Agenda — Tracy City Council, August 15, 2023 (part 7 of 11)

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

102 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 City finds that MM TRANS-2 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to design features and uses of the proposed project. 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. Additionally, to further ensure safe transit and address concerns regarding truck traffic through the Banta community located east of the project site, the project applicants voluntarily agreed to implement signage along the project frontage on Grant Line Road to deter trucks from traveling on Grant Line Road east of the project site. The project applicant also voluntarily agreed to implement routine communications between property managers and tenants to ensure tenant understanding that trucks accessing the project site are prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval and would further improve roadway safety by limiting truck traffic. Therefore, impacts associated with transportation would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

1.7.8 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Potential Effect
Impact TCR-1: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-13).

Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-13).

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 Measure
Implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3.

Facts in Support of Findings: Review of the CRHR, local registers of historic resources, a records search conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and an NAHC Sacred Lands File search failed to identify any listed tribal cultural resources that may be adversely affected by the proposed project. While it is possible that potentially eligible tribal cultural resources may be encountered during project construction, implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts are limited to construction (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-13).

The City finds that MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). 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 TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 103
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 TCR-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-14).

Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-14) 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 CUL-1 and MM CUL-3.

Facts in Support of Findings: On March 31, 2020, a letter was sent to the NAHC. A response was received on April 2, 2020, indicating the search returned negative results for TCRs in the project study area and recommended contacting tribal representatives for additional information. The NAHC response letter included a list of two tribal representatives available for consultation. FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) sent a letter containing project information and requesting any additional information was sent to each of the tribal representatives on April 2, 2020.

On April 15, 2020, the City of Tracy Department of Development Services notified applicable tribal representatives of an opportunity to consult on the project pursuant to SB 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3). No responses have been received to date. The City of Tracy has not identified or determined any known TCRs to be significant. Although there is the possibility that previously undiscovered TCRs could be encountered by subsurface earthwork activities associated with the proposed project, the implementation of construction mitigation measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 would ensure that undiscovered TCRs are not adversely affected. Impacts are limited to construction. (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-14).

The City finds that MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to TCRs. 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 TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impact
The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-15).

Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-15).

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

104 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
Implement MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3.

Facts in Support of Findings: The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is the project vicinity.

The cumulative setting includes existing agricultural and industrial uses and projects within a 0.5- mile radius of the project site. Compliance with federal and State laws and regulations and relevant General Plan policies requiring standard conditions of approval for all cumulative projects and measures (similar to those imposed on the project, i.e., MM CUL-1 and CUL-3) would reduce potentially cumulative impacts related to TCRs to a less than significant level. Implementation of construction mitigation measures (MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3) would ensure that the project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact to undiscovered TCRs would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, Page 3.15-14–15).

The City finds that MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-3 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce cumulative impacts related to TCRs. 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 associated with TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

1.7.9 - Utilities and Service Systems
Potential Effect
Impact UTIL-1: The proposed project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-33).

Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-33) 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
MM UTIL-1a Adherence to Applicable Performance Standards and Payment of Infrastructure Fees
Prior to the issuance of building permits for an individual development proposal, the relevant applicant shall demonstrate compliance of the individual development proposal at issue with applicable performance standards pursuant to the then- current Urban Water Management Plan, Citywide Water System Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan. In addition, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 105
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx each applicant for an individual development proposal shall pay its respective proportionate share of required funding, subject to applicable laws governing nexus requirements, to the City for completion of relevant planned City Capital Improvement Plan improvements.

MM UTIL-1b Submittal of Final Engineering Plans for Tracy Alliance Parcels Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first building on the Tracy Alliance parcels, the applicants for the development of the Tracy Alliance parcels shall submit engineering plans to the City of Tracy for review and approval to confirm compliance with this MM UTIL-1b. These plans shall include additional 12-inch diameter pipelines on-site as shown on Exhibit 3.16-6 of the EIR and the fire service laterals shall be upsized to 14-inch diameter.

MM UTIL-1c Submittal of Final Engineering Plans for Suvik Farms and Zuriakat Parcels Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first building on the subject parcel, each relevant applicant for the individual development proposal of the Suvik Farms or Zuriakat parcels, respectively, shall each submit final engineering plans to the City of Tracy for review and approval to confirm compliance with the relevant performance standards, including, but not limited to, those pursuant to the current Urban Water Management Plan, Citywide Water System Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan in effect at the time building permits are requested.

MM UTIL-3 Payment of Wastewater Infrastructure Fees/Construction of Wastewater Facilities Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the subject individual development proposal, the relevant applicant shall participate in the implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) in effect at the time the relevant building permit is requested through the payment of the applicable impact fees as included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.

Facts in Support of Findings
Water
During construction, because construction would require a minimal, limited quantity of water, it is reasonable to conclude that the City would have adequate water supply capacity to serve construction demands in addition to its other existing commitments, and new or expanded entitlements in connection with augmenting the City’s water supply would not be necessary.

Potential construction impacts related to expansion of existing water infrastructure are included in the construction analyses throughout this Draft EIR. There are no additional impacts associated with the construction or expansion of water infrastructure.

Regarding operation, the City currently has sufficient storage capacity in Zones 1 and 2 to meet the needs of the proposed project. With future planned projects implemented, water supply is sufficient City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

106 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx during normal years. However, during a single dry year or a multiple dry year period, the City must depend more heavily on conservation efforts, groundwater, and the proposed future supply projects, described in more detail below, to overcome the gap between supply and demand. As described in the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and the 2020 UWMP , these findings are primarily due to projected reduced reliability of the City’s CVP supplies and South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) supplies in dry years. During multiple dry years, the City anticipates increasing its groundwater production on a short-term basis from the normal year production of 2,500 AFY to 4,500 AFY . The groundwater supply is considered to be 100 percent reliable. To close any gap between supply and demand during dry years, the City would need to implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan to reduce water demands. As discussed in Section 5.3 in the WSA, the City has shown that it can achieve its water conservation goals. During the 2012-2016 Statewide drought, the City exceeded its water conservation goal of 25 percent. Further, the City must fully implement its proposed future water supply projects, including the Recycled Water Distribution Network and Exchange Program and expansion of the ASR Program. Investments in wet year water supplies will also be needed to refill storage in Semitropic and expand the City’s ASR Program. Delays in implementing the proposed future water supply projects could result in greater water supply shortages and the need for additional water conservation to meet demands. The City has developed several strategies and actions to address the projected supply shortfalls. The identified improvements to the recycled water infrastructure as part of the Recycled Water Distribution Network and Exchange Program have been incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Each applicant for development of individual proposals for any of the parcels within the project site would be required to pay applicable development impact fees to ensure they each provide their respective proportionate share of required funding to the City for the completion of the water infrastructure improvements (which includes recycled water infrastructure) as required by MM UTIL- 1a. In addition, each applicant for development of individual proposals for any of the parcels within the project site would be required to pay applicable development impact fees to ensure they each provide their respective proportionate share of required funding to the City for the acquisition, treatment, and delivery of treated potable and recycled water supplies to the project site.

Under peak-hour demand conditions, the City’s existing water system infrastructure can provide adequate flows and pressures to the proposed project and adjacent sites in the NEI Specific Plan area. Under maximum day demands plus fire flow conditions, the distribution system can deliver fire flows to the proposed project while maintaining 20 psi residual pressure, but the 12-inch diameter dead-end pipeline in Grant Line Road has a velocity exceeding 12 feet per second. Pursuant to MM UTIL-1b, each applicant for individual development proposals within the project site would be required to provide final engineering plans to the City that include 12-inch diameter pipelines on- site, as shown on Exhibit 3.15-5, and upsized fire service lateral pipelines for review and approval.

With implementation of this mitigation measure, the proposed project would meet the City’s pipeline velocity criteria.

Wastewater
During construction, the WWTP would treat wastewater generated by construction of the proposed project consistent with applicable standards established by the Central Valley RWQCB. As discussed under Impact UTIL-3, the WWTP would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project (both City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 107
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx construction and operation) and a new or expanded wastewater treatment facility would not be required. The proposed project is anticipated to include connections to the existing City sanitary sewer system operated by the Public Works Department. Since no individual development proposals have been submitted to the City for either the Suvik Farms or Zuriakat parcels at this time, the exact location and sizing of an on-site sanitary sewer system is not currently known. Rather, this information would be identified and reviewed by the City as part of subsequent engineering and related plans when individual development applications are submitted for these parcels; all proposed infrastructure in connection with these applications would be required to meet all applicable standards and requirements. These parcels are within the City’s SOI and were planned for as industrial sites by the City. Potential construction impacts related to construction or expansion of wastewater infrastructure are included in the construction analyses throughout the EIR. There are no additional impacts associated with the construction or expansion of wastewater infrastructure.

At operation, the proposed project would require upgraded infrastructure and would result in an increase in wastewater generation compared to existing conditions. As discussed under Impact UTIL- 3, because the City of Tracy General Plan (General Plan) designates the site as Industrial, the City has anticipated the industrial use of the project site. With the existing available capacity along with the anticipated improvements to the WWTP , there would be sufficient wastewater capacity and infrastructure facilities available to serve the proposed project. Each applicant for an individual development proposal of any of the parcels within the project site would be required to participate in the implementation of the currently adopted WWMP through the payment of applicable impact fees as required by MM UTIL-3a.

Stormwater
During construction, the project would not result in the need for increased stormwater infrastructure improvements beyond those proposed on-site to serve the proposed project. Impacts are included in the construction analysis throughout the EIR. There are no additional impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities.

During operation, the proposed project would result in a substantial increase of impervious surfaces, with a commensurate increase in stormwater runoff. The proposed project includes construction of an approximately 12.44-acre on-site stormwater detention basin with pump station on-site. The 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.

The proposed project would construct a 12-inch forced main storm drain line. Bioretention treatment areas would intermittently surround the buildings on the project site and would also be interspersed throughout the parking lots. Stormwater detention basins would be sized to accommodate the stormwater discharge for the Tracy Alliance parcels prior to the start of operations on the Tracy Alliance parcels. Following Phase 1, each subsequent applicant for its respective City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

108 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx 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 exact location and sizing of on-site stormwater drainage facilities for the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels and how they would connect to the proposed project’s on-site stormwater detention basin are not currently known. However, 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. This information would be identified and reviewed as part of subsequent engineering and related plans when individual development applications are submitted for these parcels. MM UTIL- 1c would require the relevant applicant for the development of the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels to submit engineering plans for the parcels that are the subject to the individual development proposal at issue for review and approval by the City.

Electric Power
As discussed more fully in the EIR, Section 3.6, Energy, due to the temporary nature of construction and the financial incentives for developers and contractors to use energy-consuming resources in an efficient manner, construction demand and consumption of electricity would not be significant.

Potential construction impacts related to expansion of existing electrical infrastructure are included in the construction analysis throughout the EIR. There are no additional impacts associated with the construction or expansion of electrical facilities.

At operation, PG&E would provide electricity to the project site for lighting, appliances, and other associated uses. As discussed in the EIR, Section 3.6, Energy, the proposed project would be required to comply with the State’s then-current Title 24 energy efficiency standards. These standards contain advanced energy efficiency standards and would ensure that the proposed project would not require significant or unplanned new electrical sources. The proposed project would not require the relocation or expansion of electrical infrastructure to serve the increased demand.

Natural Gas
During construction, the proposed project would not consume natural gas. Potential construction impacts associated with the expansion of existing natural gas infrastructure are included in the construction analysis throughout the EIR. There are no additional impacts associated with the expansion of existing natural gas infrastructure.

During operation, the proposed project could utilize natural gas for heating, which would be provided by PG&E. As discussed in the EIR, Section 3.6, Energy, the proposed project would be required to be designed and constructed consistent with the State’s then-current Title 24 energy efficiency standards. These standards would ensure that the proposed project would not require significant or unplanned new natural gas sources. The proposed project would not require the relocation or expansion of electrical infrastructure to meet project demand.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 109
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Telecommunications
During construction, the proposed project would use telecommunications (phone and internet) for construction field services (office trailers). Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial demand for service. Potential construction impacts related to expansion of existing telecommunications infrastructure are included in the construction analysis throughout the EIR.

There are no additional impacts associated with extension and expansion of existing telecommunications infrastructure.

