any alteration to a stream, creek bed, or river. Construction activity could result in substantial erosion or siltation due to a drainage pattern alteration and could therefore result in polluted runoff entering the City’s stormwater drainage system and the Old River. This would represent a potentially significant impact. However, the proposed project would be required to implement a SWPPP as part of its Construction General Permit, pursuant to MM HYD-1a. The SWPPP is designed to ensure that erosion and siltation are prevented or minimized to the maximum extent feasible during construction through the implementation of standard BMPs. Consistent with Chapter
11.34 of the Municipal Code, each applicant for an individual development proposal within the project site would be required to implement the BMPs contained in the relevant SWPPP in connection with the relevant individual development proposal, which would be verified by a City City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
90 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx inspector during the construction period. Pursuant to the relevant Storm Drainage Master Plan (SDMP) in effect at the time building permits are requested, the SWPPP would include a construction site monitoring program that demonstrates the site is in compliance with the Construction General Permit; therefore, the proposed project would also be required to adhere to this monitoring program mandate. Compliance with applicable policies, laws and regulations would minimize the potential to increase sedimentation or siltation to the maximum extent practicable.
Operation-related Erosion and Siltation
Development of the project site would increase impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions. Thus, project operation could result in increased amounts of stormwater runoff that could carry pollutants into Old River and ultimately San Joaquin River. The proposed project would include an on-site stormwater detention basin with pump station that would be designed pursuant to all applicable standards and requirements to treat stormwater on-site and prevent erosion and siltation from increasing pollutant loads in the stormwater system and Old River. With respect to the Tracy Alliance parcels, bioretention treatment areas would be constructed around the proposed buildings and would also be interspersed throughout the parking lots. Stormwater that would be collected in the bioretention treatment areas would either evaporate or infiltrate through a bioretention filter into surrounding soils. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City of Tracy NPDES program, SWMP , and all relevant provisions of the Municipal Code related to stormwater pollution. The proposed project would be required to implement MM HYD-3 that would require each applicant for an individual development proposal within the project site to prepare a Final Drainage Plan in connection with the relevant individual development proposal prior to site grading, for review and approval by the City. Each Final Drainage Plan would be required to abide by the Multi-Agency Post-Construction Stormwater Standards Manual and require the incorporation of BMPs such as those described above, prior to discharging stormwater off-site. Through adherence to applicable policies, standards, and requirements and implementation of MM HYD-3, the proposed project’s operation would not substantially increase erosion or siltation.
Operation-related Surface Runoff
Impacts related to the potential for the proposed project to increase the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding are limited to operational impacts. The proposed project’s increase in impervious surfaces is accounted for in the design of the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin with pump station, which would ensure that post-project flows do not exceed pre- project flows in accordance with applicable C.3 requirements. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in any increase in flooding on or off-site. The proposed project includes an on-site stormwater detention basin designed to reduce runoff volume and pollutants from the project site from entering the City stormwater drainage system or waterways, in accordance with Provision C.3 in the Municipal Regional Permit as implemented by the Central Valley RWQCB.
Construction-related Exceedance of Storm Drain Capacity The proposed project could increase stormwater runoff generation, which could potentially lead to flooding on or off-site. However, each applicant for an individual development proposal would be required to implement a SWPPP as part of its Construction General Permit, as required by MM HYD- 1a. The SWPPP is designed to ensure that stormwater generation and pollutants are prevented or City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 91
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx minimized to the maximum extent feasible during construction through the implementation of standard BMPs. Consistent with Chapter 11.34 of the Municipal Code, each individual development proposal within the project site would be required to implement the BMPs contained in the relevant SWPPP in connection with the relevant individual development proposal, which would be verified by a City inspector during the construction period.
Operation-related Exceedance of Storm Drain Capacity
The existing stormwater sheet flows from the site to the northeast toward I-205 and into Pescadero Irrigation District facilities; this stormwater does not currently enter into a City-maintained facility.
The proposed project would install an on-site stormwater detention basin with a pump station along the northeast site boundary that would be owned and managed by the City. Bioretention treatment areas would be located around the buildings on the Tracy Alliance parcels and would also be interspersed throughout the parking lots. Stormwater that would be collected in the bioretention treatment areas would either evaporate or infiltrate through a bioretention filter into surrounding soils. Though the bioretention treatment areas for Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels are not currently known, each applicant for an individual development proposal on the foregoing parcel(s) would also have to prepare a Final Drainage Plan (similar to the applicant for the Tracy Alliance parcels) upon submittal of a development application that would be required to abide by the Multi-Agency Post- Construction Stormwater Standards Manual and require the incorporation of BMPs.
Proposed bioretention treatment areas would be required to be designed to reduce runoff volume entering the City stormwater drainage system or waterways, in accordance with Provision C.3 in the Municipal Regional Permit as implemented by the Central Valley RWQCB, and all other applicable standards and requirements. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City of Tracy NPDES program, SWMP, and all relevant provisions of the Municipal Code related to stormwater pollution, including the provision of appropriately sized bioretention areas for pretreatment of stormwaters in accordance with C.3 guidelines. Furthermore, implementation of MM HYD-3 would ensure that stormwaters are collected and conveyed in accordance with Chapter
11.34 of the Municipal Code. MM HYD-3 would also ensure that the proposed project complies with applicable regulations of the NPDES permit, and that each applicant for an individual development proposal within the project site prepares and submits a Final Storm Water Control Plan and Stormwater Control O&M Plan. These plans would prevent pollutants from moving off-site through the treatment of stormwater on-site.
Operation-related Impacts to Flood Flows
Impacts related to impedance of flood flows would only occur during the operational phase of the proposed project. The project site could be subject to flooding in the event of a levee failure along the San Joaquin River or Paradise Cut, which is a distributary of the San Joaquin River. The levees along the San Joaquin River and Paradise Cut near the City do not currently meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) criteria for Urban Level of Flood Protection (ULOP). Therefore, the analysis to determine the flood levels must consider failure of the levees along the river.
The 200-year flood levels at the project site would be virtually the same as the FEMA 100-year flood levels, which is estimated to be 24 feet. Maximum flood depths at the project site would be controlled by existing ground elevations of tributaries of the San Joaquin River, including Old River City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
92 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx and Sugar Cut Channel, which would influence potential flows to the project site. Because the ground elevations around the southern end of the Sugar Cut Channel (21.2 feet) are greater than the projected 200-year flood elevation in the Old River (estimated at 17 feet), flood flows would be limited to existing drainage channels. The Flood Protection Technical Memorandum concluded that a levee breach at the Paradise Cut would result in 200-year flood elevations of at most 24 feet on the project site, which is similar to the 100-year flood elevation. Consequently, the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum determined it would be reasonable to plan for a 200-year flood elevation of 25 feet and all new structures within the project site would need to have a lowest finished floor elevation at least one foot, 26 feet, above the 200-year flood level associated with levee failure. The same minimum finished floor elevation would apply to all portions of the proposed project.
Implementation of MM HYD-3 would require each applicant for individual development proposals within the project site to prepare a Final Drainage Plan in connection with the relevant individual development proposal prior to site grading to ensure that all relevant project buildings are built at a minimum finished floor elevation of 26 feet (i.e., 8.5 feet higher than the existing lowest ground elevation of 17.5 feet) and all measures and recommendations included in the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum are included in the project design. MM HYD-3 would ensure the proposed project is consistent with applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code (Title 9 Building Regulations, Chapter 9.52 Floodplain Regulations), which requires that all new construction and substantial construction pertaining to buildings have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the base flood elevation.
The proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin would be located within a known flood hazard zone. The City of Tracy Design Standards (City’s Design Standards) requires basins to be emptied within 10 days. The proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin would need to drain at 3 cubic feet per second (cfs) to fulfill this requirement.
The 100-year floodplain impacts on the project site would only result from the unlikely event of a levee failure along the San Joaquin River or Paradise Cut. Furthermore, the volume of the breach flow would need to be sufficient to inundate over 10 square miles prior to flows reaching the project site, which is an extreme and unlikely event. If flood flows reached the project site, they would fill available storage in the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin below the flood level and any additional flood flow volumes would be pumped into the Eastside Channel. The Flood Protection Technical Memorandum determined that it would not matter if the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin contained sufficient capacity in the event of regional flooding because runoff upstream from the project site would not make flooding worse and the impact of additional stormwater volumes being pumped into the Eastside Channel would be less than significant.