At operation, the proposed project would increase demand for internet and telephone services provided by local telecommunications providers. The building tenants/operators would coordinate with telecommunication providers in order to provide service, which have the capacity to serve project operations. The proposed project is located in an area where existing telecommunications providers already offer internet and telephone services and have sufficient capacity to meet project operational demands; therefore, the proposed project would not require the relocation or expansion of telecommunications infrastructure (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-33–56).

The City finds that MM UTIL-1a through MM UTIL-1c, and MM UTIL 3 are feasible, are adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to utilities. 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 utilities and service systems would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potential Effect
Impact UTIL-2: The proposed project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-56).

Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-56).

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM UTIL-1a.

Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to water supplies are limited to operational impacts.

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 and implementation of the City’s additional future planned projects. 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 would also be needed to refill storage in Semitropic and expand the City’s ASR Program. The identified improvements to the recycled water City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 110 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx infrastructure as part of the Recycled Water Distribution Network and Exchange Program have been incorporated into the City’s CIP . Each applicant for development of individual proposals for any of the parcels within the project site would be required to pay applicable development impact fees to ensure they each provide their respective proportionate share of required funding to the City for the completion of the necessary water infrastructure improvements (which includes recycled water infrastructure) as required by MM UTIL-1a. In addition, each applicant for development of individual proposals for any of the parcels within the project site would be required to pay applicable development impact fees to ensure they each provide their respective proportionate share of required funding to the City for the acquisition, treatment, and delivery of treated potable and recycled water supplies to the project site. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-56–57).

The City finds that MM UTIL-1a is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to water supplies. 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 water supply would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potential Effect
Impact UTIL-3: The proposed project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the proposed project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Draft EIR,

Page 3 ends

Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-57) 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 UTIL-3.

Facts in Support of Findings: Impacts related to adequate wastewater treatment capacity are limited to operational impacts. Because the General Plan designates the site as Industrial, the City has anticipated development of the project site with industrial uses. Each applicant for individual development proposals of any of the parcels within the project site would be required to participate in the implementation of the infrastructure improvements described in the WWMP in effect at the time building permits are requested through the payment of fees as required by MM UTIL-3. (Draft EIR, Page 3.16-57–58).

The City finds that MM UTIL-3 is feasible, is adopted, and will further reduce impacts related to wastewater. 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 City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 111
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

1.8 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Significant and Unavoidable This City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures as identified in the EIR and the attached MMRP , the following impacts from the proposed project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein.

1.8.1 - Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact AG-1: The proposed project would convert Farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), to nonagricultural use.

Findings: 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)). However, impacts would still remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measure or project alternatives identified in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)).

Mitigation Measures
MM AG-1 Payment of Agricultural Mitigation Fees
At the time of issuance of building permits for each individual development proposal, the relevant applicant(s) for the subject development proposal shall pay the applicable Agriculture Mitigation Fee in accordance with Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code.

Facts in Support of Findings: The project site contains approximately 188 acres of Prime Farmland.

Conversion of the project site to industrial use was envisioned as part of buildout under the General Plan and evaluated and disclosed under the General Plan EIR. Nevertheless, for purposes of a conservative analysis, the EIR acknowledged that the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland as a result of its conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses. On June 7, 2005, the City Council adopted Chapter 13.28, Agricultural Mitigation Fee to its Municipal Code. In addition, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Central Valley Farmland Trust as a qualifying agency to receive funds. This program serves as mitigation to the extent feasible for the conversion of Prime Farmland. In accordance with Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code, Agricultural Mitigation Fee, the developers of the Suvik Farms, Zuriakat, and Tracy Alliance parcels would each be required to pay applicable Agricultural Mitigation fees in connection with individual development proposals as implemented by MM AG-1. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the SJMSCP . Even with the payment of City mitigation fees and adherence to the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

112 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx SJMSCP , the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Farmland as identified by FMMP mapping to nonagricultural use since the foregoing would not fully avoid the impacts of this conversion (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-8–9).

The City finds that MM AG-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce agricultural impacts to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this impact. 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 project that mitigate or reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible. However, impacts associated with conversion of Farmland would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative impact: The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to agricultural resources. The proposed project would have less than significant impacts with respect to forestry resources (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-12).

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AG-1.

Facts in Support of Findings: Much of the NEI Specific Plan area consists of Prime Farmland that has already been and would be converted to nonagricultural uses with implementation of the relevant cumulative projects, as already envisioned by the Industrial general plan and specific plan designations. Like the proposed project, any of the cumulative projects that would convert Farmland to nonagricultural uses would pay the applicable Agricultural Mitigation Fee. All of the cumulative projects are within San Joaquin County and would be required to adhere to the SJMSCP , which may include payment of development fees for conversion of lands. Even with payment of this fee and adherence to the SJMSCP , the development of the cumulative projects would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, which the General Plan EIR previously disclosed and for which the City Council previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with the Council’s adoption of the General Plan. That Statement of Overriding Considerations explained that the General Plan contains policies to preserve agricultural lands, in addition to policies in the SJMSCP and the City’s Agricultural Mitigation Fee Ordinance. Despite these policies and regulations, development permitted under the General Plan would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to urban uses. The City Council found that City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 113
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx there are no other feasible mitigation measures that may avoid or reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, and therefore these impacts are significant and unavoidable.2 As discussed above, development of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 188 acres of Prime Farmland, which would result in a project-level significant and unavoidable impact.

There are no National Forest lands within the City or the City’s SOI, which includes the NEI Specific Plan area. The project site and the cumulative project sites do not contain forest land or timberland, as defined by Public Resource Code Section 4526, nor do they contain any timberland zoned Timberland Production, as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g). Therefore, the cumulative projects would not conflict with forest zoning or converting forest land to non-forest use, and thus there would be no significant cumulative impact in this regard (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-11–12).

The City finds that MM AG-1 is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce cumulative impacts to agricultural resources to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this cumulative impact. 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 reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible. However, cumulative impacts associated with conversion of Farmland would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

1.8.2 - Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: The proposed project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-26).

Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1a NOX Reduction Measures
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for each development

2 City of Tracy. Resolution 2006-183 Certified the Final Environmental Report for the City of Tracy General Plan of 2006; Making Findings Relating to Significant Impacts, Alternatives, and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

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

114 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx proposal shall provide documentation to the City of Tracy demonstrating the following NOX reduction measures would be adhered to during construction activities for the relevant development proposal:
• For all construction equipment and vehicles used during project construction that are equal to or greater than 250 horsepower, the contractor shall use construction equipment and vehicles that meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 Final engine standards;
• For all construction equipment and vehicles used during project construction that are less than 250 horsepower, the contractor shall use electric construction equipment and vehicles to the extent feasible, with the exception of handheld generator sets; and
• All generator sets utilized during project construction shall be limited to 5 horsepower and shall only be used to power handheld power tools.

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

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

MM AIR-1c “Zero-VOC” Consumer Products
The consumer products purchased by the building occupant(s) or by the cleaning business contracted by the building occupant(s) for on-site use shall consist of water-based or “zero volatile organic compound [VOC]” consumer products, to the maximum extent feasible. “Consumer products,” as referred to in this mitigation measure, shall include detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, and floor finishes. “Consumer products,” as referred to in this mitigation measure, shall not include parking lot degreasers, architectural coatings, pesticides, or fertilizers.

MM AIR-1d Clean Truck Fleet
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 115
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating the use of a clean truck fleet that meets the California Air Resources Board’s adopted 2013 Optional Low-NOX Standard of 0.02 gram of nitrogen oxide (NOX) per brake horsepower-hour for all heavy-duty trucks during operation of the proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible. If the relevant applicant does not own the truck fleet that will be used during operation of the subject individual development, the relevant applicant shall provide the City with reasonable documentation from the truck fleet owner demonstrating that trucks utilized for operation of the subject individual development will meet the California 2013 Optional Low-NO
X Standard, to the maximum extent feasible. If any change occurs where a new truck fleet is utilized during operation of the subject individual development, the relevant applicant shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that the new truck fleet meets the California 2013 Optional Low-NO
X Standard of 0.02 gram per brake horsepower-hour, to the maximum extent feasible.

MM AIR-1e Operational Truck Fleet Routing
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that trucks used during project operation are prohibited from accessing Grant Line Road east of the project site. All trucks used during project operation shall use routes that circumvent the use of Grant Line Road east of the project site.

MM AIR-1f Idling Limitation
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that on-site truck idling shall be limited to no greater than 3 minutes.

The documentation provided to the City shall include, at a minimum, photos or a map of signage posted in strategic locations on-site identifying that truck idling does not exceed 3 minutes. The signage shall include a phone number to contact at the facility regarding idling violation complaints, and corrective action shall occur within 48 hours of receipt of the complaint.

MM AIR-1g Electric On-Site Off-Road and On-Road Equipment Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable documentation demonstrating that all on-site off-road and on-road equipment will be electric- City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

116 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx powered. On-site off-road and on-road equipment shall include, but are not limited to, forklifts and pallet jacks.

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

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

Facts in Support of Findings: The EIR uses the following criteria for determining project consistency with the current Air Quality Plans (AQPs):
• Criterion 1: Does the project support the primary goals of the AQP? • Criterion 2: Does the project include applicable control measures from the AQP? • Criterion 3: Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any AQP control measures?

Criterion 1
The City of Tracy General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Industrial, which is intended to accommodate flex/office space, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and ancillary uses for workers’ needs. Therefore, the proposed project, which involves the development of light industrial, warehouse and distribution and related uses is considered consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation and its traffic would be included in volumes projected for analysis of the General Plan.

Nonetheless, as further discussed under Impact AIR-2 and Impact AIR-3, the proposed project could create a localized violation of State or federal air quality standards, significantly contribute to cumulative nonattainment pollutant violations, and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would be required to implement the mitigation measures identified under Impact AIR-2; however, because full implementation of the mitigation cannot be guaranteed due to potential technical or financial infeasibility, the proposed project’s potentially significant impact is conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable. The proposed project is, therefore, considered inconsistent with Criterion 1 after the incorporation of mitigation.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 117
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Criterion 2
The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable Valley Air District rules and regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with this criterion through compliance with existing regulations.

Criterion 3
As discussed in Impact AIR-2 below, annual emissions of ROG, nitrogen oxides (NOX), PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the construction of the proposed project (whether phases are constructed sequentially or concurrently) would not exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds after incorporation of mitigation. However, emissions of ROG would exceed the Valley Air District’s localized significance thresholds if all three project phases were constructed concurrently, even after implementation of identified mitigation. Operation of the proposed project would also have the potential to exceed regional significance thresholds for ROG and NOX and would have the potential to result in a violation of localized standards after incorporation of mitigation. As shown in Impact AIR-2, the proposed project could also result in CO hotspots that would violate applicable CO standards. Therefore, as the proposed project has the potential to exceed Valley Air District significance thresholds during construction and operation, even after incorporation of the identified mitigation, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-26–28).

The City finds that MM AIR-1a though MM AIR-1i are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce impacts related to implementation of applicable air quality plans to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this impact.

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 reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible. However, impacts associated with air quality would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

Impact AIR-2: The proposed project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-30).

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1i.

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

118 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: Regional emissions generated by the proposed project would exceed applicable thresholds after compliance with all rules, regulations, and mitigation measures during operation. Localized operational emissions would also present a potentially significant impact after incorporation of identified mitigation. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The Air Basin is in nonattainment for PM10, PM2.5, and ozone. Regional emissions include those generated from all on-site and off-site activities. Regional significance thresholds have been established by the Valley Air District because emissions from projects in the Air Basin can potentially contribute to the existing emission burden and possibly affect the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. Projects within the Air Basin with regional emissions that exceed any of the thresholds presented previously are considered to have a significant regional air quality impact.

Construction Emissions
The proposed project involves three different applicants, each of which would have individual development proposals for their respective properties within the project site; it is assumed the proposed project would involve three separate construction phases that would occur over a 12- month period from April through March. Phase 1 would occur from April 2022 through March 2023, Phase 2 would occur from April 2023 through March 2024, and Phase 3 would occur from April 2024 through March 2025. However, the analysis provided in the EIR also discloses the potential impacts that would occur if phasing overlapped. The default construction equipment utilized in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) were adjusted to match the assumed construction schedule and to preserve the CalEEMod default horsepower-hours during construction activities.

Based on the analysis provided in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the EIR, criteria pollutant emissions would exceed Valley Air District thresholds of significance during unmitigated construction for ROG and NO
X during construction of the proposed project. It should be noted that unmitigated construction emissions incorporate the basic dust control measures required under District Rule 8021, which requires that vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces be reduced to no more than 15 miles per hour and exposed construction areas are watered during earthmoving activities.