MM HYD-3 would require the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin to be designed in accordance with, and meet the applicable objectives, standards and requirements set forth in the Citywide SDMP in effect at the time building permits are requested for the relevant individual development proposal.
The Flood Protection Technical Memorandum notes that unlike most other areas of the City, the location of the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin has a defined existing City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 93
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx conveyance downstream from it. Although it may be reasonable to pump all of the increased runoff from the area tributary to the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin into the City’s Eastside Channel drainage system, it may be feasible to discharge some runoff (possibly up to the pre-project runoff volume) into the existing downstream system. Any allowable discharge into the Tom Paine Slough system could reduce the capacity required for the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin. This design-level review would be completed as part of the Final Drainage Plan for each individual development proposal as required in MM HYD-3. Pursuant to the foregoing and with the applicants’ compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations including designing the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin and all structures on- site consistent with City’s Design Standards, recommendations provided in the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum, performance standards included in the Citywide SDMP in effect at the time building permits are requested, and implementation of MM HYD-3, impacts related to impedance of flood flows would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-30–36).
The City finds that MM HYD-1a, MM HYD-1b, and MM HYD-3 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to existing drainage patterns and hydrologic resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-4: The proposed project would be located in a flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zone, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-37).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-37).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM HYD-3.
Facts in Support of Findings: In the event of a levee failure along the San Joaquin River or Paradise Cut, which is a distributary of the San Joaquin River, sufficient to inundate over 10 square miles prior to flows reaching the project site, the project site could be inundated as it is located within a flood hazard zone as determined by FEMA. To address potential inundation, compliance with MM HYD-3 and applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code (Title 9 Building Regulations, Chapter 9.52 Floodplain Regulations) would require each applicant for individual development proposals within the project site to submit a Final Drainage Plan in connection with the relevant individual development proposal that incorporates the recommendations included in the Flood Protection Technical Memorandum and project-specific Hydrology Study. Additionally, the relevant Final Drainage Plan shall determine if discharge of pre-project runoff rates and/or volumes into the Tom City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
94 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Paine Slough drainage area can continue after project construction pursuant to applicable standards and requirements. Should the relevant Final Drainage Plan determine it is feasible to discharge some runoff (possibly up to the pre-project runoff volume) into the existing downstream system, this design shall be submitted to the City as part of the relevant Final Drainage Plan for review and approval. These improvements would ensure that the proposed project would not be subject to a substantial risk of inundation and drainage would be improved such that the proposed project would not be at significant risk of pollutant release.
The project site is not located near the ocean and would not be susceptible to inundation from a tsunami. The project site is not located near a large, enclosed body of water and is not susceptible to inundation from a seiche (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-37–38).
The City finds that MM HYD-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to potential inundation and hydrologic resources. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-5: The proposed project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-38).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-38).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
Implement MM HYD-1a.
Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s NPDES program. Given that construction for the proposed project would disturb more than one acre of land, the proposed project would be required to comply with the terms of the Construction General Permit, which would require the preparation and implementation of SWPPPs in connection with each individual development proposal within the project site, which would include BMPs to ensure reduction of pollutants from construction activities potentially entering surface waters in accordance with MM HYD-1a.
The project site is located within the San Joaquin Hydrologic Basin Planning Area under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable goals and policies as set forth by the Central Valley RWQCB. The Tracy Regional Groundwater Management Plan (GMP) is the sustainable GMP that would govern development that occurs on the project site. As described in Impact HYD-2, the project site is located within the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 95
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx boundaries of the Tracy Subbasin and has limited potential to adversely impact groundwater recharge rates due to existing poorly drained soils and shallow groundwater levels. Annual groundwater use is anticipated to be 2,500 AFY . This anticipated future groundwater pumpage is significantly below the City’s maximum historical groundwater pumpage and the average annual operational yield of 9,000 AFY , and the proposed project would not significantly decrease groundwater supplies because the design of the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin includes filters to remove sediments and organic materials that might further reduce groundwater percolation rates. Given that the City has determined it would have adequate groundwater supplies to serve the project site, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the relevant water quality control plan or the relevant sustainable GMP (Draft EIR, Page 3.10-38–39).