Because the proposed project would exceed significance thresholds for ROG and NO X during
construction activities, MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b would be required during construction of the proposed project to reduce ROG and NOX emissions to below Valley Air District significance thresholds. MM AIR-1a would require the use of Tier 4 Final engines for construction equipment equal to or greater than 250 horsepower and electric alternatives for all construction equipment less than 250 horsepower. MM AIR-1a would not preclude the use of generators; however, generators would be limited to no greater than 5 horsepower under MM AIR-1a to ensure that only handheld power tools are powered by generators and no electric alternative for any specific construction equipment which exceeds 250 horsepower is powered by diesel-fueled generators during construction. As detailed more fully above, MM AIR-1b would require the use of “Super-Compliant” architectural coatings during construction of the proposed project. “Super-Compliant” architectural coatings refer to paints which do not exceed 10 grams of ROG per liter of paint. As shown in Table

3.3-8, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the Valley Air District’s annual significance threshold with MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b incorporated. Additionally, construction City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 119
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx emissions would be mitigated to below the Valley Air District’s annual significance thresholds for ROG and NOX after implementation of identified mitigation, even if all three project phases were constructed concurrently (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-32).

Construction Ambient Air Quality Analysis
As shown in Table 3.3-9 of the EIR (Page 3.3-36), after the incorporation of MM AIR-1a and MM AIR- 1b, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the Valley Air District’s daily emission screening levels for an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA), pursuant to District Rule 2201, assuming that none of the project phases were to be constructed concurrently. However, emissions of ROG and CO would exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds after implementation of identified mitigation if all three project phases were constructed concurrently. As such, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of identified mitigation (Draft EIR,

Page 3 ends

Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed project at full buildout would involve the operation of light industrial, warehouse and distribution and related uses on the project site. As contained in the TIA and shown in Table 3.3-10 of the EIR (Page 3.3-38), Phase I (Tracy Alliance parcels) would generate an estimated 1,775 daily passenger vehicle trips and 836 daily truck trips; Phase 2 (Suvik Farms parcels) would generate an estimated 974 daily passenger vehicle trips and 459 daily truck trips; and Phase 3 (Zuriakat parcel) would generate an estimated 456 daily passenger vehicle trips and 215 daily truck trips.

The proposed project would involve the removal of existing structures, including two residences and nine agricultural outbuildings for equipment storage and maintenance. In order to demonstrate the net increase in emissions generated by the proposed project during operation beyond what is currently generated by existing land uses, the existing land uses were modeled. As shown in Table

3.3-12 of the EIR (Page 3.3-39), unmitigated operational emissions would exceed Valley Air District thresholds of significance for ROG and NOX. Therefore, MM AIR-1c, MM AIR-1d, MM AIR-1e, MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, MM AIR-1h, and MM AIR-1i would be required to mitigate operational emissions to below Valley Air District thresholds. Incorporation of MM AIR-1d into operation of the proposed project would reduce annual NOX emissions. As detailed more fully above, MM AIR-1d would require all phases of the proposed project to use a “clean truck fleet” that meets a performance standard of

0.02 gram of NO
X per brake horsepower-hour for all heavy-heavy-duty (HHD) trucks during project operation. In addition, as detailed more fully above, MM AIR-1c would require the use of consumer products (detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, and floor finishes) that contain zero VOCs during operation of the proposed project. MM AIR-1d would require all phases of the proposed project to use a “clean truck fleet” that meets or exceeds performance standards.

MM AIR-1d, which would require the use of a HHD truck fleet that meets the 2013 Optional Low- NO
X Standard of 0.02 gram of NOX per brake horsepower-hour, would represent an approximately 90 percent reduction in NOX emissions from the current heavy-duty truck NOX standard of 0.2 gram of NOX per brake horsepower-hour. Nonetheless, the full implementation of MM AIR-1c and MM AIR- 1d cannot be guaranteed during project operation; therefore, the emission estimates provided in the EIR demonstrate a reasonable worst-case scenario for project operation after incorporation of City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

120 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx identified mitigation. In addition, MM AIR-1f would restrict on-site vehicle idling to no greater than 3 minutes. MM AIR-1g would require the use of electric on-site on- and off-road equipment in place of non-electric alternatives. MM AIR-1i would require the installation of EV charging stations which meet the Tier 2 standards set forth in Section A5.106.5.3 of Appendix A5 – Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen of the 2019 CBC. The inclusion of MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, and MM AIR-1i would incrementally reduce emissions below those disclosed in the Draft EIR as explained in the Final EIR; however, the quantified reductions from these measures cannot be accurately quantified at this time. Because the operational emissions would exceed the Valley Air District’s significance thresholds for ROG and NOX, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of the additional mitigation.

Operational Ambient Air Quality Analysis
As shown in Table 3.3-14 of the EIR (Page 3.3-41), due to the uncertainty of full implementation of MM AIR-1c and MM AIR-1d, and the uncertain efficacy of quantified reductions resulting from MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, MM AIR-1i, the potential emission reductions resulting from identified mitigation are not considered in the proposed project’s mitigated operational emissions. As such, maximum daily operational emissions generated by all phases of the proposed project would exceed the Valley Air District’s screening threshold for an AAQA for NOX emissions. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation is incorporated (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-30–42).

The City finds that MM AIR-1a though MM AIR-1i are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce impacts related to criteria pollutants to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this impact. 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 reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible. However, impacts associated with air quality would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

Impact AIR-3: The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-42).

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-1d to MM AIR-1i.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 121
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 closest sensitive receptors to the project site are single-family residences and Banta Elementary School. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are located at the following distances:
• Residences as close as 145 feet west of the project site across Paradise Road; • Residences immediately adjacent to the project site to the east along Grant Line Road; • Residences as close as 120 feet south of the project site across Grant Line Road; • Residences as close as 60 feet north of the project site across California Avenue; and • Banta Elementary School approximately 1,500 feet to the east at its closest outside area.

It should be noted that while the above receptors represent the closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project, the Maximally Impacted Sensitive Receptor (MIR), as will be discussed under the “Construction: Toxic Air Contaminant” discussion below, during each construction phase of the proposed project may be different. The MIR during pollutant-generating activity is influenced by the distance of that receptor to the pollutant source(s), the amount and type of pollutants generated by each source, the topography and direction of the MIR as it relates to the pollutant source(s), and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Therefore, the closest sensitive receptor and the MIR may not be the same.

Construction–Reactive Organic Gas
ROG generated during construction activities are primarily emitted during the application of architectural coatings (painting). Construction of the proposed project would incorporate MM AIR- 1b, which would require the use of “super-compliance” architectural coatings, reducing potential health impacts from ROG exposure. Therefore, exposure to ROGs during architectural coatings would be a less than significant health impact.

ROG generated during construction activities are also emitted during the pouring and curing of asphalt. District Rule 4641 prohibits the use of certain types of asphalt. Residents are not in the immediate vicinity of the fumes because asphalt laying would principally occur within the interior of the project site and subsequent fumes would dissipate as they are emitted; therefore, they would not be subjected to concentrations high enough to evoke a negative response. In addition, the restrictions that are placed on asphalt in the San Joaquin Valley would serve to further reduce ROG emissions from asphalt and exposure. The impact to nearby sensitive receptors from ROG generation during construction would be less than significant.

Construction–NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and CO
As discussed in Impact AIR-2, after incorporation of identified mitigation, emissions of CO generated during project construction have the potential to exceed the Valley Air District maximum daily emission AAQA screening threshold if all three project phases were constructed concurrently.

Therefore, emissions during construction could exceed the significance thresholds (in the case of all three phases being constructed concurrently) even after incorporation of mitigation and could result in concentrations that would exceed ambient standards, contribute substantially to an existing exceedance of an ambient air quality standard, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

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

122 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Construction–Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of diesel-fueled vehicles and equipment that emit diesel particulate matter (DPM), which has been identified by the ARB as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Construction DPM emissions (PM10 exhaust) were estimated using CalEEMod, Version 2016.3.2, as presented under Impact AIR-2. The EIR Table 3.3-15 (Page 3.3-44) summarizes the mitigated emission rates of DPM during the construction of the proposed project, incorporating dust control measures required by District Rule 8021 and implementation of MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b. As illustrated in Table 3.3-16 (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-45), unmitigated project construction would result in cancer risks experienced by nearby residents which exceed the Valley Air District’s significance threshold of 20 cancer cases per 1 million people. As such, mitigation would be necessary to reduce impacts to nearby residents to less than significant levels.

Table 3.3-16 (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-45) provides the estimated health and hazard impacts from unmitigated construction emissions at the MIRs for each construction phase and sensitive receptor age group using the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2). The MIRs for Phase 1 construction were a single-family residence located approximately 1,025 feet east of the project site and Banta Elementary School approximately 2,495 feet east of the project site. The MIRs for Phase 2 construction were a single-family residence located approximately 35 feet east of the project site and Banta Elementary School approximately 1,500 feet east of the project site. The MIRs for Phase 3 construction were a single-family residence located approximately 550 feet southeast of the project site and Banta Elementary School approximately 2,150 feet southeast of the project site.

Unmitigated construction emissions with sequential phasing would exceed the Valley Air District’s cancer risk health threshold.

The estimates shown in Table 3.3-17 (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-46) include the application of measures required by District Rule 8021 and implementation of MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b. As shown therein, the proposed project’s construction DPM emissions would not exceed the Valley Air District’s cancer risk or chronic non-cancer hazard index thresholds of significance at the maximum impacted receptor for any of the sensitive receptor age groups analyzed assuming that phases are constructed sequentially. Nonetheless, the potential exists for all three project phases to be constructed concurrently, which would substantially increase the daily quantity of DPM emissions generated during project construction. As a result, the health risk impacts associated with project construction where phasing would be concurrent has the potential to generate DPM emissions resulting in cancer risks to nearby residents that exceed the Valley Air District’s significance threshold of 20 cases per 1 million people even after incorporation of mitigation. As such, this impact would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.

Operation–Reactive Organic Gas
During operation, ROG would be emitted primarily from consumer products and motor vehicles. MM AIR-1c would require that the proposed project use zero-VOC consumer products during operation.

Therefore, nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial ROG concentrations during project operations. Direct exposure to ROG from motor vehicles would not result in health effects because the ROG emissions would be distributed across several miles of roadway and in the air.

Therefore, the concentrations would not be great enough to result in direct health effects.

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 123
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Operation–PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NOX
Emissions during operation of the proposed project could result in emission concentrations that exceed ambient standards, contribute substantially to an existing exceedance of an ambient air quality standard, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Operation–Toxic Air Contaminants
Operation of the proposed project would involve the operation of heavy-duty, diesel-fueled vehicles that emit DPM, which has been identified by the ARB as a TAC. Table 3.3-18 (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-47– 48) s
ummarizes the mitigated emission rates of DPM during operation of the proposed project, incorporating measures required by District Rule 8021 and implementation of MM AIR-1c and MM AIR-1d. The MIRs for Phase 1 operation were a single-family residence located approximately 75 feet north of the project site, Banta Elementary School approximately 2,495 feet east of the project site, and on-site workers.

As shown in Table 3.3-19 (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-48–49), the proposed project’s operational DPM emissions during Phase I would not exceed the Valley Air District’s cancer risk or chronic non-cancer hazard index thresholds of significance at the maximum impacted receptor for any of the sensitive receptors analyzed. Because of a lack in operational information for Phases 2 and 3 of the proposed project, such as freight product origin, local truck circulation, or other details necessary to perform a site-specific health risk assessment, Phase 1 of the proposed project was the only project phase modeled for health risk and chronic non-cancer hazard impacts. As Phase 1 represents approximately 55 percent of the potential operational trucking impact, although operation of Phase 1 (Tracy Alliance) would not result in a significant impact in this regard, operation at full buildout of the proposed project could have a potentially significant health impact on nearby sensitive receptors, particularly the residential MIRs. The implementation of MM AIR-1d would contribute to the minimization of DPM emissions generated from trucking emissions; however, full implementation of MM AIR-1d cannot be guaranteed. In addition, MM AIR-1e would restrict truck traffic from accessing Grant Line Road east of the project site, where many sensitive receptors are located. MM AIR-1f would restrict on-site vehicle idling to no greater than 3 minutes. MM AIR-1g would require the use of electric on-site on- and off-road equipment in place of non-electric alternatives. MM AIR-1h would require the installation of a vegetated buffer around the project site to reduce the potential off-site dispersion of TACs generated at the project site during operation.