The City finds that MM HYD-1a is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to hydrology. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with hydrology would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1.7.6 - Noise
Potential Effect
Impact NOI-2: The proposed project could generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-18).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-25).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Improvement Mitigation Measures
IMM NOI-2 To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part Improvement Mitigation Measure (IMM) shall be implemented for the project:
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Locate stationary operational noise-generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction area. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site to the extent feasible.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary operational noise sources where such technology exists and is commercially practicable.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
96 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 construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) of internal combustion engines.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practicable, locate on- site equipment staging areas so as to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction activities that would occur within 550 feet of a residential land use property line shall be limited to daylight hours or to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction
Noise impacts from construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction traffic, construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity and location of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. All project construction would be required to take place within the permissible hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Accordingly, no significant impact related to construction noise would occur. A discussion of the potential impacts associated with each of these types of activities is provided below for informational purposes.
Construction-related Traffic Noise
The proposed project would be required to adhere to the above-referenced construction hours and therefore no significant impact would occur. Because project construction workers and construction equipment would use existing routes, noise from passing trucks would be similar to existing vehicle- generated noise on these local roadways. In addition, these trips would not result in a doubling of daily traffic volumes on any of the local roadways in the project vicinity and would thus, as explained more fully above, not result in a perceptible change in existing traffic noise levels.
Construction Equipment Operational Noise
The proposed project would be required to adhere to the above-referenced construction hours and therefore no significant impact would occur. Each construction phase would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Thus, the noise levels vary as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the types and sizes of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading activities, tends to generate the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. The maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be 85 dBA maximum noise level (L max) at 50 feet
from this equipment. Each bulldozer would generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by graders is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst-case combined noise level during this step in the construction process would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustic center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst-case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 97
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx The nearest off-site noise-sensitive receptor to the proposed construction footprint is the single- family residence located west of the proposed building in the southwest corner of the project site, which would be located approximately 150 feet from the acoustic center of construction activity. At this distance, construction noise levels at the exterior façade of this nearest residential home would be expected to range up to approximately 80 dBA L
max, with a reasonable worst-case hourly average
of approximately 76 dBA Leq, intermittently.
The closest receptor to the eastern portions of the project site where anticipated project development would occur is the single-family residence located southeast of the project site. This receptor would be located approximately 95 feet from the nearest potential construction footprint where multiple pieces of heavy machinery would operate simultaneously. At this distance, construction noise levels at the exterior façade of this residential home would be expected to range up to approximately 84 dBA L
max, with a reasonable worst-case hourly average of approximately 80 dBA Leq, intermittently.
The closest receptor to the northern portions of the project site where future project development would occur is the single-family residence located north of the project site. This receptor would be located approximately 130 feet from the nearest potential construction footprint where multiple pieces of heavy machinery would operate simultaneously. At this distance, construction noise levels at the exterior façade of this nearest residential home would be expected to range up to approximately 82 dBA L
max, with a reasonable worst-case hourly average of approximately 78 dBA Leq, intermittently.
All of these reasonable worst-case construction noise levels would be required to occur only during permissible work hours, would be intermittent, and would be reduced as equipment moves over the project site further from sensitive receptors. Although there would be single event noise exposure potential causing intermittent noise nuisance from project construction activity, the effect on longer- term (hourly or daily) ambient noise levels, as measured at nearby sensitive receptors, would be small, but could result in annoyance or sleep disturbances at nearby sensitive receptors if construction activities are not limited to daylight hours. Improvement Mitigation Measure (IMM) NOI-2, which requires compliance with the City’s permissible construction hours and implementation of best management noise reduction measures would further ensure that construction noise levels would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels that would result in a violation of the City’s applicable construction hours requirements or sleep disturbance of nearby sensitive receptors.
Operations
The proposed project would result in an increase in traffic on local roadway segments in the project vicinity. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would introduce new stationary operational noise sources to the ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, including parking lot and loading/unloading activity, and new mechanical ventilation equipment operation.