MM AIR-1i would require the installation of EV charging stations which meet the Tier 2 standards set forth in Section A5.106.5.3 of Appendix A5 – Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen of the 2019 CBC.

In addition, in an effort to further address concerns about truck traffic through the Banta community located east of the project site, the project applicants are willing to voluntarily implement signage along project frontage on Grant Line Road to deter trucks from traveling on Grant Line Road east of the project site, and voluntarily implement routine communications between property managers and tenants to ensure tenant understanding that trucks accessing the project site are prohibited from using Grant Line Road east of the project site. These measures will be incorporated as conditions of approval.

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

124 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 inclusion of MM AIR-1e, MM AIR-1f, MM AIR-1g, and MM AIR-1i and conditions of approval would help incrementally reduce emissions below those disclosed in this Draft EIR; however, the quantified reductions from these measures cannot be accurately identified at this time. As a result, this impact would be significant and unavoidable after the incorporation of mitigation (Draft EIR,

Page 3 ends

Valley Fever
The San Joaquin Valley is considered an endemic area for Valley Fever, caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). Avoidance, when feasible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy. The project site is relatively undeveloped and is surround by undeveloped, agricultural, industrial, and residential land uses which are semi-rural to urban in character. Because the majority of the project site and the immediately surrounding vicinity consists of urbanized development or cultivated fields, the project site is an area that would lead to a low probability of having C. immitis growth sites and exposure from disturbed soil. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with District Rule 8021.

Therefore, this regulation would ensure that Valley Fever impacts during construction are less than significant. During operations, dust emissions are anticipated to be negligible, and impacts would be less than significant.

The City finds that MM AIR-1a though MM AIR-1i are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce impacts related to sensitive receptors to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this impact. 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 reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible. However, impacts associated with air quality would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to air quality would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-55).

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM AIR-1a through MM AIR-1i.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 125
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: If a project would exceed the identified construction or operational significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The Air Basin is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, which means that the background levels of those pollutants are at times higher than the ambient air quality standards and a cumulative air quality impact currently exists for the region. As discussed in Impact AIR-2, MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b would reduce the proposed project’s impacts related to ozone precursor emissions during construction; however, as discussed in Impact AIR-2, construction emissions for ozone precursors would remain potentially significant after implementation of identified mitigation. In addition, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to regional emissions of ROGs and NOX, both ozone precursor pollutants, during project operation. Moreover, because full implementation of MM AIR-1c and MM AIR-1d cannot be guaranteed, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant localized violation during operation.

After incorporation of identified mitigation and implementation of the required rules and regulations, the proposed project could result in construction and operational emissions which are greater than the respective Valley Air District significance thresholds and could therefore have a cumulatively considerable contribution that is cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

With regard to impacts on sensitive receptors, the DPM emissions from construction of the proposed project could result in significant health impacts if all three project phases are constructed concurrently. The combined operation of the proposed project could result in exposing nearby sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of pollutants. The cumulative impact associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable.

Odor impacts that would be associated with the proposed project would principally be temporary in nature and limited to the combustion of diesel fuels during construction and operation and would not be cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality and health impacts with respect to consistency with the applicable AQP (Impact AIR-1), cumulative criteria pollutant emissions during both construction and operation (Impact AIR-2) and impacts to sensitive receptors during both construction and operation (Impact AIR-3). (Draft EIR, Page 3.3-54–55).

The City finds that MM AIR-1a though MM AIR-1i are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce cumulative impacts to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this impact. 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 project that mitigate or reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible.

However, cumulative impacts associated with air quality would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

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

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

1.8.3 - Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRANS-1: The proposed project would result in a substantial increase in vehicle miles traveled (Draft EIR, Page 3.14-28).

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

1. Communication and Information Strategies–4 percent reduction;

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

3. Designated 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.

Provided, however, that if the relevant applicant determines that one of more of the foregoing six TDM measures is not feasible in connection with the individual development proposal at issue, then the relevant applicant may obtain approval from the City of Tracy Planning Department of acceptable substitute TDM measure(s) pursuant to Table 3.14-6 of the Draft EIR.

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

MM TRANS-1(b) Payment of Applicable Banking Fee
City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 127
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx In addition to the TDM program required in MM TRANS-1(a), each applicant for an individual development proposal shall pay the applicable fee as set forth in the adopted VMT Mitigation Banking Fee in place and effective at the time the relevant applicant seeks to obtain building permits for its individual development proposal.

Provided, however, that if the City Council has not adopted the Mitigation Banking Fee Program such that it is effective and in place at the time an applicant for an individual development proposal seeks to obtain a building permit, then payment of $633.11 (cost per VMT reduction for the relevant individual development proposal) shall constitute compliance with this MM TRANS-1(b).

Facts in Support of Findings: The proposed project’s potential increase in VMT would result in a significant transportation impact. The EIR, Table 3.14-6, lists the potential TDM measures that could partially mitigate the proposed project’s VMT impact and also shows the estimated maximum TDM reduction that each strategy could achieve. Potential strategies include offering telecommuting work schedules, transit subsidies, an employer-sponsored shuttle program, and marketing of TDM strategies. Implementation of MM TRANS-1(a), (b) would require the relevant applicant for each individual development proposal within the project site to implement the identified site-specific TDM measures to feasibly reduce project-generated VMT. The City also is currently working to establish a VMT banking program through which, once adopted, would provide another way to mitigate impacts. The VMT Mitigation Banking Fee Program is a programmatic approach to respond to the need for feasible VMT mitigation programs. The EIR proposes mitigation that enables the relevant applicant of each individual development proposal within the project site to mitigate its respective VMT impact, to the extent feasible, by implementing an approved TDM program and paying the applicable banking fee. Each relevant applicant would need to reduce VMT associated with its individual development proposal that would otherwise occur in connection with implementation of the relevant individual development proposal by 15 percent.

TDM measures are listed on Page 3.14-29 of the EIR. If the relevant applicant for an individual development proposal (1) incorporates the TDM measures into a project-specific TDM program, and (2) pays the applicable banking fee (as discussed further below), this would satisfy MM TRANS-1(a) and MM TRANS-1(b). If TDM measures are not feasible, the relevant applicant may obtain approval from the City of acceptable substitute TDM measure(s) and the applicable banking fee would be adjusted to equate to the required 15 percent reduction.

The applicable fee would be the amount provided for under the Mitigation Banking Fee Program adopted by the City Council and effective at the time the relevant applicant for an individual development proposal within the project site obtained building permits. Provided, however, that if the Council has not adopted the Mitigation Banking Fee Program such that it is effective and in place at the time an applicant for an individual development proposal seeks to obtain a building permit, then payment of $633.11 (cost per one VMT reduction) shall constitute compliance for the payment component of MM TRANS-1(b).

Even with implementation of the TDM strategies and payment of the applicable banking fee, as discussed above, the proposed project would still be above the City’s VMT threshold of 9.4 VMT per employee and this impact would be significant and unavoidable (Draft EIR, Page 3.14-28–32).

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

128 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 City finds that MM TRANS-1(a) and MM TRANS-1(b) are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce impacts related to VMT to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this impact. 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 reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible. However, impacts associated with VMT would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

Cumulative Impact: The proposed project’s cumulative impacts related to transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, Page 3.14-54).

Mitigation Measures
Implement MM TRANS-1(a) and MM TRANS-(b).

Facts in Support of Findings
VMT
Cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable State and local laws and regulations. If found to result in significant VMT impacts, the cumulative projects would be required to implement feasible TDM measures that would reduce VMT and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Cumulative projects would also be required to include facilities based on future transportation studies prepared for that project and to pay into the City’s VMT banking program once established. However, even with implementation of all available feasible mitigation, the cumulative VMT would still exceed City standards and would be significant and unavoidable. The proposed project, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would have a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to VMT, and the proposed project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

Roadway Safety and Emergency Access
Trucks used during the construction of cumulative projects would be required to utilize truck routes designated by the City and therefore would not conflict with the automobile traffic and bicycle and pedestrian activity. Local jurisdictions’ engineering and planning departments would review project plans prior to construction permits. Cumulative projects would not redesign City streets in such a way that would significantly impact roadway safety, they would be required by the City to mitigate such impacts as feasible. Roadways constructed as part of the cumulative projects would be City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 129
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx constructed to meet then-current applicable City and California Fire Code design standards.

Cumulative project driveways and access points would be constructed in compliance with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code and other applicable regulations related to roadway safety and emergency access. Impacts to Roadway Safety and Emergency Access would not be cumulatively considerable.

Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation and Facilities Each project sponsor for the relevant cumulative project(s) would be required to coordinate with the City and the transit providers to provide alternative transit access. There is only one reasonably foreseeable future project that shares a street with the proposed project. Paradise Road would be realigned with the construction of the I-205 and Chrisman Road Interchange. There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities provided on Paradise Road along the proposed project frontage or I-205.

Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would construct a Class I path (that would accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles) to improve pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Neither the proposed project nor the I- 205 and Chrisman Road Interchange project would remove existing bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure, nor would either make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this less than significant cumulative impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the circulation system in terms of transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, Page 3.14- 52–54).

The City finds that MM TRANS-1(a) and MM TRANS-1(b) are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce cumulative impacts related to VMT to the extent feasible. The City further finds that no additional mitigation or project alternatives are feasible to further reduce this impact. 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 project that mitigate or reduce the potentially significant impacts as identified in the EIR to the extent feasible.

However, cumulative impacts associated with VMT would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation incorporated.

1.9 - Findings Regarding Alternatives

1.9.1 - Introduction
This section presents findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project. Because not all significant effects could be substantially reduced to a less than significant level by either adoption of feasible mitigation measures or by standard conditions of approval, the EIR considered the feasibility of project alternatives compared to the proposed project. As explained below, these Findings summarize the alternatives studied (as well as the alternatives that were initially considered and then dismissed from further evaluation) and summarizes the basis for rejecting each one of the project alternatives. Further evidence supporting these Findings is set forth in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR (Alternatives) and in various responses to comments in the Final EIR.

The section provides a summary and discussion of the feasibility of the following alternatives evaluated in the EIR:

City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 130 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx • No Project (No Build) Alternative: Under this alternative, development of the project site would not occur, and the project site would remain in its current existing condition. • Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative: The Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative contemplates a reduction in building square footages, an increase in outside storage areas, and the preservation of 25 percent of the existing agricultural operations (approximately 48 acres). This alternative contemplates a combination of “Equipment Storage Yards,” which is a Permitted Use under the NEI Specific Plan and/or “Building Materials Sales, Lumberyards (outside storage),” which is a Conditional Use permitted under the NEI Specific Plan. Th e
p
roject site would be developed in such a way to protect some of the on-site Prime Farmland by reducing the overall footprint of the developed areas. The outside storage uses would require less building coverage and the number of employees would be reduced as compared to the proposed project.
• Agricultural Protection Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed project would be developed in such a way as to protect some of the on-site Prime Farmland by reducing the o
verall footprint of the developed areas and providing a buffer for existing residences along California Avenue. The northern half (approximately 11 acres) of the Zuriakat parcel would not be converted to nonagricultural uses and could remain in agricultural production.

In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this City Council finds that the EIR contained a comparative impact assessment of alternatives to the proposed project, which included sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. The primary purpose of this analysis is to provide decision-makers and interested agencies, organizations and individuals with information about a reasonable range of potentially feasible project alternatives, which could avoid or reduce any of the proposed project’s significant adverse environmental effects. The EIR must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives.

Important considerations for this alternatives analysis are noted below:
• An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project; • An EIR should identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process;
• Reasons for rejecting an alternative include:
- Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives identified in Section 6.5 of the Draft EIR. - Infeasibility; or
- Inability to avoid significant environmental effects of the proposed project.

W
hen addressing the feasibility of alternatives, the lead agency may take into account a number of factors including site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 131
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). None of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.

Section 6.3 of the Draft EIR discusses alternatives that were initially considered but then rejected.

Regarding alternative locations, CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternate sites always be included in an EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), in making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternate site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” For purposes of the EIR for the proposed project, alternative locations were initially considered in an effort to identify a site that would not involve the conversion of 188 acres of Prime Farmland; however, for reasons summarized below and explained in the EIR (see Section 6.3) this alternative was ultimately rejected from further consideration. This alternative involves review of the potential to construct a development of similar size and scale as the proposed project at alternative location(s), thereby lessening or avoiding site-specific impacts to Prime Farmland. Under this alternative, the development would need to be located at another large, predominantly vacant property that could meet most of the project proponent’s objectives. One key constraint is that the applicant does not own, control, or otherwise have access to any other sites. Nonetheless, potential off-site alternative locations were screened for consideration based on size and zoning/use requirements. The City of Tracy is mostly urbanized so it was assumed that there would be availability of infrastructure should this alternative occur elsewhere within the City. Potential sites within the City of appropriate size generally consisted of other agricultural parcels that are mostly designated as Prime Farmland located along the City’s SOI, which would result in similar impacts to agricultural resources as the proposed project and/or increased impacts to other topical areas, and/or would not achieve most of the project objectives. For example, one appropriately sized parcel is located adjacent to Bohn Elementary School and large tracts of residential development.

This site was initially considered but rejected as an alternative location because it could potentially result in increased impacts to sensitive receptors, increased traffic congestion due to its proximity to residential areas and distance from transit hubs, as well as increased air quality impacts. This area is also designated as Prime Farmland and thus significant agricultural resource impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland would still occur. In addition, this area is designated as Urban Reserve in the City’s General Plan for potential future residential development as opposed to having a current, specific land use designation (such as Industrial, like the project site). Constructing a similar industrial development on this site would thus be inconsistent with the General Plan (without triggering the need for a GPA) and would have potentially more significant population and housing and land use and planning impacts than the proposed project. In summary, City staff was not able to identify any vacant parcels within the City that are not Prime Farmland, could accommodate an industrial development of similar size and scope of the proposed project, and are zoned/designated for industrial uses. For these reasons, although alternative sites were initially considered, an City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

132 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx alternative location was therefore eliminated from further discussion in the Draft EIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).

This City Council hereby determines that the EIR evaluated a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives, which is sufficient to permit informed decision-making and public participation. This City Council recognizes that commenters suggested additional alternatives and stated that additional detail should be provided for the alternatives that were studied. For the reasons set forth in the EIR and other relevant evidence in the administrative record, none of the requested information is necessary to ensure that a reasonable range of alternatives was studied at a sufficient level of detail.

For the reasons documented in the EIR and summarized below, this City Council hereby rejects each of the alternatives and approves the proposed project, based on the specific legal, economic, and other considerations that make each of the below-identified alternatives infeasible.

Alternative 1: No Project (No Build) Alternative.

Description
Under the No Project Alternative, the 3,353,320 square feet of warehouse development, infrastructure improvements, I-205/Paradise Road/Chrisman Road interchange, and off-site roadway improvements would not be constructed on the project site and in its vicinity. In this alternative, the project site’s existing agricultural uses, outbuildings, two existing single-family homes, and garage would remain; road improvements would not occur; reservation of land for the future interchange would not occur; trees and crops would not be removed or impacted; and grading would not take place. This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment, prezoning, minor subdivision, or Final Development Plan.

Findings
The No Project Alternative would avoid the majority of the proposed project’s significant impacts by leaving the project site in its existing condition, thus avoiding impacts caused by the demolition of on-site buildings, construction of warehouse buildings, infrastructure and off-site improvements, and impacts caused by the operation of the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not advance any of the overall project objectives (Draft EIR, Page 6-7–6-12). Based on the analysis in the EIR and all other relevant evidence in the administrative record before it, this City Council finds that the No Project (No Build) Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives. The City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.

Alternative 2: Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative.

Description
Under the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative, there would be a reduction in building square footages, an increase in outside storage areas, and the preservation of 25 percent of the existing agricultural operations (approximately 48 acres). This alternative contemplates a combination of “Equipment Storage Yards,” which is a Permitted Use under the NEI Specific Plan and/or “Building Materials Sales, Lumberyards (outside storage),” which is a Conditional Use permitted under the NEI Specific Plan. The project site would be developed in such a way to protect some of the on-site Prime Farmland by reducing the overall footprint of the developed areas. The outside storage uses City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 133
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx would require less building coverage, and the number of employees would be reduced as compared to the proposed project.

Findings
The Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative would have a lower level of impacts for aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, TCRs, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. This is because overall, impacts would be reduced due to a smaller square footage of the buildings and the reduced number of employees. However, although reduced to a certain degree, all significant and unavoidable impacts to Agriculture, Air Quality and Transportation would still occur under this alternative and the identified mitigation measures would still be required under this alternative. Furthermore, this alternative would not meet most of the project objectives at all or to the same degree as the proposed project. For example, employment-generating industrial uses would be significantly less, and this alternative would also only partially meet qualitative objectives related to reducing the commute for regional residents, providing an improved circulation system, and providing public facilities and services such as stormwater drainage improvements (Draft EIR,

Page 6 ends

administrative record before it, the City Council finds that the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts, and would not satisfy most of the project objectives at all or to the same degree as the proposed project. This City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.

Alternative 3: Agricultural Protection Alternative.

Description
Under the Agricultural Protection Alternative, the project site would be developed in such a way to protect some of the on-site Prime Farmland by reducing the overall footprint of the developed areas while maintaining a buffer between existing residences along California Avenue. The northern half (approximately 11 acres) of the Zuriakat parcel would remain in agricultural production.

Findings
The Agricultural Protection Alternative would reduce to a certain extent those impacts related to ground disturbance by reducing the overall footprint of developed areas, preserving some of the site’s Prime Farmland. Additionally, wildfire impacts (which are already considered to be “no impact”) would be further reduced under this alternative because the overall footprint of the developed areas would be reduced. However, while it would result in some degree of reduction, it would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to agricultural resources, air quality, or transportation, and the identified mitigation measures would still be required. While this alternative would meet, to a certain degree, some of the project objectives related to employment opportunities, reducing the commute for regional residents, providing an efficient circulation system, and providing public facilities and services, such as stormwater drainage improvements, this alternative would not achieve these objectives to the same degree as the proposed project. Moreover, reducing the size of the warehouse and distribution buildings would reduce the amount of employment-generating industrial uses, thereby not facilitating the achievement of the City’s General Plan objectives related to employment growth and expanding the City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

134 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx City’s industrial base to the same degree as the proposed project (Draft EIR, Page 6-19–6-25). Based on the analysis in the EIR and all other relevant evidence in the administrative record before it, this City Council finds that the Agricultural Protection Alternative would not eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts and would not achieve most of the project objectives at all or to the same degree as the proposed project. This City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative— which is the case here, as it avoids all significant project impacts, but fails to satisfy any of the project objectives— the EIR must also identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives.

Each of the three project alternatives would lessen the environmental impacts relative to the proposed project to a certain degree (as summarized above and further described in the EIR).

Overall, based on these Findings, the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative (Alternative 2) would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because it has the potential to yield the greatest reductions in the severity of the proposed significant and unavoidable impacts and would preserve approximately 48 acres of the existing agricultural operations including Prime Farmland. However, this alternative fails to eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts, and would also not achieve most of the project objectives at all or to the same degree as the proposed project. For example, it would substantially reduce the employment-generating opportunity objective as it would not provide as many local and regional employment opportunities to take advantage of the project site’s high level of accessibility; it would not allow for the expansion of the City’s economic base to the same degree; nor would it help improve the jobs/housing balance and reduce the commute for regional residents to the same degree. (Draft EIR, Page 6-25–6-27).

Based on the analysis in the EIR and all other relevant evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council finds that, while identified as environmentally superior, this alternative would not eliminate any significant and unavoidable impacts and would not achieve most of the project objectives at all or to the same degree as the proposed project. The City Council rejects this alternative as infeasible.

1.10 - Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts
Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR includes a thoughtful analysis of cumulative impacts.

As summarized above in Sections 1.5 through 1.7 and as analyzed in the EIR, except as to cumulative impacts related to the conversion of Farmland, air quality emissions and VMT impacts, all other cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with, for example, the implementation of applicable laws and regulations (including new and revised General Plan Update policies and implementing actions) and for the other reasons documented in the EIR’s relevant sections. The proposed project’s contribution to the less than significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative agricultural, air quality and VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of all available feasible mitigation. As City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 135
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx discussed in Section 1.8, the proposed project would have a cumulatively considerable impact related to air quality and transportation. These impacts are considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. No feasible project alternatives would reduce these impacts while meeting most of project objectives.

1.11 - Findings Regarding Growth Inducement
State CEQA Guidelines Section15126.2(e) requires a discussion of the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical growth-inducing factors might be the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or underserved area, or the removal of major barriers to development.

Because the proposed project is industrial in nature and would not develop single-family or multi- family residential uses, no direct population growth would be expected to occur. In terms of the removal of any direct barriers to growth, this would not occur as a result of the project because the proposed project would not remove any existing obstacles that currently prevent growth within the City. For example, the proposed project would not require expansion of existing water, wastewater and public facilities and services beyond what was already planned for in the General Plan, NEI Specific Plan, and relevant City and other public agency master infrastructure plans. The utility infrastructure installed as part of the proposed project would be sized and located expressly to serve the proposed project and would not, therefore, induce growth in the project vicinity. Therefore, because the proposed project does not involve housing, nor would it remove any direct barriers to growth, the proposed project would not directly increase population.

Once operational, the proposed project at full buildout is expected to employ up to approximately 1,871 people on-site for daily operation. Given the nature of the proposed uses, it is anticipated that the employees would come primarily from the local job market and therefore would not likely trigger significant additional housing development to serve these employees, and the proposed project would help to support the City’s jobs-to-housing ratio goal of 1.5 as established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The current ratio is 1.3.

Furthermore, the project site is within the City’s existing SOI and has been designated by the General Plan for industrial uses and therefore, the City has anticipated this growth in employment opportunities that would result from the proposed project. Infrastructure and services would be expanded to serve the proposed project, but would not require expansion of existing water, wastewater and other facilities and services beyond what was already planned for in the General Plan and relevant City master infrastructure plans, and thus would not encourage additional unplanned growth. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not induce substantial indirect population growth within the City.

The proposed project would employ approximately 1,871 people at full buildout, representing approximately 30 percent of the City’s forecasted employment growth between 2020-2045. 3 As

3 City of Tracy. 2022. City of Tracy New Construction Industrial & Commercial Development Pipeline Report. Website:
https:///www.cityoftracy.org/home/showpublisheddocument/13056/637882942906530000. Accessed: August 5, 2022.

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

136 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx discussed above, the proposed project’s contribution to employment in the City is consistent with the forecasted employment anticipated in the General Plan.

According to the U.S. Census data, it is estimated that approximately 45,000 of the City’s residents are employed. In addition, the average travel time to work for Tracy’s employed residents is 44.5 minutes, indicating that most residents probably travel out of the City to work. The General Plan assumes employment growth to improve the jobs-to-housing balance to provide more employment opportunities for the City’s residents. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that many of the employees of the project would come from the labor pool within Tracy, and the proposed project, combined with other planned cumulative projects would not induce unplanned indirect population growth. (Final EIR, Page 3-99–100) For these reasons, this City Council finds there would be no adverse cumulative growth-inducing impacts.

Accordingly, this City Council finds that the proposed project would not result in unplanned direct, indirect or cumulative growth that would negatively alter the existing jobs/housing balance, or be inconsistent with the General Plan, the NEI Specific Plan, or relevant City or other public agency master infrastructure plans (Draft EIR, Page 5-3–5-4).

1.12 - Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes According to Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the proposed project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The proposed project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the proposed project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The proposed project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources are not justified.

The proposed project involves construction and operation of multiple light industrial, warehouse and distribution uses and related improvements and ancillary uses (e.g., office), which at buildout, would total approximately 3,352,320 square feet. As described more fully in the EIR, Chapter 2, Project Description, three warehouse and distribution buildings and related improvements are proposed for the Tracy Alliance parcels, totaling approximately 1,849,500 square feet. With respect to the Suvik Farms and Zuriakat parcels, there are no current development proposals; therefore, for purposes of a conservative analysis, it is assumed that at buildout, these parcels would be developed with approximately 1,502,820 square feet, consistent with the maximum allowable density per acre identified in the NEI Specific Plan. Other project components would include the construction of an approximately 12.44-acre stormwater detention basin with a pump station, as already envisioned in the current City of Tracy Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan. Existing trees and ornamental plants associated with existing residential uses and all crops would be removed as part of the proposed City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 137
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx project. The proposed project would be developed within the NEI Specific Plan area (as amended to include the adjacent project site), which would help ensure the efficient, cohesive construction and operation of the proposed project near other similar, compatible uses.