Traffic (mobile source) Noise
As shown in Table 3.12-6 of the EIR, the highest traffic noise level increase with implementation of the proposed project would occur along Paradise Avenue, under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
98 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Along this roadway segment, the proposed project would result in an increase in traffic noise levels of 1.7 dBA over cumulative conditions without the project. The resulting noise levels for this roadway segment would be 70.9 dBA Ldn as measured at 50-feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. These noise levels would be considered “conditionally acceptable” under the relevant land use category. Thus, the applicable significance criteria would be a 3 dBA increase, which would not result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels in excess of applicable standards.
Stationary Operational Noise–Parking Lot Activities
Assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario of one parking movement for every parking stall within a single hour would result in an hourly average noise level of 59 dBA Leq as measured at the project boundary adjoining other properties. These noise levels are well below the City’s hourly average noise level threshold of 75 dBA L
eq(h). Therefore, proposed parking lot activity noise levels would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the City’s established noise performance threshold.
The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the proposed parking areas of the western parcels is the single-family residence located west of the project site near the intersection of Grant Line Road and Paradise Avenue, which would be located approximately 180 feet from the acoustic center of the nearest parking area. At this distance, assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario of one parking movement for every parking stall every hour of the day would result in day-night average noise level of 50 dBA Ldn as measured at the nearest residential façade. This is well below the City’s “normally acceptable” threshold of 60 dBA Ldn for residential land uses. This is also below the existing traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to this receptor. Therefore, parking lot noise levels would not exceed existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the applicable standard.
Mechanical Equipment Operations
Proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems would be set back by more than 50 feet from project property lines that adjoin other properties. At this distance, hourly average noise levels from operation of these systems would attenuate to below 54 dBA Leq as measured at the nearest project boundary adjoining other properties. These noise levels are well below the City’s hourly average noise level threshold of 75 dBA L
eq(h). Therefore, proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation system operational noise levels would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the City’s established noise performance threshold. The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to proposed rooftop mechanical ventilation systems on the western parcels is the single-family residence located west of the project site near the intersection of Grant Line Road and Paradise Avenue, which would be located approximately 320 feet from the nearest location where rooftop mechanical ventilation systems could be installed. At this distance, hourly average noise levels from operation of proposed ventilation systems would attenuate to below 22 dBA L
eq as measured at the nearest residential
façade. Assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario of the ventilation system operating every hour of the day would result in day-night average noise level of 35 dBA Ldn as measured at the nearest City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 99
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx residential façade. This is well below the City’s “normally acceptable” threshold of 60 dBA Ldn for residential land uses. This is also below the existing traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to this receptor. Therefore, noise levels from proposed mechanical ventilation equipment operations would not exceed existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the applicable standard.
Truck Loading Activities
Proposed truck loading areas would be set back more than 100 feet from the nearest project property line adjoining other properties. Assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario of a truck loading event for every proposed truck loading dock within a single hour would result in an hourly average noise level of 67 dBA Leq as measured at the project boundary adjoining other properties.
These noise levels are well below the City’s hourly average noise level threshold of 75 dBA Leq(h).
Therefore, proposed truck loading activity noise levels would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the City’s established noise performance threshold. The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the proposed truck loading areas of the western parcels is the single-family residence located west of the project site near the intersection of Grant Line Road and Paradise Avenue, which would be located approximately 400 feet from the nearest truck loading areas. At this distance, assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario of a truck loading event for every truck loading dock every hour of the day would result in day-night average noise level of 60 dBA L dn as measured at the nearest residential
façade. Therefore, truck loading activities would not result in an increase in noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor in excess of 5 dBA above the City’s “normally acceptable” threshold of 60 dBA L
dn for residential land uses. This is also below the existing traffic noise levels along roadway segments adjacent to this receptor. Therefore, truck loading noise levels would not exceed existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor and would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above the applicable standard (Draft EIR, Page 3.12-18–25).
The City finds that MM NOI-2 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to ambient noise. Accordingly, the City finds that, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project that mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1.7.7 - Transportation and Traffic
Potential Effect
Impact TRANS-2: The proposed project could substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Draft EIR, Page 3.14-33).
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.14-33).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
100 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-2 Prepare and Implement Construction Traffic Control Plan Prior to the start of construction for an individual development proposal, the relevant applicant shall prepare and submit a Construction Traffic Control Plan for the individual development proposal at issue. Each plan shall include the following items. Each approved plan shall be implemented during construction of the individual development proposal at issue.