Construction would include the use of building materials, such as petroleum-based products and metals, which cannot reasonably be recreated. Construction also would involve significant consumption of energy, consisting predominantly of petroleum-based fuels that deplete supplies of nonrenewable resources. Construction of structures, other improvements and infrastructure would also consume energy and water.

However, construction debris recycling practices would be expected to result in the recovery and reuse of building materials such as concrete, lumber, and steel; these practices would also limit disposal of these materials, some of which are nonrenewable. Additionally, construction equipment would have to meet applicable Valley Air District standards as described in the EIR, Section 3.3, Air Quality. The EIR, Section 3.6, Energy, addresses energy consumption during construction and explains in more detail why impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Once construction is complete, land uses associated with the proposed project would use some nonrenewable fuels to heat and light structures. New industrial uses would be required to adhere to the latest adopted edition of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which includes a number of standards and features (viewed as some of the most stringent requirements in the country) that would reduce energy demand, water consumption, and wastewater and solid waste generation that would collectively conserve and reduce the demand for resources. This would result in reduced emissions and the generation of less pollution and effluent and lessen the severity of corresponding environmental effects. Although the proposed project would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources and water for irrigation and plumbing, these would not be consumed inefficiently, unnecessarily, or wastefully. Furthermore, the proposed industrial uses do not have the potential to cause significant environmental accidents through releases into the environment, as they would not involve large quantities of hazardous materials (see Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Future tenants/operators would be required to submit a HMBP to San Joaquin Environmental Health for review and approval if the tenants/operators intend to store significant amounts of hazardous materials on-site. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in San Joaquin County, and therefore none in the project site. Because the project site has not previously experienced wildfire and is not located in or near an area of steep terrain or historical wildfire burn, nor does it experience consistent high winds, the project site would not be prone to wildfire risk (see Draft EIR, Section 3.17, Wildfire). In addition, existing fire protection facilities would be adequate to serve the project site, and the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to need for new or altered fire protection facilities. Thus, implementation of the proposed project’s industrial uses would not have the potential to result in significant environmental accidents related to wildfire hazards and would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes (Draft EIR, Page 5-4–5-5). Furthermore, the proposed project would be located directly adjacent to a developed urbanized area, including major transportation corridors, and would accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access for the project vicinity as well as City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

138 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx transit improvements and other TDM measures, which would also help to ensure that it would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of transportation energy during operational activities.

1.13 - Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City of Tracy is the lead agency under CEQA for the preparation, review, and certification of the EIR for the proposed project. As the lead agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, which of those impacts are significant, and which impacts can be mitigated through imposition of feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize such impacts to a level of less than significant.

If significant and unavoidable impacts are identified, then CEQA requires that a lead agency balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable adverse environmental risk(s) in determining whether to approve the project.

In particular, Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) provide that no public agency may approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more of three findings with respect to each significant effect. Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report, then the public agency must find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.

Where the lead agency finds that the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or Statewide environmental benefits, of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a). CEQA requires that a lead agency support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(b). The lead agency’s written reasons are referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations. If the lead agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.

As explained in the above Findings of Fact, most of the proposed project’s impacts on the environment would either be insignificant or, through the incorporation of mitigation measures as enforceable conditions of approval of the proposed project, can be reduced to less than significant.

However, as set forth in Section 1.7 above, the following impacts would remain significant and City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

FirstCarbon Solutions 139
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx unavoidable even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, or where no mitigation measures are feasible. Specifically, the EIR (see, e.g., Section 6.2) identified the following unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project:
• Project-Level Conversion of Prime Farmland;
• Cumulative Conversion of Prime Farmland;
• Project-Level Impact Related to Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan; • Project-Level Impact Related to Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of ROG and carbon monoxide (CO) During Construction, and ROG and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) During Operation; • Project-Level Impact Related to Exposing Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations;
• Cumulative Air Quality Impact;
• Project-Level VMT Impact; and
• Cumulative VMT Impact.

Further, as summarized in Section 1.8 above and discussed more fully in the EIR, three alternatives to the proposed project were analyzed to determine whether these alternative(s) could avoid or substantially lessen the unavoidable environment impacts of the proposed project. While the No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant and unavoidable impacts, it would not meet any of the project objectives. With respect to the Outside Storage Allowable Use Alternative, impacts for a number of environmental topic areas would be lessened to a certain degree (including the unavoidable impacts), although this Alternative would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts and would not meet most of the project objectives at all or to the same degree as the proposed project. Similarly, the Agricultural Protection Alternative would reduce to a certain extent those impacts related to ground disturbance by reducing the overall footprint of developed areas. However, while it would result in some degree of reduction of impacts, it would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to agricultural resources, air quality or transportation, and would not meet most of the project objectives at all or to the same degree as the proposed project. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in these Findings and Section 5 of the Draft EIR, there are no feasible alternatives to the proposed project.

As required under Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, this City Council, having reviewed and considered the EIR, all other written materials within the administrative record, and all oral testimony presented at public hearings and other public meetings on the EIR and the merits of the proposed project, has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the identified unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the proposed project, and hereby adopts all feasible mitigation measures with respect to such impacts, certifies the EIR, and approves the proposed project. This City Council has also examined the alternatives to the proposed project, none of which is feasible, meets most of the project objectives, or is environmentally preferable to the proposed project for the reasons discussed in Section 1.8 above and the EIR.

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

140 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Accordingly, as set forth below, the City Council hereby declares that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the following benefits of the proposed project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the proposed project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures contained in the EIR, the MMRP , and these Findings, having considered the entire administrative record on the proposed project, and having weighed the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the proposed project separately and individually outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:
• Completion and operation of the proposed project would employ approximately 1,871 people creating local and regional employment opportunities that improve the jobs-to-housing ratio and expand economic opportunities in the City.
• The proposed project would create a substantial number of temporary and permanent jobs during both construction and operation consistent with the skills and availability of the local workforce and assist in fulfilling the City’s priorities for future growth anticipated by the General Plan.
• At buildout, the proposed project would generate significant tax revenue for the City’s benefit. • The location of the proposed project would provide a high level of accessibility and reduce the commute for regional residents, promoting the planned, orderly, efficient development of the area.
• The proposed project would provide an efficient circulation system and facilitate a future planned interchange at Paradise Road and I-205 through the dedication of land. • The proposed project would improve mobility and provide bicycle and pedestrian connections by constructing a Class I bicycle path to accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles per the TMP for both Grant Line Road and Paradise Road. These connections would ultimately provide access to the nearest transit facility; thereby improving access to alternative transportation. • The proposed project would maximize the utility of its location and infrastructure to develop industrial uses in a manner that would promote land use patterns that reduce the number and length of motor vehicle trips and reduce VMT impacts consistent with the City’s planned industrial vision.
• The proposed project would promote the sustainability and energy conservation policies contained in the Tracy Sustainability Action Plan.

For the foregoing reasons and as otherwise supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, this City Council hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision to approve the proposed project.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions 141
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx Custodian of Record; Scope and Content of Record
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the following:

City of Tracy
Development Services
333 Civic Center Plaza
Tracy, CA 95376
Phone: 209.831.6428
Attention: Victoria Lombardo, Senior Planner
Email: [email protected]
This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

Various documents, information, testimony, reports, studies, analyses and other materials (both oral and written) constitute the record upon which the City Council bases these Findings and the basis for the City Council’s approval and/or adoption contained herein. These Findings cite specific pieces of evidence, but none of the City Council’s findings is based solely on those cited pieces of evidence.

Rather, these Findings are based upon the entire record for the proposed project, and the City Council intends to rely upon all supporting evidence in the record for each of its conclusions contained herein.

For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the documents and materials in the administrative record for the proposed project include, but shall not be limited to, all items referenced in Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e):
(i) All project application materials;
(ii) The proposed project’s EIR (consisting of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and all appendices attached thereto);
(iii) All staff reports (including all attachments thereto) and related documents prepared by the lead agency and/or consultants with respect to the lead agency’s compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of this division and with respect to the action on the proposed project;
(iv) All staff reports (including all attachments thereto) and related documents prepared by the lead agency and written testimony or documents submitted by any person relevant to any Findings or Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the lead agency pursuant to this division;
(v) All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings, public meetings, study sessions, and workshops on the EIR, and any transcript(s) or minutes of the proceedings at which any advisory body or decision-making body heard testimony on, or considered the EIR;
(vi) All notices issued by the lead agency to comply with this division or with any other law governing the processing and approval of the proposed project; City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

142 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx (vii) All written comments received in response to, or in connection with, the EIR, including responses to the NOP and comments on the Draft EIR;
(viii) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from, the lead agency with respect to compliance with this division or with respect to the proposed project; (ix) Any proposed decisions or findings submitted to the decision-makers by lead agency staff, or the project proponents, project opponents, or other interested agencies, organizations and/or individuals;
(x) The documentation of the final decision, including certification of the EIR and all documents and materials, in addition to those referenced in paragraph (c), cited or relied on in the Findings or in a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted pursuant to this division; (xi) For documentary and informational purposes, all locally-adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area; (xii) Any other written materials relevant to the lead agency’s compliance with this division or to its decision on the merits of the proposed project, including any drafts of any environmental document or portions thereof, which have been released for public review, and copies of studies or other documents relied upon in any environmental document prepared for the proposed project and either made available to the public during the public review period or included in the lead agency's files on the proposed project, and all internal agency communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to the project or to compliance with this division;
(xiii) The full written record before any inferior administrative decision-making body whose decision was appealed to a superior administrative decision-making body prior to the filing of litigation; and
(xiv) Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law.

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

Recirculation Not Required
During the public review period after the Draft EIR was published, the City of Tracy received certain additional information that is not included in the Draft EIR. City of Tracy staff and consultants involved in preparing the various studies, reports and analyses included in the EIR have also presented additional information since the publication of the Draft EIR. Some of this information was contained in comments submitted on the Draft EIR, and in responses to those comments contained in the Final EIR. Other information was presented at or before public meetings/hearings on the EIR.

The EIR, as well as other aspects of the administrative record, incorporates additions, clarifications, City of Tracy— Tracy Alliance Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 143
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/FOF/17260011 Tracy Alliance Findings of Facts.docx modifications, and other changes, in response to comments and as determined appropriate by lead agency staff and required under CEQA.

This City Council has considered all relevant information including, without limitation, the opinions and comments of interested agencies, organizations and individuals. This includes opinions that disagree with some of the analysis and conclusions in the EIR. As noted above, the entirety of the EIR is incorporated into these Findings by reference. This City Council hereby ratifies, adopts and incorporates into these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the EIR relating to the proposed project’s environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

Having reviewed all of the information in the administrative record, this City Council finds that this additional information does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation. The additional information merely clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR. Specifically, this additional information, including the changes described herein and in the Final EIR, does not show any of the following situations requiring recirculation identified in CEQA Guideline Section 15088.5 have occurred:

1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project (or an alternative), but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

5. Based on the foregoing and as explained in more detail in the Final EIR, and having reviewed all the information in the record of proceedings, the City Council hereby finds that this additional information does not constitute significant new information nor does it require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The additional information merely clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions

Appendix A:

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

TGLL-54620\2686403.1 NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the
Tracy Alliance Project
Environmental Impact Report
City of Tracy, San Joaquin County, California
Prepared for:

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

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Report Date: January 17, 2023

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy–Tracy Alliance Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Preface
FirstCarbon Solutions 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx

PREFACE
Pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 (collectively, “CEQA”), the City of Tracy (Lead Agency) hereby finds that the mitigation measures set forth in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Tracy Alliance Project (proposed project) will reduce or avoid the identified potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to the extent feasible for the reasons described in the Tracy Alliance Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and as otherwise documented in the materials that make up the proposed project’s administrative record. The Lead Agency intends for each of the mitigation measures to be adopted as recommended in the EIR, and incorporated into conditions of approval for the purpose of ensuring compliance during project implementation.

In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR and MMRP , the MMRP shall control. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Standard Conditions of Approval imposed on the proposed project set forth by the City of Tracy and the MMRP , the MMRP shall control.

The EIR prepared for the proposed project concluded that project implementation could result in significant effects on the environment and feasible mitigation measures have been identified as set forth in this MMRP and which will be incorporated as enforceable conditions of project approval that would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level to the extent feasible. This MMRP documents how and when the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency will be implemented and confirms that identified, potentially significant environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels to the extent feasible as identified in the EIR.