• Project staging plan to maximize on-site storage of materials and equipment. • Permitted construction hours.
• Location of construction staging.
• Provisions for street sweeping to remove construction-related debris on public streets.
• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures including preparation of traffic control plans, as needed; scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak-hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones, and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of construction haul routes.
• Survey of the pavement condition on roadways within the relevant individual development to be used as part of haul route prior to the commencement of any work on-site. The survey shall include a video tape of the roadways. Each relevant applicant shall complete any remedial work prior to initiation of use and provide a bond assuring completion of the remediation work triggered by the individual development proposal, the amount which shall be deemed sufficient by the Public Works Department.
• The relevant applicant shall provide a pavement analysis for those roads along the proposed haul routes or any alternate route(s) that are proposed to be utilized by hauling operation for the individual development proposal at issue. This study shall analyze the existing pavement conditions and determine what impact the hauling operation will have over the construction period of the relevant individual development. The study shall provide recommendations to mitigate identified impacts, which shall be implemented by the relevant applicant for the individual development proposal at issue.
Facts in Support of Findings: Construction of the proposed project would require regular deliveries of equipment and materials to the project site as well as daily trips by construction workers. Given the location of the project site, nearly all construction traffic would be expected to access the project site from Grant Line Road and Paradise Road via I-205. This routing would generally avoid residential streets. Project construction activities may result in some temporary lane closures in the area.
However, the resulting daily and peak-hour traffic volumes during the construction period are anticipated to be less than during project operation as analyzed in the Transportation Impact City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
FirstCarbon Solutions 101
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Analysis (TIA). In a reasonable worst-case scenario where all three project phases overlap, it is estimated that during the highest trip generation stage of construction the total passenger car and truck trips would be 56 percent and 47 percent, respectively, of the proposed project trip generation analyzed in the TIA. Therefore, a reasonable worse-case concurrent construction of all phases would not worsen the Level of Service (LOS) more than the project LOS operational analyses analyzed in the TIA. Standard construction traffic control measures would be implemented consistent with applicable Caltrans and City policies, such as MM TRANS-2, which would require the preparation and implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan that would reduce the potential for construction vehicle conflicts with other roadway users. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
At operation, primary vehicle access to the project site would be provided from four access points on Grant Line Road and four access points on Paradise Road; the northerly access point along Paradise Road would be for EVA only. A new signalized intersection on Grant Line Road would provide access to a New Private Drive that would facilitate on-site circulation for the warehouses and distribution and related uses on the Tracy Alliance parcels as well as access to the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels, as shown in Exhibit 2-7a in the Project Description. The New Private Drive, located along the Tracy Alliance parcels’ eastern boundary, would also provide access to the detention basin area.
Since no individual development proposal(s) for either the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels have been submitted to the City as of this writing, the exact location(s) of access points from the New Private Drive to the Suvik and Zuriakat parcels have not been identified at this time. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, this evaluation assumes that a driveway would be placed at the Banta Road intersection and opposite other existing driveways to the south.
Entrances and roadways providing access to the proposed project would be required to be in compliance with applicable provisions of the City’s Fire Code and other applicable laws and regulations as well as relevant conditions of approval, and would thus operate at acceptable service levels. Furthermore, the proposed roadway improvements would increase roadway safety by being designed according the applicable City of Tracy, Caltrans, and industry standards.
Section 3.08.290 of the Tracy Municipal Code establishes truck routes throughout the City, restricting vehicle routes within the City for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of 5 tons or more or that are licensed commercially as a truck in the state of origin and used for carrying goods for pickup and delivery. Vehicles meeting either of these criteria would be restricted to specific truck routes and designated streets, except when necessary.
Larger trucks are called Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) vehicles. The NEI Specific Plan includes the construction of new truck route signage to direct trucks toward truck routes, the conversion of Grant Line Road to a STAA route, and the construction of new STAA routes in the project vicinity. These improvements would further improve roadway safety by providing appropriate and adequate roadway infrastructure for the trucks that would access the project site.
As a result, existing and planned roadways would be able to support proposed STAA trucks that would access the project site consistent with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code (Draft EIR,