This document does not discuss those environmental topic areas that the environmental analysis set forth in the Tracy Alliance Project EIR (along with other materials in the administrative record) has determined there would result in less than significant impacts and thus for which no mitigation is necessary.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Table 1: Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
MM AG-1: Payment of Agricultural Mitigation Fees
At the time of issuance of building permits for each individual development proposal, the relevant applicant(s) for the subject development proposal shall pay the applicable
Agriculture Mitigation Fee in accordance with Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code.

Verify payment of
Agricultural Mitigation
Fee.

At the time of
issuance of building
permits for each
individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

3.3 Air Quality
MM AIR-1a: NOX Reduction Measures
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for each development proposal shall provide
documentation to the City of Tracy demonstrating the
following NOX reduction measures would be adhered to
during construction activities for the relevant development proposal:
• For all construction equipment and vehicles used during project construction that are equal to or greater than 250 horsepower, the contractor shall use construction
equipment and vehicles that meet the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 Final engine standards;
• For all construction equipment and vehicles used during project construction that are less than 250 horsepower, the contractor shall use electric construction equipment and vehicles to the extent feasible, with the exception of
handheld generator sets; and
• All generator sets utilized during project construction shall be limited to 5 horsepower and shall only be used to power handheld power tools.

Review project
construction plans and
equipment lists.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 4
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
The construction contractor shall maintain reasonable
records concerning its efforts to comply with this
requirement, including equipment lists. Documentation that each relevant applicant provides to the City shall include, but is not limited to, equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.

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

Review project design
plans.

Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

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

Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
include parking lot degreasers, architectural coatings, pesticides, or fertilizers.

MM AIR-1d: Clean Truck Fleet
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable
documentation demonstrating the use of a clean truck fleet that meets the California Air Resources Board’s adopted 2013 Optional Low-NOX Standard of 0.02 gram of nitrogen oxide (NO
X) per brake horsepower-hour for all heavy-duty trucks
during operation of the proposed project, to the maximum extent feasible. If the relevant applicant does not own the truck fleet that will be used during operation of the subject individual development, the relevant applicant shall provide the City with reasonable documentation from the truck fleet owner demonstrating that trucks utilized for operation of the subject individual development will meet the California 2013 Optional Low-NOX Standard, to the maximum extent feasible.

If any change occurs where a new truck fleet is utilized during operation of the subject individual development, the relevant applicant shall provide the City with reasonable
documentation demonstrating that the new truck fleet meets the California 2013 Optional Low-NO
X Standard of 0.02 gram
per brake horsepower-hour, to the maximum extent feasible.

Verify inclusion in
project specifications.

Prior to issuance of
the certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

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

Prior to issuance of
the certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 6
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
project site, such as plans illustrating intended truck routes.

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

MM AIR-1f: Idling Limitation
Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall provide the City with reasonable
documentation demonstrating that on-site truck idling during project operation for the subject individual development proposal shall be limited to no greater than 3 minutes. The documentation provided to the City shall include photos or a map of signage posted in strategic locations on-site
identifying that truck idling does not exceed 3 minutes. The signage shall include a phone number to contact at the facility regarding idling violation complaints, and corrective action shall occur within 48 hours of receipt of the complaint.

Review documentation
and on-site signage
demonstrating that on-
site truck idling shall be
limited to no greater
than 3 minutes.

Prior to the
issuance of the
certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

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

Review construction
plans.

Prior to the
issuance of the
certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

MM AIR-1h: Vegetated Project Site Buffer
Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) for each individual development proposal within the project site, the relevant applicant for the subject individual development proposal shall demonstrate on their site plans the inclusion of a Review project design
plans.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permit(s) for each
individual
development
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
vegetative buffer along the eastern property line of the project site adjacent to sensitive receptors. Examples of vegetative buffers may include, but are not limited to, trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix thereof.
proposal within the
project site.

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

Review documentation
(e.g., shown on-site
plans) showing that the
proposed parking areas
for passenger
automobiles and trucks
are designed and will be
built to include EV
charging stations.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits(s) for each
individual
development
proposed within
the project site.

City of Tracy.

3.4 Biological Resources
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
If construction occurs
within the Zuriakat
parcel during the nesting
season (February 1 –
August 31), conduct pre-
construction site
inspection.

No more than 7
days prior to the
start of ground-
disturbing activities
within the Zuriakat
parcel during the
nesting season
(February 1 –
August 31).

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 8
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 of the construction schedule in the 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.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 (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 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.

Verify payment of
applicable mitigation
fees; conduct site
inspection; verify
retention of qualified
Biologist.

No more than 7
days prior to the
start of ground-
disturbing activities
during the nesting
season (February 1–
August 31).

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 10
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
- 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.
• If pre-construction surveys detect active burrows during the nonbreeding season (September 1- January 31) the San Conduct site inspection;
if an active nest is found
during the breeding
season (February 1 –
August 31), submit
passive relocation plan
to SJMSCP.

No later than 30
days prior to the
commencement of
any ground-
disturbing
construction
activities.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 Sa n
J
oaquin kit fox activity or locate any potential dens, then no further measures are necessary.
• I f 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).
• I f the den is occupied by an adult only, the den may be destroyed when the adult fox has moved or is temporarily ab
sent. If the den is a natal den, a buffer zone of 250 feet sh
all be maintained around the den until the Biologist
determines that the den has been vacated. Where San
Jo
aquin kit fox are identified, the provisions of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published
S
tandardized Recommendations for Protection of the San
Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance shall a
pply (except that pre-construction survey protocols shall remain as established in this paragraph). These standards Conduct site inspection;
if a den is occupied,
educated construction
workers regarding the
San Joaquin kit fox.

Between 14 and 30
prior to the
commencement of
any ground-
disturbing
construction
activities.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 12
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.
• 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
If tree removal occurs
during the nesting
season (September 1 –
January 31), conduct site
survey; verify reporting
to the USFWS and
CDFW.

No more than 7
days prior to tree
removal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 Submit evidence of site
inspections with verified
biological monitor; verify
installation of exclusion
devices (if construction
occurs between May 1
and October 1).

Bat survey to be
completed up to 14
days prior to the
beginning of the
construction
period; visual
surveys of trees and
structures no more
than 2 weeks prior
to demolition or
tree removal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 14
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

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 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 Review and approval of
jurisdictional delineation
and any CWA Sections
401 and 404 Permits,
and/or Notification of
Streambed Alteration
prior to Construction of
the subject individual
development proposal.

Prior to the fill of
any potentially
jurisdictional waters
or any construction
activities within
irrigation/drainage
channels that
qualify as streams
under CDFW
jurisdiction.

USACE, RWQCB,
CDFW

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 preservation 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 compliance with Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, the
relevant applicant(s) of an individual development proposal City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 16
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.

3.5 Cultural Resources
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 “spot-check” 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 Review documentation
demonstrating retention
of a qualified
archaeological monitor
or professional
Archaeologist; conduct
site inspections.

Prior to any grading
or trenching into
previously
undisturbed soils
and throughout the
construction
process.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.

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 Review project plans to
verify mitigation
measure is incorporated
into plans.

During construction
and any ground-
disturbing activities.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 18
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicants for the development of the Tracy 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.

3.7 Geology and Soils
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
Review project plans to
verify mitigation
measure is incorporated
into plans.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
the proposed
project.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 20
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
development proposal to ensure the earthwork operations are properly performed in accordance with the foregoing recommendations.

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.

Review project plans to
verify mitigation
measure is incorporated
into plans.

During construction
activities.

City of Tracy.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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 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 Department-approved sampling plan. If hazardous
levels of hazardous compounds are found, excavated soils shall be sent off-site for disposal and any affected soils Review documents that
demonstrate soil testing
was completed within
the project boundary
and any subsequent
remediation that was
needed.

Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 Department, 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 parcels 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.

Review documentations
that demonstrate proper
disposal of all USTs and
ASTs.

During excavation
of the development
of the Tracy Alliance
parcels.

City of Tracy; LOP .

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 Review documentation
demonstrating a
licensed professional
was retained and
asbestos and lead paint
surveys were conducted;
Prior to the
issuance of
demolition permits
for the existing
buildings on the
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 22
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.

Review project plans to
verify applicable laws
and regulations related
to activities involving
ACM and LBP are
detailed in the project
plans.

Tracy Alliance
parcels.

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 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.

Review project plans to
ensure mitigation
measure and
instructions were
detailed in project plans.

During any grading
or excavation
activities.

City of Tracy.

MM HAZ-1e: Consultation with Chevron and DigAlert (Tracy Alliance and 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.chevron-pipeline.com; 800.762.3404) and
DigAlert 811 to determine the location of the existing
Verify consultation with
Chevron and DigAlert
811.

Prior to any ground
disturbance and
construction in
connection with the
Tracy Alliance
and/or Suvik Farms
parcels.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
underground petroleum pipeline to facilitate avoidance
during ground disturbance and construction activities.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
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 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.

Verify submission of
SWPPP; Approval of NOI
and SWPPP by the State
Water Board.

Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site;
throughout
construction
activities.

City of Tracy; State
Water Board.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 24
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.

Review and approval of
S W M P.

Prior to issuance of
a grading permit for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

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 Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan) to
Review site plans; verify
submission of O&M Plan
and Final Drainage Plan.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy, State
Water Board,
RWQCBs.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 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 shall accommodate the 200-
year storm event as detailed in the Flood Protection
City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 26
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.

3.12 Noise
Identified Improvement Measures
IMM NOI-2: To reduce potential construction noise impacts, the following multi-part Improvement Mitigation Measure (IMM) shall be implemented for the project:
• E quip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• L ocate 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 t o
the extent feasible.

Review construction
plans; verify all
equipment is equipped
with mufflers; verify
staging areas.

During all phases of
construction.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary
operational noise sources where such technology exists
and is commercially practicable.
• 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.

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

1. 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; Review and approval of
TDM.

Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit for the
relevant individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 28
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial

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.

P
rovided, however, that if the relevant applicant determines that one of more of the foregoing six TDM measures is not feasible in connection with the individual development
proposal at issue, then the relevant applicant may obtain approval from the City of Tracy Planning Department of
acceptable substitute TDM measure(s) pursuant to Table

3.14-6 of the Draft EIR.

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

MM TRANS-1(b): Payment of Applicable Banking Fee
In addition to the Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program required in MM TRANS-1(a), each applicant for an individual development proposal shall pay its fair share of the applicable fee as set forth in the adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation Banking Fee in place and effective at the time the relevant applicant seeks to obtain building permits for its individual development proposal. Provided, however, that if the City Council has not adopted the
Mitigation Banking Fee Program such that it is effective and in place at the time an applicant for an individual development proposal seeks to obtain a building permit, then the relevant applicant shall implement additional VMT reduction
measures in order to meet the minimum VMT reduction
requirement of 15 percent.

Verify payment of the
applicable VMT
Mitigation Banking Fee
or that the project TDM
meet the minimum VMT
reduction requirement
of 15 percent for
purposes of the subject
individual development
proposal.

Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit for the
relevant individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

MM TRANS-2: Prepare and Implement Construction Traffic
Control Plan
Review and approval of
traffic control plan.

Prior to the start of
construction for an
individual
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 29
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 the 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 development
proposal.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 30
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.

Identified Improvement Measures
IM-1: I-205 EB Ramps and North MacArthur Drive
(Intersection 11) Improvements
Prior to issuance of the building permits for each individual development proposal, the City of Tracy Planning Department shall verify that the relevant applicant has paid the applicable TIF fee for the relevant individual development proposal. In so doing, this payment will constitute a pro rata fair share contribution toward the City’s ability to implement its TMP , which includes the following improvements:
• Lane additions at both ramp terminals and the addition of a second I-205 Westbound on-ramp. The two ramp
terminals cannot be improved independently. The
westbound ramp terminal would improve with the addition of these lanes.

Verify payment of the
applicable TIF fee for the
subject individual
development proposal.

Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit for each
individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

IM-2: Grant Line Road and North MacArthur Drive
(Intersection 13) Improvements
• Prior to issuance of the building permits for each individual development proposal, the City of Tracy Planning
Department shall verify that the relevant applicant has paid its pro rata fair share of the proposed project’s fair share of 5.93 percent of the following improvement: the construction of a westbound right turn lane for
Intersection 13 (which will include a right-turn overlap signal phase).

Verify payment of pro
rata fair share for the
subject individual
development proposal
for westbound right turn
lane for Intersection 13.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

IM-3: Optimize Signal Cycle Length at Grant Line Road and Chrisman Road (Intersection 9) and Grant Line Road and
North MacArthur Drive (Intersection 13)
Verify optimization of
signal lengths at Grant
Line and Chrisman Road,
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each individual
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 31
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
Prior to issuance of the building permits for the first individual development proposal, the City of Tracy Planning Department shall verify that the signal cycle length has been optimized at the intersections of:
• Grant Line and Chrisman Road
• Grant Line Road and North MacArthur Drive
and Grant Line Road,
and Grant Line Road and
North MacArthur Drive.
development
proposal.

IM-4: Chrisman Road and 11th Street (Intersection 15)
Improvements
• Prior to issuance of the building permits for each individual development proposal, the City of Tracy Planning
Department shall verify that the relevant applicant has paid its pro rata fair share of the proposed project’s fair share of 5.35 percent for the following improvement: an additional second westbound left-turn lane for Intersection 15 (which will involve the signal at this Intersection being modified to allow lagging phase for the eastbound left turn and northbound left turn).

Verify payment of pro
rata fair share for subject
individual development
proposal for westbound
right turn lane for
Intersection 15.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
MM UTIL-1a: Adherence to Applicable Performance
Standards and Payment of Infrastructure Fees
Prior to the issuance of building permits for an individual development proposal, the relevant applicant shall
demonstrate compliance of the individual development
proposal at issue with applicable performance standards pursuant to the then-current Urban Water Management Plan, Citywide Water System Master Plan, Wastewater Master
Plan, and Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan. In addition, each applicant for an individual development proposal shall pay its respective proportionate share of required funding, subject to applicable laws governing nexus requirements, to the City for completion of relevant planned City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) improvements.

Review project design
plans to demonstrate
compliance of the
individual development
proposal at issue with
applicable performance
standards pursuant to
City utility master plans;
verify payment of
applicable funding for
CIP improvements.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
an individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 32
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
MM UTIL-1b: Submittal of Final Engineering Plans for Tracy Alliance Parcels
Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first building on the Tracy Alliance parcels, the applicants for the development of the Tracy Alliance parcels shall submit
engineering plans to the City of Tracy for review and approval to confirm compliance with this MM UTIL-1b. These plans shall include additional 12-inch diameter pipelines on-site as shown on Exhibit 3.16-5 of this Draft EIR and the fire service laterals shall be upsized to 14-inch diameter.

Review engineering
plans.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
the first building on
the Tracy Alliance
parcels.

City of Tracy.

MM UTIL-1c: Submittal of Final Engineering Plans for Suvik Farms and Zuriakat Parcels
Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first building on the subject parcel, each relevant applicant for the individual development proposal of the Suvik Farms or
Zuriakat Parcels, respectively, shall each submit final engineering plans to the City of Tracy for review and approval to confirm compliance with the relevant performance
standards including, but not limited to, those pursuant to the current Urban Water Management Plan, Citywide Water
System Master Plan, Wastewater Master Plan, and Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan in effect at the time building permits are requested.

Review engineering
plans.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
the first building on
the subject Suvik
and/or Zuriakat
parcel(s).

City of Tracy.

MM UTIL-3: Payment of Wastewater Infrastructure
Fees/Construction of Wastewater Facilities
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the subject individual development proposal, the relevant
applicant shall participate in the implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan (WWMP) in effect at the time the relevant building permit is requested through the payment of the applicable impact fees as included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

Verify implementation of
WWMP through
payment of applicable
fees for subject
individual development
proposal.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
the subject
individual
development
parcel.

City of Tracy.

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

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Tsui Li, Project Manager
Report Date: January 17, 2023
Attachment G

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Verify payment of
Agricultural Mitigation
Fee.

At the time of
issuance of building
permits for each
individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

Review project
construction plans and
equipment lists.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Review project design
plans.

Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
include parking lot degreasers, architectural coatings, pesticides, or fertilizers.

Verify inclusion in
project specifications.

Prior to issuance of
the certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

Prior to issuance of
the certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

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

Review documentation
and on-site signage
demonstrating that on-
site truck idling shall be
limited to no greater
than 3 minutes.

Prior to the
issuance of the
certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

Review construction
plans.

Prior to the
issuance of the
certificate of
occupancy for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permit(s) for each
individual
development
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
vegetative buffer along the eastern property line of the project site adjacent to sensitive receptors. Examples of vegetative buffers may include, but are not limited to, trees, bushes, shrubs, or a mix thereof.
proposal within the
project site.

Review documentation
(e.g., shown on-site
plans) showing that the
proposed parking areas
for passenger
automobiles and trucks
are designed and will be
built to include EV
charging stations.

Prior to the
issuance of building
permits(s) for each
individual
development
proposed within
the project site.

City of Tracy.

3.4 Biological Resources
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):
• I f construction or habitat removal is proposed during the breeding/nesting season (typically February 1 through
Au
gust 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct pre-
construction surveys for song sparrow and tricolored
If construction occurs
within the Zuriakat
parcel during the nesting
season (February 1 –
August 31), conduct pre-
construction site
inspection.

No more than 7
days prior to the
start of ground-
disturbing activities
within the Zuriakat
parcel during the
nesting season
(February 1 –
August 31).

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Verify payment of
applicable mitigation
fees; conduct site
inspection; verify
retention of qualified
Biologist.

No more than 7
days prior to the
start of ground-
disturbing activities
during the nesting
season (February 1–
August 31).

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

No later than 30
days prior to the
commencement of
any ground-
disturbing
construction
activities.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 (USFWS) 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 Conduct site inspection;
if a den is occupied,
educated construction
workers regarding the
San Joaquin kit fox.

Between 14 and 30
prior to the
commencement of
any ground-
disturbing
construction
activities.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

No more than 7
days prior to tree
removal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Bat survey to be
completed up to 14
days prior to the
beginning of the
construction
period; visual
surveys of trees and
structures no more
than 2 weeks prior
to demolition or
tree removal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 14
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

Obtain CWA Sections 401 and 404 Permits Prior to
Construction
• Pr ior to the fill of any potentially jurisdictional water s w
ithin 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. • I f required, the relevant applicant(s) for development o f t
he 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 Review and approval of
jurisdictional delineation
and any CWA Sections
401 and 404 Permits,
and/or Notification of
Streambed Alteration
prior to Construction of
the subject individual
development proposal.

Prior to the fill of
any potentially
jurisdictional waters
or any construction
activities within
irrigation/drainage
channels that
qualify as streams
under CDFW
jurisdiction.

USACE, RWQCB,
CDFW
City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

3.5 Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1: Archaeological Spot-Monitoring and Halt of
Construction Upon Encountering Historical or Archaeological Materials

Prior to any grading
or trenching into
previously
undisturbed soils
and throughout the
construction
process.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

During construction
and any ground-
disturbing activities.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 18
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 th
e
N
ative 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:
• T he NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD faile d t
o make a recommendation within 48 hours after being
n
otified by the commission.
• Th e descendant identified fails to make a
recommendation.
• T he landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation
by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Addi
tionally, California Public Resources Code Section
15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American remains:
• Whe n 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 City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
the proposed
project.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Review project plans to
verify mitigation
measure is incorporated
into plans.

During construction
activities.

City of Tracy.

Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits for each
individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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 Department, 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.

Review documentations
that demonstrate proper
disposal of all USTs and
ASTs.

During excavation
of the development
of the Tracy Alliance
parcels.

City of Tracy; LOP .

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Review project plans to
verify applicable laws
and regulations related
to activities involving
ACM and LBP are
detailed in the project
plans.

Tracy Alliance
parcels.

Review project plans to
ensure mitigation
measure and
instructions were
detailed in project plans.

During any grading
or excavation
activities.

City of Tracy.

Prior to any ground
disturbance and
construction in
connection with the
Tracy Alliance
and/or Suvik Farms
parcels.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Verify submission of
SWPPP; Approval of NOI
and SWPPP by the State
Water Board.

Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site;
throughout
construction
activities.

City of Tracy; State
Water Board.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Review and approval of
S W M P.

Prior to issuance of
a grading permit for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy.

Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each individual
development
proposal within the
project site.

City of Tracy, State
Water Board,
RWQCBs.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 26
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
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.

3.12 Noise
Identified Improvement 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.

Review construction
plans; verify all
equipment is equipped
with mufflers; verify
staging areas.

During all phases of
construction.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary
operational noise sources where such technology exists
a
nd is commercially practicable.
• T he construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) of internal combustion engines.
• T he 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 si
te during all project construction.
• T he 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.

1. Utilize communication and information strategies–4
pe
rcent reduction;

2. Offer telecommuting for administrative staff (5 percent of s
taff 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; Review and approval of
TDM.

Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit for the
relevant individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 28
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial

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

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

Provided, however, that if the relevant applicant determines that one of more of the foregoing six TDM measures is not feasible in connection with the individual development
proposal at issue, then the relevant applicant may obtain approval from the City of Tracy Planning Department of
acceptable substitute TDM measure(s) pursuant to Table

3.14-6 of the Draft EIR.

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

Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit for the
relevant individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

MM TRANS-2: Prepare and Implement Construction Traffic
Control Plan
Review and approval of
traffic control plan.

Prior to the start of
construction for an
individual
City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Verify payment of the
applicable TIF fee for the
subject individual
development proposal.

Prior to issuance of
the first building
permit for each
individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

Verify payment of pro
rata fair share for the
subject individual
development proposal
for westbound right turn
lane for Intersection 13.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Verify payment of pro
rata fair share for subject
individual development
proposal for westbound
right turn lane for
Intersection 15.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
an individual
development
proposal.

City of Tracy.

City of Tracy
Tracy Alliance Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FirstCarbon Solutions 32
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/1726/17260011/MMRP/17260011 Tracy Alliance Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
MM UTIL-1b: Submittal of Final Engineering Plans for Tracy Alliance Parcels
Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first building on the Tracy Alliance parcels, the applicants for the development of the Tracy Alliance parcels shall submit
engineering plans to the City of Tracy for review and approval to confirm compliance with this MM UTIL-1b. These plans shall include additional 12-inch diameter pipelines on-site as shown on Exhibit 3.16-5 of this Draft EIR and the fire service laterals shall be upsized to 14-inch diameter.

Review engineering
plans.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
the first building on
the Tracy Alliance
parcels.

City of Tracy.

Review engineering
plans.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
the first building on
the subject Suvik
and/or Zuriakat
parcel(s).

City of Tracy.

Verify implementation of
WWMP through
payment of applicable
fees for subject
individual development
proposal.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
the subject
individual
development
parcel.

City of Tracy.

Attachment H

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
CITY A
TTORNEY’S OFFICE
TRA

CY CITY COUNCIL
ORDINA
NCE NO. _____
1) CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (“EIR”),

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM (“MMRP”), AND MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (TOGETHER,
“CEQA FINDINGS”), FOR THE ANNEXATION AND FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON THE 191.18 ACRE

PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GRANT
LINE AND PARADISE ROADS (ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 213- 170-14, -24, -25, -26, -27, AND -48, COLLECTIVELY THE “PROPERTY”)

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”);
2) AMENDING THE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL (“NEI”) SPECIFIC PLAN

TO ADD THE PROPERTY TO THE NEI SPECIFIC PLAN AREA WITH A LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (SPA22-0003);
3) APPROVING THE PREZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE (AP20-0003); AND
4) APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF A PETITION TO THE SAN

JOAQUIN COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR

ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF TRACY
WHEREAS, On May 29, 2020, the City received applications from the owners of the Property asking the City to amend the NEI Specific Plan to incorporate the Property into the Specific Plan area, prezone the Property as Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Zone, and submit a petition to the San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFC o) to annex the Property to the City of Tracy (collectively, the applications are referred to herein as the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, The Property has been located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”)
since the July 1993 General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, The Property is designated by the City’s General Plan as Industrial, and the proposed prezoning designation of Northeast Industrial Specific Plan Zone is consistent with the
General Plan designation; and
WHEREAS, To support its processing of the applications, and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City conducted an environmental analysis of the proposed Project, resulting in the completion of a Draft EIR bearing State Clearinghouse Number
Ordinance _____

Page 2 ends

Tracy City CouncilAugust 15, 2023

Tracy City Council
August 15, 2023